New info about Princess Diana death

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Conspiracy theories are self perpetuating like that. The fact that they are so hopelessly unlikely is simply taken as proof that the bad guys did a very good job. The total lack of evidence is proof of a cover up. The fact that everyone else thinks the conspiracy theorists are nuts simply makes the conspiracy theorist think he's aware in a sea of the brainwashed. You can't reason with these people so there's no point trying.

what a remarkable similarity to certain theists .

Originally Posted by Sirius

Indeed Tin foil hat theory's normally are lost in the logic of those who think there true..

I do not think they are true but I am not able to say with 100 % surety that they are not as I was not there I know no one who was and people lie, all the time

Call me an agnostic when it comes to these sort of things I need to see it for myself

---------- Post added at 20:57 ---------- Previous post was at 20:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Conspiracy theories are self perpetuating like that. The fact that they are so hopelessly unlikely is simply taken as proof that the bad guys did a very good job. The total lack of evidence is proof of a cover up. The fact that everyone else thinks the conspiracy theorists are nuts simply makes the conspiracy theorist think he's aware in a sea of the brainwashed. You can't reason with these people so there's no point trying.

How do you categorise me? and my opinions in this thread?

[peanut]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

How do you categorise me? and my opinions in this thread?

Non conforming....

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

How do you categorise me? and my opinions in this thread?

I gave up trying to categorise you ages ago.

In this thread, you seem to take the line that you can't ever categorically know anything unless you were there, which is technically true, however that observation isn't useful in any criminal trial or similar investigation because the investigator or the jury that has to reach a verdict wasn't there.

Instead, over many centuries, we have developed levels of certainty such as "reasonable suspicion", "on the balance of probabilities" and "beyond reasonable doubt". These definitions stick, because in the vast majority of cases they work.

Thus, when someone says it is beyond reasonable doubt that Diana was killed by a drunk driver in an accident prompted by voracious photographers, they mean that the evidence overwhelmingly supports that conclusion, and mountains of prior experience says it is safe to draw such a conclusion based on the type, and quantity of evidence presented.

I suspect you're probably just enjoying the word play and enjoying thinking about the concept of certainty in philosophical terms, while also having a fine old time making people think you believe there was a conspiracy, when I suspect you actually believe it was an accident, the same as most of us here do.

Originally Posted by Chris

I gave up trying to categorise you ages ago.

In this thread, you seem to take the line that you can't ever categorically know anything unless you were there, which is technically true, however that observation isn't useful in any criminal trial or similar investigation because the investigator or the jury that has to reach a verdict wasn't there.

Instead, over many centuries, we have developed levels of certainty such as "reasonable suspicion", "on the balance of probabilities" and "beyond reasonable doubt". These definitions stick, because in the vast majority of cases they work.

Thus, when someone says it is beyond reasonable doubt that Diana was killed by a drunk driver in an accident prompted by voracious photographers, they mean that the evidence overwhelmingly supports that conclusion, and mountains of prior experience says it is safe to draw such a conclusion based on the type, and quantity of evidence presented.

I suspect you're probably just enjoying the word play and enjoying thinking about the concept of certainty in philosophical terms, while also having a fine old time making people think you believe there was a conspiracy, when I suspect you actually believe it was an accident, the same as most of us here do.

I am happy staying with technically true everything else has the chance no matter how slight to be wrong

I do enjoy the word play yes but I do believe what I say I always do.

I have already said I do not believe this however the fact I do not does not mean it did not happen

You had better hope you don't ever end up on jury service then ...

Originally Posted by Chris

You had better hope you don't ever end up on jury service then ...

I will be ok the others are the ones you should worry about lol

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Chris

You had better hope you don't ever end up on jury service then ...

an official verdict still does not mean fact 100% of the time. if there is any room for doubt, we must not dismiss other options - however to progress, we must assume one opinion or another, thus we accept the 'most likely' according to the evidence presented to us. I'm pretty sure that not a single one of us here was in the car Diana was in that night. this means we have gotten the information we are basing our opinion on from the second hand sources we have either been presented, or found ourselves - myself included when I say I believe this was an accident. but that doesn't mean it was an accident.

