Is the Legal standard, "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" OR "Beyond all Doubt"?

[Andrew Mason]

Of course as we well know, the legal standard is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" so why do Conspiracy Theorists often demand that every single piece of evidence is proven beyond all doubt? Richard Smith has jokingly suggested that only a "time machine" where the CT can see the crime itself is often necessary but obviously this is impossible, therefore the Legal system uses the standard of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".

I have seen many instances of where CT's will individualize and argue against a list of evidence and suggest that since each and every piece of evidence doesn't satisfy them to their mythical standard of "beyond All doubt", so they discard the evidence and don't even consider the implications, and hence the insecure CT can go back to his/her Comfort Zone.

For instance, individually some of this evidence does not specifically lead to Guilt but should the totality of this evidence which leads to only one conclusion be considered as a method of evaluating Guilt Beyond a Reasonable doubt or should each and every piece of evidence be isolated and/or ignored.

You raise an important point that is fundamental to fact finding.  It is especially important where the case is based on circumstantial evidence.  It is very rare that a single item of evidence can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

An item of evidence may be probative of a fact if its existence would be somewhat improbable if the alleged fact was not true.  It doesn't really matter how one quantifies that improbability of each piece if there are enough independent pieces of probative evidence. Example: if that improbability was as high as 1/3 for each item, the chance that 10 such pieces could exist independently if the fact was not true is the product of these ten improbabilities ie. 1/3^10 or 1 in 59,049.

I would suggest that each of the items you list would have an improbability of less than 1/3.

[John Mytton]

You raise an important point that is fundamental to fact finding.  It is especially important where the case is based on circumstantial evidence.  It is very rare that a single item of evidence can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

An item of evidence may be probative of a fact if its existence would be somewhat improbable if the alleged fact was not true.  It doesn't really matter how one quantifies that improbability of each piece if there are enough independent pieces of probative evidence. Example: if that improbability was as high as 1/3 for each item, the chance that 10 such pieces could exist independently if the fact was not true is the product of these ten improbabilities ie. 1/3^10 or 1 in 59,049.

I would suggest that each of the items you list would have an improbability of less than 1/3.

Thanks Andrew, I have previously contemplated creating a thread assigning probability for each piece of evidence and I was going to use a percentage number and let the Forum debate the odds of each individual piece of evidence but with the rabid CT defenders that are members here, I decided that coming to a fair conclusion would not be possible. Perhaps in the future?

Btw you say that each item would be less than 1/3 which could be true of some, but specific pieces of evidence like Oswald's rifle, the murder weapon, IMO would be a heck of a lot more.

JohnM

[Andrew Mason]

Thanks Andrew, I have previously contemplated creating a thread assigning probability for each piece of evidence and I was going to use a percentage number and let the Forum debate the odds of each individual piece of evidence but with the rabid CT defenders that are members here, I decided that coming to a fair conclusion would not be possible. Perhaps in the future?

Btw you say that each item would be less than 1/3 which could be true of some, but specific pieces of evidence like Oswald's rifle, the murder weapon, IMO would be a heck of a lot more.

JohnM

I simplified it a bit. The 1/3 figure is the probability that the fact is not true if there was just that one piece of evidence. In other words 66.7% of the time with such a piece of evidence alone, the posited fact could be expected to be true.

This takes into account the various ways that the fact may not be true, including the possibility that the evidence was fabricated by parties unknown or was the result of a deliberate lie, as well as the possibility that the person may have had poor observational skills etc.

Obviously this will vary from piece to piece and, as you point out, the items of evidence against Oswald would be considerably greater. 

If the probability of probative evidence being false is close to 1/2 it is not probative at all so I used 1/3 as the highest probability that probative evidence is wrong.

The point is not to quantify the probability but to show that no matter how large the improbability of a false conclusion from an individual piece of probative evidence is if you have enough pieces and they are all independent of each other, you can remove all reasonable doubt. I set 1/3 as the highest level of improbability you could have and still consider the evidence as probative.

If one has ten such pieces of evidence that are completely independent of each other, and you assume a probability of a false positive of p for each item, the probability that the posited fact is true is (1-p^10) (ie. 1 minus the probability of all ten items being false: p to the 10th power). Even assuming a high chance  of 1/3 that each individual piece is false, there would be only one chance in 59,049 that all 10 pieces could exist and the fact not be true: 1-(1/3)^10=1-1/59,049. Obviously, then, the chance that each item leads to a correct conclusion is much greater than the initial assumption of 2/3. It approaches 100%.

