Mathematically prove? Yes, that would be impossible. I'm talking legally prove. >prove with clear and convincing evidence Clear and convincing evidence is a

Mathematically prove? Yes, that would be impossible. I'm talking legally prove. >prove with clear and convincing evidence Clear and convincing evidence is a set of evidence required to reach the point. It is in-between preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. Mathematically speaking, no matter how much evidence you have, you can never reach a full proof that someone did some action. You might get one hundred 9's, but you will never get one 100. But legally, you don't need to. Even the highest standard of evidence does not require a 100% certainty. But I'm not even saying we go with the highest, I'm saying go with clear and convincing. (Clear and convincing is, from what I've seen, the standard needed to award punitive damages resulting from fraud in a civil case. Preponderance is needed for more exact damages. Beyond a reasonable doubt is needed for criminal prosecution for fraud.)