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

an official verdict still does not mean fact 100% of the time. if there is any room for doubt, we must not dismiss other options - however to progress, we must assume one opinion or another, thus we accept the 'most likely' according to the evidence presented to us. I'm pretty sure that not a single one of us here was in the car Diana was in that night. this means we have gotten the information we are basing our opinion on from the second hand sources we have either been presented, or found ourselves - myself included when I say I believe this was an accident. but that doesn't mean it was an accident.

In criminal trials, the level of proof is beyond reasonable doubt - that is to say, it is unreasonable to hold the contrary view. You can describe all manner of scenarios, but the fact that you can describe them does not make them plausible, much less does it make them likely.

In an inquest, most verdicts require a lower level of proof, on the balance of probabilities, i.e. it is more likely than not to have happened in a certain way. Unlawful Killing as an inquest verdict, however, requires the higher burden of proof that satisfies the requirement beyond reasonable doubt. This is the verdict reached in Diana's inquest.

In fact, the inquest went even further, reaching a narrative verdict that went on to make findings about how she was unlawfully killed. By definition, this verdict states that it is not reasonable to conclude Diana was killed by any means other than as a result of a road crash caused by alcohol and reckless pursuit.

For the purposes of a debate such as this, it is all well and interesting to point out the possibility that a verdict is wrong. In the real world, we have judicial processes which acknowledge that possibility. But if we acknowledge the possibility, that is an unhelpful observation unless we also acknowledge the likelihood. Conspiracy theories breed in the gap between the possible and the likely, often because the theorist is committing some fairly basic errors in the weighing of evidence.

Diana may have been abducted by aliens and had her body swapped with a clever facsimilie. But it's not likely, if you weigh up the actual evidence in support of the idea. She could have been murdered by sinister State forces. But it's not likely, if you weigh up the actual evidence in support of the idea. The evidence for that particularly persistent conspiracy theory simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And that's where you enter tinfoil territory, with the very refutation of the "evidence", such as it is, held up as further evidence of a cover up. At this point, we're not weighing evidence, we're rubbing up against a world view, and there's little point continuing.

[idiosyncratic]

Originally Posted by Chris

<snip> and there's little point continuing.

Oh I hope so - if we find out what really happened it might spoil the forthcoming film

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Chris

In criminal trials, the level of proof is beyond reasonable doubt - that is to say, it is unreasonable to hold the contrary view. You can describe all manner of scenarios, but the fact that you can describe them does not make them plausible, much less does it make them likely.

In an inquest, most verdicts require a lower level of proof, on the balance of probabilities, i.e. it is more likely than not to have happened in a certain way. Unlawful Killing as an inquest verdict, however, requires the higher burden of proof that satisfies the requirement beyond reasonable doubt. This is the verdict reached in Diana's inquest.

In fact, the inquest went even further, reaching a narrative verdict that went on to make findings about how she was unlawfully killed. By definition, this verdict states that it is not reasonable to conclude Diana was killed by any means other than as a result of a road crash caused by alcohol and reckless pursuit.

For the purposes of a debate such as this, it is all well and interesting to point out the possibility that a verdict is wrong. In the real world, we have judicial processes which acknowledge that possibility. But if we acknowledge the possibility, that is an unhelpful observation unless we also acknowledge the likelihood. Conspiracy theories breed in the gap between the possible and the likely, often because the theorist is committing some fairly basic errors in the weighing of evidence.

Diana may have been abducted by aliens and had her body swapped with a clever facsimilie. But it's not likely, if you weigh up the actual evidence in support of the idea. She could have been murdered by sinister State forces. But it's not likely, if you weigh up the actual evidence in support of the idea. The evidence for that particularly persistent conspiracy theory simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And that's where you enter tinfoil territory, with the very refutation of the "evidence", such as it is, held up as further evidence of a cover up. At this point, we're not weighing evidence, we're rubbing up against a world view, and there's little point continuing.

preaching to the converted. i think it was an accident.

I know.

[Mr_love_monkey]

I reckon it was aliens

[Osem]

Yeah, aliens who persuaded her not to wear a seatbelt during a high speed chase...

[Mr_love_monkey]

Originally Posted by Osem

Yeah, aliens who persuaded her not to wear a seatbelt during a high speed chase...

Damn persuasive aliens