Sherlock has solved the case at last ...

[Adam]

"A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including:

1.Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate

2.Making the opponent's position appear ridiculous as a way of poisoning the well"

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man

Some of David's 'straw man' tactics -


Change stance because of one post from Scipio. 

Say it takes 100 minutes to walk 3 miles. 

Say it takes 30 minutes longer to walk 3 miles in the dark. 

Make up something & believe putting up a picture of Ricky Gervaise will mean the other poster won't bother checking. 

Say there are sources that the police moved the bible onto Sheila's arm before photos were taken. But not provide them. 

Say the relatives could get Sheila's blood from wet clothes in a bucket. 

Say the police didn't tell Bamber about Nevill's call to the police so they could frame him. 

Dispute 6 out of 62 pieces of sourced forensic evidence & forget about the other 56 pieces. 

Argue that a 999 call was made from WHF at 6.09am. 

Say the conviction was due to 'forgery & perjury'. Then say it wasn't. 

[Stephanie]

You've just beautifully demonstrated Stephanie's point.

Actually this was the point I was attempting to make Roch;



"Growing and changing our beliefs over time by the honing of life experience, success and failure gives one a unique perspective. When we get with our social groups, there is quite a bit of discomfort when our beliefs contradict with other members of our social group. It is so uncomfortable that many of us will go to extraordinary efforts to disguise, deny or change our beliefs for a short time so that we fit into the in-group

One of my favorite bloggers, Maria Popova at brainpickings.com spoke to this awkwardness by saying, “It’s a conundrum most of us grapple with?—?on the one hand, the awareness that personal growth means transcending our smaller selves as we reach for a more dimensional, intelligent, and enlightened understanding of the world, and on the other hand, the excruciating growing pains of evolving or completely abandoning our former, more inferior beliefs as we integrate new knowledge and insight into our comprehension of how life works."

Nonetheless, this discomfort of change and entertaining new ideas that challenge old ideas is necessary for human emotional and social growth. Many folks opt to stay stuck. Many just decide not to incorporate new information and insight which can lead to a state of self-delusion and dangerous self-righteousness.
This human tendency and cognitive bias is called the backfire effect. Most of us think we are rational beings making rational decisions with all the necessary information to do so....

Read more here: https://medium.com/homeland-security/the-social-psychology-of-the-backfire-effect-locking-up-the-gears-of-your-mind-a79d4e6e8061

[Jane]

I don't agree with that. To me they look like wounds, not because Roch or anyone else told me that's what they were but because I think that's what they were. 

Many 'supporters' did not particularly believe they were wounds.

Did you always believe they were wounds, Maggie?

[maggie]

Actually this was the point I was attempting to make Roch;



"Growing and changing our beliefs over time by the honing of life experience, success and failure gives one a unique perspective. When we get with our social groups, there is quite a bit of discomfort when our beliefs contradict with other members of our social group. It is so uncomfortable that many of us will go to extraordinary efforts to disguise, deny or change our beliefs for a short time so that we fit into the in-group

One of my favorite bloggers, Maria Popova at brainpickings.com spoke to this awkwardness by saying, “It’s a conundrum most of us grapple with?—?on the one hand, the awareness that personal growth means transcending our smaller selves as we reach for a more dimensional, intelligent, and enlightened understanding of the world, and on the other hand, the excruciating growing pains of evolving or completely abandoning our former, more inferior beliefs as we integrate new knowledge and insight into our comprehension of how life works."

Nonetheless, this discomfort of change and entertaining new ideas that challenge old ideas is necessary for human emotional and social growth. Many folks opt to stay stuck. Many just decide not to incorporate new information and insight which can lead to a state of self-delusion and dangerous self-righteousness.
This human tendency and cognitive bias is called the backfire effect. Most of us think we are rational beings making rational decisions with all the necessary information to do so....

Read more here:https://medium.com/homeland-security/the-social-psychology-of-the-backfire-effect-locking-up-the-gears-of-your-mind-a79d4e6e8061

Can't disagree with that, our experiences and learning are vital input and assist us when forming opinions.  As we never stop experiencing and learning all through our lives we should always be open to and not ashamed of change in our beliefs.

[maggie]

Did you always believe they were wounds, Maggie?

No because I had never seen those clearer pics but when I did, I do assure you I was not told they were wounds, I formed that opinion myself.

[Stephanie]

Some of David's 'straw man' tactics -

This is what I perceive Adam:

"That discomfort, in fact, can be so intolerable that we often go to great lengths to disguise or deny our changing beliefs by paying less attention to information that contradicts our present convictions and more to that which confirms them. In other words, we fail the fifth tenet of Carl Sagan’s timelessly brilliant and necessary Baloney Detection Kit for critical thinking: “Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.”

"Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do this instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens those misconceptions instead. Over time, the backfire effect makes you less skeptical of those things that allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.

Read more here:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/13/backfire-effect-mcraney/

[maggie]

This is what I perceive Adam:

"That discomfort, in fact, can be so intolerable that we often go to great lengths to disguise or deny our changing beliefs by paying less attention to information that contradicts our present convictions and more to that which confirms them. In other words, we fail the fifth tenet of Carl Sagan’s timelessly brilliant and necessary Baloney Detection Kit for critical thinking: “Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.”

Very true.

[David1819]

Some of David's 'straw man' tactics -


Change stance because of one post from Scipio.

Say it takes 100 minutes to walk 3 miles.

Say it takes 30 minutes longer to walk 3 miles in the dark.

Make up something & believe putting up a picture of Ricky Gervaise will mean the other poster won't bother checking.

