Also, people tell stories, that's what we do. The court case is another story, but it has to be mostly fact based. People do a lot of bayesian inferencing and oftentimes just faulty inferencing, but those kinds of conclusions are generally not admissible in court. As Sgt. Friday used to say: "Just the facts".
wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_(film)
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Tabbycat wrote: Wish Bob Nersesian could have elaborated on his claim that cases end up looking quite different "on the back end than they do up front", seeming to imply that what appears cut and dried initially turns out to be not so much after the facts come out. Love to have heard some concrete examples. I suppose I could have followed up on that one but it seemed pretty obvious to me what he was talking about. In most areas of life, when you get information from a second source it almost always is in variance to some degree with what you heard from the first source --- ESPECIALLY if one or both of the sources has good incentive to twist the facts, consiously or not, to help his position. Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (4) |
