But, the enemy is crafty. As we all learned in logic class…it’s exceedingly hard to “prove a negative.”
Proving things requires a positive correlation of time, motive, and opportunity . You need all 3 to get the courts to find sufficient “circumstantial” cause to proceed with authority to find guilt.
Proving something or someone of not doing something, or not being somewhere, is exceedingly difficult.
It requires rock-solid alibis regarding time and place that most people cannot produce.
If I asked you to “prove” you did not have peanut butter sandwich for lunch last Thursday…it would be exceedingly hard to “prove” you did not.
You could produce “evidence” that you ate Chipotle between the hours of 10 and 2, but that does not prove you did not eat a peanut butter sandwich at noon.
Proof of “not doing something” is MUCH harder to establish than proof of “doing something.”
But, the enemy is crafty. As we all learned in logic class…it’s exceedingly hard to “prove a negative.”
Proving things requires a positive correlation of time, motive, and opportunity . You need all 3 to get the courts to find sufficient “circumstantial” cause to proceed with authority to find guilt.
Proving something or someone of not doing something, or not being somewhere, is exceedingly difficult.
It requires rock-solid alibis regarding time and place that most people cannot produce.
If I asked you to “prove” you did not have peanut butter sandwich for lunch last Thursday…it would be exceedingly hard to “prove” you did not.
You could produce “evidence” that you ate Chipotle between the hours of 10 and 2, but that does not prove you did not eat a peanut butter sandwich at noon.
Proof of “not doing something” is MUCH harder to establish than proof of “doing something.”
How to win with statistics