That was not my assertion. I do not reject the notion that one ought to "discern and utilise logical relationships between [the] various claims involved in a criminal case." Nor am I endorsing the result in the "Kiszko" case.
I am taking issue with your penchant for evaluating one piece of evidence in the abstract, isolated/ divorced from the larger context in which it occurs, and in willful ignorance of the remaining pieces of inculpatory evidence.
Well now you have clarified what you are
trying to argue for, what is your actual argument for it?
I'm pretty sure I have not "evaluated one piece of evidence in the abstract", and in fact I'm pretty sure that the only people who have claimed that in the past were PMF posters wilfully distorting my points on their private forum. These were the people who, if you recall, somehow managed to agree amongst themselves that citing peer-reviewed scientific literature to demonstrate that the autopsy evidence provided an upper bound to the time of death, and citing Meredith's friends testimony to provide a lower bound to the time of death, was "Google and Youtube" and "impossible" and "anti-science" and "basing a TOD solely on bowel contents".
What I have done is identify the salient points that have hard evidence to back them up and decisive consequences from the case, and explore the logical consequences of the facts as we know them.
If you think you can show otherwise then by all means show your work. Or show us a coherent theory of the crime that fits with the facts as we now know them and has Knox and Sollecito involved in the murder, if you've got one.
Perhaps the fantasy of discovering the 'lynchpin that no one else saw' can tempt even the best 'trained thinker' into making over-simplifications that defy common sense...
This too is a very strange PMF talking point with no basis in reality. I'd avoid repeating it if you want to be seen as participating in an evidence-based discussion.
For a while they latched on to the talking point "Kevin can't possibly be right, because if he is right then he is smarter than
us the appeals team! That cannot possibly be the case because... well, because. Therefore we don't even need to discuss or understand what he is saying! Yay! Off the hook!". The fact that exactly this argument could apply to absolutely any ideas about the case other than those of the lawyers on either side didn't occur to them, I guess.
However they stopped running that line when it became manifestly clear that the appeals team, without any prompting from JREF posters whatsoever, was boring right in on the time of death, the irregularities with the collection and interpretation of the DNA evidence, the computer evidence and the other salient points we had identified here. It's no surprise to me that competent defence lawyers see the same problems in the prosecution case when they examine it that we do, but it caught the PMF contingent by surprise. Go figure.
So the idea that hubris somehow led me to think I'd single-handedly cracked the case when nobody else could is frankly bizarre. If you search you'll see I've been quite consistent in saying that any rational and scientifically literate person would come to the same conclusions I do and that there was never any need at all for me to fly on wings of gold to Perugia to save the day with my expertise. As far as I can tell the appeals team and the JREF rationalists have been racing down the same trails the whole time.
The PMFers have an unsavoury habit of caricaturing anyone who disagrees with them, whipping themselves up into mob hatred of that caricature, believing their caricature is the real thing and then harassing and stalking the people in question. The idea that I've put myself up on some kind of pedestal as the world's only rationalist is purely a part of that caricature, and I'd appreciate it if you engaged with Kevin
the actual person not Kevin the PMFer's caricature or your best guess at who Kevin is based on your attempts at Google-stalking me.
