The argument in my book? Which one? It is a book of arguments, perhaps hundreds. For the present it would be good if you addressed the one quoted earlier. Come on HORansome. Yes or No? One simple answer and then you can try me on a question of your own, because you 'know things about the Watson case'.
We could even put aside the arguments and just discuss the facts.
Yes or no?

I have difficulty with HORansome's "I don't think the particular candidate explanatory hypothesis you infer from the body of evidence as a whole is the best explanation of the event in question'". Does mean he doesn't like my example? Can he please consider the example as a question. Does he think the passage I quoted suggests Watson's boat Blade was or was not the boat the missing pair were last seen to board? An answer that I can understand rather than circumlocuted gibberish would be welcome. 'Yes' or 'no' would do quite nicely.
However if he would prefer another example I have many. A whole bookful.
Keith Hunter

HORansome might appreciate some facts about the Watson case. Quoting from Trial By Trickery at page 131:

In summary, including Guy Wallace and his passengers Morresey and Dyer, at least eight witnesses are known to have reported seeing the ketch, or a boat of similar description, off Furneaux on New Year’s Eve. …

The difference between Blade and the yacht described by the witnesses was that she was half the size, had freeboard of eighteen inches against freeboard of four feet, no blue stripe, no portholes in the hull, no unusual old-fashioned design or unusually shaped stern, was built in steel and not timber, had no ropes festooned around the stern but instead a very conspicuous canvas windshield ‘dodger’, a windvane attached above it, and that it had one mast instead of two….

…After pondering these clues, the Crown concluded that Wallace, Morresey and Dyer had been mistaken about the yacht Ben and Olivia had boarded in terms of its length, height, freeboard, colour, shape, design, rigging, masts, construction material, and visual condition in the case of the ropes around the stern. As far as the Crown was concerned they had been mistaken about everything it was possible to be mistaken about except the fact that it was a boat. …

…The yacht Wallace and Hayden Morresey and Sarah Dyer thought they had seen from a distance of ten or twelve inches did not in fact exist in the estimation of the prosecutors…”

Some might consider that the descriptions in fact tend to exclude Watson and his Blade, elsewhere described as kneehigh from the water taxi as against ketch’s chesthigh, according to the testimony of all three eyewitnesses who saw the missing pair board it.

I presume HORansome disagrees. Instead he prefers the evidence of scratches on a hatch cover which could not have been made when the cover was closed, indicating that Olivia thought scratching the hatch cover was a better course of action than climbing out through the hatch, and of DNA from two long blonde hairs found in March in a bag of short dark hairs where it it had not been found when a scientist searched the same bag specifically for long blond hairs in January.
Then there’s the ‘scrupulously cleaned boat’ that was only scrupulously cleaned in the Crown opening speech but wasn’t scrupulously cleaned at all in the testimony actually given in court by the Crown’s own expert witness – the policeman who actually examined the boat.

Does HORansome also believe in fairies and Santa Claus or does he just not know anything about the Watson case?
Keith Hunter