My mistake - of course, ex falso statements are still logically valid. They are just unsound and don't allow sensible further reasoning, i.e.: great that you ag

My mistake - of course, ex falso statements are still logically valid. They are just unsound and don't allow sensible further reasoning, i.e.: great that you agree with your premises, but these are the problem! To the matter at hand: How on earth is it not handwaving/simplification when you are arguing with civil law standards for criminal cases?! Do you really not see the fundamental issue here? There's nothing to "examine further" - this has been examined to death and beyond! And yes, I'm aware that the US criminal system is not the only system in question. But I dare you to show me one (from a democratic system, at least) that has a significantly lesser definition. (And please, don't argue with well known exceptions/reversals, those are all positioned after the general burden of proof has been met.)