4 ms·
It's more like: these two numbers are in constant contact all other hours of the day. At this hour midday, when others, including one of the relevant parties, s
by stepvhen 10y ago
It's more like: these two numbers are in constant contact all other hours of the day. At this hour midday, when others, including one of the relevant parties, say those two numbers are together, there is no correspondence. Later, the correspondence picks up as before.
- ifdefdebug 10y agoI see your point of high probability they might have been together. But I don't see evidence for "sexual misconduct" during the time they were together. They could have just talked. Anyway, the whole charge is disgusting. Leave them alone dammit.
- woodman 10y agoYou seem to be aware, at least on a subconscious level, of the larger point - as you've demonstrated by including additional evidence. The larger point being that the absence of phone records can, at best, disconfirm. There are far too many alternative explanations for it to be used alone or as confirmation.
- rayiner 10y agoRemember, in court we're not talking about logical proof (eliminating every alternative but the desired conclusion), but statistical proof (eliminating alternative conclusions with 51% or 95% certainty). Given an assumed or established statistical model of the probability of related events (e.g. knowing that a secretary at a business makes a log entry 99.9% of the time when she sends out a mailing), a non-happening (say the absence of a log entry) can easily establish a conclusion to the desired level of certainty.
- woodman 10y agoDarn, I already replied to this point moments ago. There is a difference in the application of this logic in the court room where it can be challenged, and the juror room where it cannot - right?