"Reef Fish" wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.0405252219.494699a5@posting.google.com...
> A few judges clearly erred, as Greg Mossman did, rating
> "unequivocal evidence" as higher probability than what it
> takes to convict in criminal court, requiring "beyond any
> reasonable or shadow of a doubt" which most judges related
> to 90& and 95%, whereas the "unequivocal" proof was
> correctly related to 75%, or at least a probability figure
> LESS than their 90 or 95% figures used.
>
> Greg> "unequivocally" which is even greater
> Greg> than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
>
> No Greg. Go back and review some law books. :-)
Uh huh. Unequivocal = "without doubt". Beyond a reasonable doubt =
"without reasonable doubt". If it's unequivocal, there can be no doubt,
reasonable or unreasonable. Therefore, it is a higher burden of proof.
> YOu have not SHOWN a shred of evidence that
> is the SAME poster as . You only asked
> an irrelevant question reflecting your own faulty conjecture.
Uh huh. See my reply to Jason where I proved unequivocally that they are
one and the same.
|