Even if a few of the items are not reliable (e.g. the witness did not actually make the observation claimed), the number of ways of the remaining items existing and the fact is not true is still small compared to the number of ways of having the number of ways of having 8 of the 10 being true.
 
Where it becomes more of a mathematical exercise is when you are analyzing pieces of evidence that are probative of an event that has a finite number ways of occurring and you have evidence that does not completely agree.

For example: the fact to be determined is  whether a person wore a specific colour of hat and there are 20 witness statements about the colour, not all of which agree e.g. 15 say black, 2 say blue, 1 says brown, 1 says green and 1 says yellow.   This is an either/or question so the evidence can be analysed using a binomial distribution.  The binomial distribution is explained here.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I simplified it a bit. The 1/3 figure is the probability that the fact is not true if there was just that one piece of evidence. In other words 66.7% of the time with such a piece of evidence alone, the posited fact could be expected to be true.

This takes into account the various ways that the fact may not be true, including the possibility that the evidence was fabricated by parties unknown or was the result of a deliberate lie, as well as the possibility that the person may have had poor observational skills etc.

Obviously this will vary from piece to piece and, as you point out, the items of evidence against Oswald would be considerably greater. 

If the probability of probative evidence being false is close to 1/2 it is not probative at all so I used 1/3 as the highest probability that probative evidence is wrong.

The point is not to quantify the probability but to show that no matter how large the improbability of a false conclusion from an individual piece of probative evidence is if you have enough pieces and they are all independent of each other, you can remove all reasonable doubt. I set 1/3 as the highest level of improbability you could have and still consider the evidence as probative.

If one has ten such pieces of evidence that are completely independent of each other, and you assume the highest probability of a false positive, the probability that the all ten pieces would exist if the posited fact is true is 1-(probability all 10 pieces exist if the fact is not true). There is only one way for all 10 pieces to exist out of the 59,048 other possible ways and the fact not be true. Obviously, then, the chance that each item leads to a correct conclusion is much greater than the initial assumption of 2/3. It approaches100%.

Even if a few of the items are not reliable (e.g. the witness did not actually make the observation claimed), the number of ways of the remaining items existing and the fact is not true is still small compared to the number of ways of having the number of ways of having 8 of the 10 being true.
 
Where it becomes more of a mathematical exercise is when you are analyzing pieces of evidence that are probative of an event that has a finite number ways of occurring and you have evidence that does not completely agree.

For example: the fact to be determined is  whether a person wore a specific colour of hat and there are 20 witness statements about the colour.   This is an either/or question so the evidence can be analysed amusing a binomial distribution.  The binomial distribution is explained here.

Yes, but the problem - as you know - is that the conspiracists reject this evidence, they say it's manufactured or faked. Doesn't matter how many different sources, how many parties, how many different lines that produce the evidence, they insist it's corrupt. Not false or wrong or erroneous; but manufactured.

So the concept of consilience, the one made famous by the biologist Edward Wilson, is meaningless to them. It doesn't matter that we have a variety of sources for this evidence, different lines pointing towards Oswald; they are all manufactured and can be dismissed. Whether it's a waitress or steam fitter or the FBI or the WC, it's all, to borrow the phrase, fruit from the same poisonous tree.

[Andrew Mason]

Yes, but the problem - as you know - is that the conspiracists reject this evidence, they say it's manufactured or faked. Doesn't matter how many different sources, how many parties, how many different lines that produce the evidence, they insist it's corrupt. Not false or wrong or erroneous; but manufactured.

So the concept of consilience, the one made famous by the biologist Edward Wilson, is meaningless to them. It doesn't matter that we have a variety of sources for this evidence, different lines pointing towards Oswald; they are all manufactured and can be dismissed. Whether it's a waitress or steam fitter or the FBI or the WC, it's all, to borrow the phrase, fruit from the same poisonous tree.

If each piece of evidence is false, the evidence cannot be independent. They cannot all be false by random chance.

So the falsity has to have a common cause. This means there must be a huge conspiracy involving all levels of officials engaged in evidence planting, evidence gathering, evidence preservation and witness tampering   If there was evidence of widespread falsification and some coherent reason so many people would not only agree to be involved but would agree to remain silent for 60 years, one would be inclined to have a look at that. But there is not. Nothing. Zero.

[Martin Weidmann]

If each piece of evidence is false, the evidence cannot be independent. They cannot all be false by random chance.

So the falsity has to have a common cause. This means there must be a huge conspiracy involving all levels of officials engaged in evidence planting, evidence gathering, evidence preservation and witness tampering   If there was evidence of widespread falsification and some coherent reason so many people would not only agree to be involved but would agree to remain silent for 60 years, one would be inclined to have a look at that. But there is not. Nothing. Zero.

