Boston University historian Richard Landes has released the Second Draft Mohammed al Durah analysis. Definitely review the material - draw your own conclusions.
As preparation, I recommend Neo-Neocon’s thoughts on this controversial case:
There are thousands of sites for pure advocacy, but usually those end up preaching only to the choir. What Landes is trying to do here is far more valuable: he’s trying to present a fair case, and let the reader be the judge and/or jury. A fair trial presents the evidence on both sides, and then a verdict is rendered. Fairness does not preclude judgment–on the contrary, judgment requires fairness.
There’s no need to be afraid of this process, if one believes that truth is based on a critical evaluation of evidence. Perhaps, though, Israpundit may not have a great deal of faith in the public’s critical thinking skills.
I have long thought that critical thinking should be taught far more; it’s one of the most important–perhaps the single most important–skill to learn. But, just as I have faith in the jury system (however imperfect), I have a basic faith in people’s ability to judge critically and well, if the evidence is clearly presented.
Perhaps the problem is patience; it takes a lot of time to look at the evidence, study it, evaluate it, and come to a conclusion. That’s actually the basic process I followed myself in my post-9/11 learning (as my next “change” post will describe, whenever I manage to get it finished).
It’s one of the most powerful processes on earth, especially when the evidence is so overwhelming that one ends up changing one’s mind. Take it from me; I know.
Back in February 2005 I wrote three posts on investigations of the iconic France 2 video. These posts include a number of links to other research:
Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? Part 2
Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? Part 3
And don’t miss Solomania’s two interviews with Richard Landes, with more background on the Second Draft research. The most recent interview is here, the first interview here.
0 Responses to “Second draft and the al Durah case: evidence vs. advocacy”