Say there are sources that the police moved the bible onto Sheila's arm before photos were taken. But not provide them.

Say the relatives could get Sheila's blood from wet clothes in a bucket.

Say the police didn't tell Bamber about Nevill's call to the police so they could frame him.

Dispute 6 out of 62 pieces of sourced forensic evidence & forget about the other 56 pieces.

Argue that a 999 call was made from WHF at 6.09am.

Say the conviction was due to 'forgery & perjury'. Then say it wasn't.

The last 6 of those are not true at all. Your accusation of me producing strawmam arguments is in fact a straw man argument in itself.

[David1819]

This is what I perceive Adam:

"That discomfort, in fact, can be so intolerable that we often go to great lengths to disguise or deny our changing beliefs by paying less attention to information that contradicts our present convictions and more to that which confirms them. In other words, we fail the fifth tenet of Carl Sagan’s timelessly brilliant and necessary Baloney Detection Kit for critical thinking: “Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.”

"Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do this instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens those misconceptions instead. Over time, the backfire effect makes you less skeptical of those things that allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.

Read more here:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/13/backfire-effect-mcraney/

More Psychobabble.

[maggie]

Can Adam and David please stop squabbling on the forum.  It's becoming really boring for other posters. 

Imo you're both as bad as each other.

Thanks

[Caroline]

More Psychobabble.

[mike tesko]

After a very long time considering this case I have now worked out exactly what happened ...

I have considered every possibility with a very open mind indeed ....

There is only one scenario that stands up to scrutiny ....

Here it is .....


Sheila was reading Psalm 51 because she had just murdered her family ....
There is little  doubt about who shot and killed the other four victims, it is correct to say that it was Sheila, she shot dead her two small children after they fell to sleep!
She wanted to be forgiven by God for the murders ...
I agree with this...
That is why she had washed herself ....
I believe she did cleanse herself after killing the other victims..
It was Sheila that moved the gun that WPC Jeaves saw in the window ....
No, it remained at the box room window until after 9am during 'informatives' when it was brought into the main bedroom for the purpose of a gauging exercise, whereby senior detectives we're trying to establish whether it was feasible to suggest that the solitary wound to Sheila's neck could be presented as having been inflicted with use of 'that' rifle, rather than it be admitted Sheila had been shot downstairs in the kitchen by way of a police issue weapon..
It was Sheila that was seen moving in the other window ...It was Sheila who was observed by PS Bews, PC Myall and Jeremy moving at the main bedroom window..

Sheila killed herself after the Police were outside the farm - No she did not! She did not shoot herself at all! She was shot twice by the police, shot once downstairs in the kitchen when police entered, and she was shot a second time when police mishandled the rifle that had been brought to her body from the box room window during the aforementioned 'informatives'that is why her blood was still wet.Her blood was wet because both shots were recently inflicted after police entered the farmhouse.In particular, Sheila got shot across the neck during a struggle involving an armed police officer who came awkwardly around the opening edge of an internal door which was situated between the kitchen and the back passage! From Sheila's vantage point, the door in question was hinged on the right, and the opening edge of that door swung open from the left to the right! From the vantage point of the armed officer who was proceeding to enter into the kitchen, the door was hinged on the left! The opening edge of the same door swung open from right to left! This became problematic because as the armed officer proceeded to try and enter the kitchen, the muzzle of his weapon was effectively always pointing toward the outside wall of the kitchen! It was at this very point that Sheila made a grab for the barrel of the officers gun which protruded beyond the opening edge of the internal door! This turned into a general struggle which spilled over toward the kitchen aga ! I can confirm that there exists an 'officers Report' concerning this shooting  incident which did occur in the kitchen at the  time armed police entered! Boutflour (and possibly others) planted the silencer ....the correct interpretation was that the silencer was introduced dishonestly!

The relatives put Julie up to the false confession - which is why she wrongly repeats things AE told her ...I believe that Julie Mugford went along with what the relatives believed! It's too much of a coincidence that Robert Boutflour should go to see ACC Simpson on more or less the same day that Julie Mugford fessed up to 'Stan' Jones by claiming Jeremy hired a hitman to murder his family!

DC Jones was more than happy to coach Julie - he was up for noble cause corruption ....Julie Mugford was seen and coached on over thirty separate occasions..

The relatives did it because they thought Jeremy was guilty and to avoid impending financial ruin ...that is true, the relatives were convinced that Jeremy had some knowlege and involvement in all five deaths! But he didn't shoot anybody!

This is why Robert Boutflour lied to the jury about the inheritance ....

I have no doubt all the relatives and Sheila and DC Jones were convinced that Jeremy did it ....Yes,
it's what motivated the police and the relatives to frame Jeremy as the killer!

But he did not - he is 100% innocent of any involvement in this crime .....He is, infact, an innocent man!


Now I have satisfied myself without any doubt what happened it is time for stage 2 ....

Stage 2 is I am going to prove to the world exactly what happened ....

Jeremy Bamber needs to be released right now .....

I agree!

[lookout]

Jeremy should be acquitted as soon as is humanely possible.
 If you can call it humane keeping an innocent man in prison.  I see no reason for him to remain locked up any longer,as he's already gone well beyond his time for a life sentence for a start. It's the most disgusting and horrendous way to treat anyone,especially someone who's clearly innocent.

We've had top cops who've received manslaughter charges and have been free to carry on with their lives and probably with the guarantee that they can carry on enjoying their freedom and people talk about justice.

[Roch]

No because I had never seen those clearer pics but when I did, I do assure you I was not told they were wounds, I formed that opinion myself.

Tip of the iceberg Maggie.

[David1819]