If you wish to believe in the totality of a young lad from a dysfunctional background with only a basic education giving a police statement about an event that allegedly occurred about a year earlier then that is, of course, your prerogative.
"Lads" from "Dysfunctional backgrounds" normally have a much better grasp on the whole area of police and giving statements than more privileged kids. They'll be more confidant. It's called cultural capital (and is something I've raised a few times where Jessie is concerned for some time.)Regardless, why is his background dysfunctional? What evidence do you have to support your assertion? (aspersion) Surely you must see how hypocritical it is to believe Damien over Joe Bartoush, Blaine Hodge and his own mother who saw his dog skull!!I mean we have proof of Damien's "dysfunctional background"............so I take it we can't believe him either? ;)sheer
Quote from: chitown_alex on July 25, 2008, 11:11:39 AM"It’s not a lesson in grammar, Alex. You are either being obtuse, or really are not as bright as you present yourself. "Perfect example of presenting opinion as fact.Dear, dear Alex,You stated earlier:-The question raised is what the intentions of the commentator are. [/i][/size]You then stated:-Perfect example of presenting opinion as fact.[/i][/sizeGranted, we have already established that we are in a mixed ability group, but we have also established a degree of recognition for the agility of some for more sophisticated debate! The expression 'hoist by his own petard' springs to mind here! The second quote of Kimbo's post which you used was so very obviously her opinion! Let us enjoy debate in it's full technicolour glory rather than simplifying, ad absurdium, to merely black and white? Monochorme is both so boring and flat.As stated before ~ the pavlovian response of jumping at the potential 'insult' perceived all the time is a pain - but I do have affection for pink elephants so will not use that analogy! You, Alex, did it. then Kimbo did - too funny for words.Kimbo - let us not try to walk the path of absolute truths on this case as I fear that will never be known. All we can do in our clumsy way is to try to see an overview with all the information we have available to us and thus arrive at the closest facsimile of what we feel to be the truth for each of us.TJM - this was never, for me, a battle between people so gawd knows what you were thinking in saying that you see "Alex vs. Miranda" as humorous? I for one am enjoying the debate here. Let us try not to reduce it to a playground fight. Life would be very boring indeed if we all agreed with each other ALL the time. The only agreement needed is that we are all allowed to present our views in a kindly manner.Mirandaps I never responded to the original post in this thread as it really was, to my mind, unworthy. If you wish to believe in the totality of a young lad from a dysfunctional background with only a basic education giving a police statement about an event that allegedly occurred about a year earlier then that is, of course, your prerogative. As, indeed, it is your right to cut and paste selected bits of 'evidence' together to solidify the case you are making. That is something both prosecutors and defence attornies do! I do not remember the kid being called tto testify. Doubtless someone will 'remind' me gently if necessary - hopefully it will not be done as a point scoring exercise!
"It’s not a lesson in grammar, Alex. You are either being obtuse, or really are not as bright as you present yourself. "Perfect example of presenting opinion as fact.
Sheer has clearly made an effort to attack my character by arguing, albeit non-persuasively, that I'm a propagandist.
Well, let's cut through the supporter bullshit again, shall we?Not a single supporter in 14 years has been able to offer anymore in the way of evidence that Misskelly gave a false confession.They STILL cannot explain WHY he confessed.So here it is.If you think his confession should be disregarded - you are a pathetic asshole.There really isn't much further discussion on the topic until you can offer some sort of proof that he was lying.And until you can answer WHY - well, you're a joke.
Can you not read Farm? All three "confessions" would be probative had they contained factual information. This guy got so many things wrong, it's baffling. Anyone who fails to see that either refuses to read the entire transcripts or is an idiot.
Not to mention nasturtiums!Miranda