>> I genuinely do not know who I am supposed to have identified or which phrases I published are said to have identified them, in combination with [details] in the public domain.
>> How I genuinely do not know who I am supposed to have identified or which phrases I published are said to have identified them, in combination with [details] in the public domain.
> How on earth is that open and shut?
I don't see how those statements have any bearing on whether the case is "open and shut" or not. You're quoting the defendant, who's almost certainly going to come up with some argument for their own innocence no matter how strong the case is.
If indeed the case were open and shut the argument would be trivially refutable.
I haven't even seen a coherent rebuttal yet. I'm not sure it's even possible, given that the evidence in this trial would, conveniently, have to be kept secret - automatically ensuring by default it couldnt be open and shut.
Far from being open and shut it actually stinks to high heaven.
> I haven't even seen a coherent rebuttal yet. I'm not sure it's even possible, given that the evidence in this trial would, conveniently, have to be kept secret.
This guy claims he read the original posts and was able to identify one of the complainants from the information there:
But my point was mainly the Murray is so obviously biased that his statements need to be read with that in mind. Plus denials like "I do not know" and "I don't recall" are some of the vaguest and least credible (since they're almost impossible to prove or disprove).
I clicked through the link and I think that the commenter felt that there was enough information to identify someone, not that they had identified someone.
Well, maybe the actual argument, about whether he did it or not, is "open and shut". What he's presenting here, though, is irrefutable -- in the sense of "not falsifiable" -- so should also be inadmissible: His "[How] I genuinely do not know..." goes to his own state of mind, which nobody else can know or be responsible for.
I mean, it could for instance be the case that he obviously and incontrovertibly did it, but is just too utterly stupid to realise it -- then "I genuinely do not know" would still be true. But just as ignorance of the law is no defense, I don't think stupidity is either. "But your Honour, I didn't know she'd die if I cut off her head, so I can't be guilty of murder!" Too fucking bad, you should have known that.
>it could for instance be the case that he obviously and incontrovertibly did it
No, coz in that case we would know the identities of all these women. The only ones named didnt come from his blog they came from a guy who actually tweeted them and was sentenced, IIRC, to 6 months rather than Craig's 8.
>> How I genuinely do not know who I am supposed to have identified or which phrases I published are said to have identified them, in combination with [details] in the public domain.
> How on earth is that open and shut?
I don't see how those statements have any bearing on whether the case is "open and shut" or not. You're quoting the defendant, who's almost certainly going to come up with some argument for their own innocence no matter how strong the case is.