I would agree that in any random run of mill conspiracy it's unlikely that people remain silent. There are all sorts of reasons why the individuals involved in such a conspiracy, at some point in time under certain circumstances, would be prepared to talk.

However, if this was a conspiracy, it's hardly a run of the mill case. All sorts of special circumstances come in to play, especially if high ranking powerful people were indeed involved. Take for instance the military service personal who were present at the autopsy, who were given an order not to discuss what they had seen and knew with anybody on punishment of a court martial. They all kept quie for some fifteen years, until they were given special permission to talk to the HSCA investigators and some of them still were hesitant to talk and not without cause as those who did talk were instantly attacked and ridiculed by WC defenders. It happens nearly every day that witnesses don't want to come forward because they simply do not want to be involved in a criminal matter and/or they fear for the possible consequences. Then of course there were people who performed a minor task without even realizing they were part of a conspiracy, who simply never came forward because of fear or a simple lack of understanding of their involvement. Imagine being a private individual with a story to tell, but that would mean going up against the US Government. Would you tell your story nevertheless? Others were given orders by their superiors to perform a task and not mention it to anybody, like, for instance, Hosty who was told by Shanklin to destroy a note written by Oswald which obviously is destruction of evidence. And let's not forget individuals like Tomlinson who received a phonecall from an FBI agent who told him to keep his mouth shut. 

So, it's simply too easy to say that there was no conspiracy because somebody would have come forward after all this time.

[John Mytton]

I would agree that in any random run of mill conspiracy it's unlikely that people remain silent. There are all sorts of reasons why the individuals involved in such a conspiracy, at some point in time under certain circumstances, would be prepared to talk.

However, if this was a conspiracy, it's hardly a run of the mill case. All sorts of special circumstances come in to play, especially if high ranking powerful people were indeed involved. Take for instance the military service personal who were present at the autopsy, who were given an order not to discuss what they had seen and knew with anybody on punishment of a court martial. They all kept quie for some fifteen years, until they were given special permission to talk to the HSCA investigators and some of them still were hesitant to talk and not without cause as those who did talk were instantly attacked and ridiculed by WC defenders. It happens nearly every day that witnesses don't want to come forward because they simply do not want to be involved in a criminal matter and/or they fear for the possible consequences. Then of course there were people who performed a minor task without even realizing they were part of a conspiracy, who simply never came forward because of fear or a simple lack of understanding of their involvement. Imagine being a private individual with a story to tell, but that would mean going up against the US Government. Would you tell your story nevertheless? Others were given orders by their superiors to perform a task and not mention it to anybody, like, for instance, Hosty who was told by Shanklin to destroy a note written by Oswald which obviously is destruction of evidence. And let's not forget individuals like Tomlinson who received a phonecall from an FBI agent who told him to keep his mouth shut. 

So, it's simply too easy to say that there was no conspiracy because somebody would have come forward after all this time.

It happens nearly every day that witnesses don't want to come forward because they simply do not want to be involved in a criminal matter and/or they fear for the possible consequences.

What? Like Howard Brennan?

"And then I felt that my family could be in danger, and I, myself, might in danger. And since they already had the man for murder, that he wasn't going to be set free to escape and get out of the country immediately, and I could very easily sooner than the FBI or the Secret Service wanted me, my testimony in, I could very easily get in touch with them, if they didn't get in touch with me and to see that the man didn't get loose." "... "Because I had already more or less give a detailed description of the man, and I talked to the Secret Service and gave them my statement, and the had convinced me that it would be strictly confidential and all that. But still I felt like if I was the only eye witness, that anything could happen to me or my family."
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan4.htm

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

What? Like Howard Brennan?

"And then I felt that my family could be in danger, and I, myself, might in danger. And since they already had the man for murder, that he wasn't going to be set free to escape and get out of the country immediately, and I could very easily sooner than the FBI or the Secret Service wanted me, my testimony in, I could very easily get in touch with them, if they didn't get in touch with me and to see that the man didn't get loose." "... "Because I had already more or less give a detailed description of the man, and I talked to the Secret Service and gave them my statement, and the had convinced me that it would be strictly confidential and all that. But still I felt like if I was the only eye witness, that anything could happen to me or my family."
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan4.htm

JohnM

JohnM

Give it up, Mytton. You're still fighting a battle that was already lost decades ago.

You're like Ho Van Lang,  the Vietnamese soldier who they pulled out of the jungle in 2013 still believing the war was going on.

You really need to improve on your little game....