New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

[asteckley]

It's a good thing that we don't have to worry about getting arrested for a burglary, just because:
- we live nearby so we could have been in the house
- we could have known where a spare key was hidden

But hold on... that is a misleading analogy.

It is true that we don't have to worry that we could be prosecuted for burglary just because we live nearby and had a key (at least it's highly unlikely to be prosecuted, so ... no need to worry.) We don't have to worry  because those things are circumstantial evidence which is therefore insufficient to bring charges.
But we DO have to worry if our only defense, once charged on the basis of direct evidence, is to claim that we "were not there" or "didn't have a key". Because in response to that, the prosecutor only needs to show that it is "plausible" that we could have been there (perhaps because we lived nearby) and plausible that we could have had a key (perhaps because there was a hidden one, that we could have known about).

Similarly, Rich doesn't have to prove (and, unless it's somewhere I've not seen, he has not actually claimed), that the Marci letter IS a fake. He only needs to show that it is plausible that it is a fake and so therefore cannot be used to negate other evidence that might support the manuscript being a forgery.

I want to be clear, I am not arguing for the forgery theory. I'm only arguing for the use of properly applied logical arguments, whether they be for or against a theory, and against switch and bait, whether intended or not.