I agree with what you are saying, definitions matter in context. I also believe that words used in a specific context matter just as strongly. I believe the wording most reliable determination that can be made based on the reliable application of the SM and the available evidence does not meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

The following is from the Cornell Law School:

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial.

Reasonable doubt is the sufficient doubt on the part of jurors for acquittal of a defendant based on a lack of evidence.

I believe if one hypothesis is based on the reliable application of the scientific method and the available evidence is a good statement. This statement would indicate that the hypothesis must be true. The problem comes from when the question is asked if the hypothesis is true, and the answer is anything but yes. If one were to say that the hypothesis cannot be disproved with the available evidence the next question that should be asked is there the possibility there may be evidence to disprove the hypothesis that is not presently known. Once that is said, I believe the hypothesis no longer meets the legal requirement of beyond a reasonable doubt.

As far as science goes you are correct. The problem is that when one extrapolates the scientific finding to what is needed for a legal finding there appears to be a gap.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group