At any rate, since you ask:
Now I can't even access their site so it would be nice if posters with access can update the shenanigans in their quest for justice.
Here are a couple of highlights:
- Ganong has all but endorsed a mafia conspiracy theory to explain the current direction of the case.
- Quennell has, exceptionally, made a statement that I agree with, in praising Alan Dershowitz's comments on the Piers Morgan show -- only to immediately reveal his completely warped and distorted perception of said comments. Quennell thinks Dershowitz was
criticizing the philosophy behind the American legal system when he said that verdicts weren't supposed to be about "truth and justice", when in fact he was doing just the opposite. Dershowitz pointed out that the legal system is a complex compromise between competing values, and that the high standard for conviction derives from the principle that "it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than for one innocent person to be unjustly confined" -- of which occasional acquittals of the guilty are an inevitable result. (Evidently Quennell doesn't endorse this principle, but as far as I know Dershowitz does.)
Also, while browsing the archives for information about the split, I came across this cretinous tidbit from "Michael" regarding the Wikipedia controversy (emphasis added):
What Dempsey doesn't seem to realise, is that a court and its judgement has weight and the findings of a trial have seniority over defence complaints or media articles. So for example, the court found that the footprints were in blood. It doesn't matter that the defence or the support groups object to this or that they are being raised in appeal, those are the facts established in a court of law. Unless or until those facts are overturned in the appeal, which they have not been, they remain the facts. It is Wiki's job to relay the established facts and that's what they've been doing. For them to do otherwise is no longer factual coverage but propaganda. It's not Wiki's job to push propaganda or satisfy the agendas of lobby groups. If one wishes to challenge the facts, the correct and proper place to do so is in the courts, not via Wikipedia.
Here we have explicitly articulated statement of the guilter idea that court decisions have such an exalted level of authority in society than any criticism of them is
ipso facto marginal. This is ridiculous on its face: some court decisions are extremely controversial, and there can be no legitimate excuse for suppressing mention of such controversy from encyclopedia articles on such cases. Not only is it ridiculous (and dangerously authoritarian), it is also disingenuous, because there is absolutely no way that these people would apply this "principle" to every single court decision, in every place, at every time in history. Some court rulings are simply absurd, and widely recognized as such. Yet they are for some reason very eager to suppress mention of disputes and criticisms related to the Kercher case, which I daresay is behavior that is emblematic of a "lobby group" with an "agenda".
If one is willing to give total, unquestioning deference to the courts, why not other branches of government? The Indiana state legislature once infamously considered adopting a bill declaring that pi is equal to 3. If that bill had passed, would Wikipedia be obliged to agree that, while pi may be irrational in most of the world, it is an integer in Indiana? I've heard rumors from time to time that certain government agencies have decreed that tomatoes are not fruits; if this is so, should Wikipedia's biological entries be amended to stay in conformity with the "established facts"?
Nonsense, drivel, poppycock, idiotic humbug of the first order.
- yea I know that's heresy but I like to style myself as an iconoclast.
