Famous cases4modern conspiracy:rabbithole,sinkhole:Just facts, ma'am--Boston 3

We've covered why evidence does not rule but gently guides theory explanation. We've covered that implications from theory explanation show where next to look for evidence. We've emphasized that only after being positively biased to both sides, not that impartiality means no positivity through a presentation of a case, can we judge what we learn finally, since we would not remember or think of connections and details in evidence and reasoning otherwise, for either side.

So now we can cover some evidence marshalled for cases. Is an ugly implication something which can block us from considering evidence suggesting something? Do we have to be from a place to know what happened?

Starting Boston. Extensive considerations both sides about Bauman's leg. -- Case continues in next show on a few other Boston issues as well.

Click the download button to play it without ads (I think) or to download (it has a cloud & arrow in it.)
For other shows: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/reasoning-and-reorientation