26-07-2012, 03:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 26-07-2012, 03:57 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Yeah, exactly. Forget the safehouse. How many major witnesses do you know who simply disappear and can't be identified?
What Jim is doing seems like bridging what he can't cover with legal standard proof rhetoric. The way I see it is to properly dismiss something you have to assume the position of the other side and try to prove their case and make it work. The way to do it is not to chop down the claim with doubt but try to make it work with sound reasoning. Once you do this you don't stop at doubting the intruder story as Jim does, but you worry about what the ramifications are if it is true. You have to understand phone calls in the night, like the intruders, creates a level of latitudinal probability that makes spook involvement much much more likely than the legal arguments you make.
I'm reminded of Bridge Over The River Kwai where because of such exactitude and standards the British officer failed to realize he was doing the work of the enemy with his dedication and discipline.
What Jim is doing seems like bridging what he can't cover with legal standard proof rhetoric. The way I see it is to properly dismiss something you have to assume the position of the other side and try to prove their case and make it work. The way to do it is not to chop down the claim with doubt but try to make it work with sound reasoning. Once you do this you don't stop at doubting the intruder story as Jim does, but you worry about what the ramifications are if it is true. You have to understand phone calls in the night, like the intruders, creates a level of latitudinal probability that makes spook involvement much much more likely than the legal arguments you make.
I'm reminded of Bridge Over The River Kwai where because of such exactitude and standards the British officer failed to realize he was doing the work of the enemy with his dedication and discipline.