3 ms·

Let's remember that lack of provable evidence does not mean that the harassment and retaliation did not occur. It simply means she did not prove her case with

Let's remember that lack of provable evidence does not mean that the harassment and retaliation did not occur. It simply means she did not prove her case with admissible evidence in order to win in court. Short of having an audio or video tape, a couple witnesses, or written documents of propositions or threats to ruin her career at KP, she was in a he said she said scenario.

belorn 9y ago
This is true for literal everything in the universe, and is the basis for both a philosophical concept called Russell's teapot and a religious one by Richard Dawkins called Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without provable evidence there isn't much we can assert, so it lands on trust and which side people feel is right. The legal system follow closer the scientific model and demand that the case is proven rather than disproved.
- Powerofmene 9y ago
  However you are forgetting in our court systems evidence can be thrown out because it was not admitted according to the Rules of Civil/Criminal/Appellate Procedures. At that point it isn't about trust or what people feel, it is only about evidence a jury can consider. It would be akin to having to acquit someone you feel is quite because the state failed to make their case or because the state made their case but screwed up something on a technicality and now you cannot consider that single piece of evidence in deciding which side prevails. In courts there is proof, evidence and admissible evidence. At the end of the day only the latter matters.
  - belorn 9y ago
    So was evidence thrown out because of procedure violation in this case? I would note that this aspect is a construct of common law. In civil law all evidence is admissible, and the facts that would cause evidence to be inadmissible in common law would simply be additional context in civil law.
    - Powerofmene 9y ago
      Not that I am aware of but all evidence is not admissible in civil court. It must be correctly admitted into evidence, it must be authenticated or meet a business records exception, can't be hearsay, etc. and must meet the rules of evidenceto name a few.
  - dilemma 9y ago
    Completely irrelevant to this discussion.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > a religious one by Richard Dawkins called Flying Spaghetti Monster Dawkin's is not a great argument, though. Reasoning about metaphysics is nothing like establishing facts in a lab or guilt in a courtroom.
- heavenlyblue 9y ago
  You forget that a legal system is a closed-loop system while learning the laws of the universe is (at least generally) not. When proving the theory of relativity the universe will not suddenly decide to behave differently in order for you to have a harder time proving it. It's an absolute opposite in terms of the legal system. So when you're trying to operate in an environment that is highly unstable and at times contradictory (killing a person is bad, killing a person who is trying to kill you is ok, killing a person who you thought was trying to kill you but actually wanted to talk is bad, what if any of the parties are lying as well?), then introducing Russell's teapot might just be as appropriate as following the proven path. As the proof itself might be so weak that introducing something unproven might just be as plausible.

belorn 9y ago

This is true for literal everything in the universe, and is the basis for both a philosophical concept called Russell's teapot and a religious one by Richard Dawkins called Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without provable evidence there isn't much we can assert, so it lands on trust and which side people feel is right. The legal system follow closer the scientific model and demand that the case is proven rather than disproved.

Powerofmene 9y ago
However you are forgetting in our court systems evidence can be thrown out because it was not admitted according to the Rules of Civil/Criminal/Appellate Procedures. At that point it isn't about trust or what people feel, it is only about evidence a jury can consider. It would be akin to having to acquit someone you feel is quite because the state failed to make their case or because the state made their case but screwed up something on a technicality and now you cannot consider that single piece of evidence in deciding which side prevails. In courts there is proof, evidence and admissible evidence. At the end of the day only the latter matters.
- belorn 9y ago
  So was evidence thrown out because of procedure violation in this case? I would note that this aspect is a construct of common law. In civil law all evidence is admissible, and the facts that would cause evidence to be inadmissible in common law would simply be additional context in civil law.
  - Powerofmene 9y ago
    Not that I am aware of but all evidence is not admissible in civil court. It must be correctly admitted into evidence, it must be authenticated or meet a business records exception, can't be hearsay, etc. and must meet the rules of evidenceto name a few.
- dilemma 9y ago
  Completely irrelevant to this discussion.
humanrebar 9y ago
> a religious one by Richard Dawkins called Flying Spaghetti Monster Dawkin's is not a great argument, though. Reasoning about metaphysics is nothing like establishing facts in a lab or guilt in a courtroom.
heavenlyblue 9y ago
You forget that a legal system is a closed-loop system while learning the laws of the universe is (at least generally) not. When proving the theory of relativity the universe will not suddenly decide to behave differently in order for you to have a harder time proving it. It's an absolute opposite in terms of the legal system. So when you're trying to operate in an environment that is highly unstable and at times contradictory (killing a person is bad, killing a person who is trying to kill you is ok, killing a person who you thought was trying to kill you but actually wanted to talk is bad, what if any of the parties are lying as well?), then introducing Russell's teapot might just be as appropriate as following the proven path. As the proof itself might be so weak that introducing something unproven might just be as plausible.