I never understood why lawyers would say things like “to the exclusion of all other firearms.” Things aren’t 100% knowable in forensics, there will always be uncertainties.
They say these things because they need to build and show a case to a judge/jury that “beyond all reasonable doubt” the accused committed a crime. That’s the standard that criminal prosecutions are held to. Uncertainties introduce reasonable doubt.
The underpinnings of the criminal justice system was invented well before modern forensics, and you know how resistant politicians are about touching any of the old cruft.
I never understood why lawyers would say things like “to the exclusion of all other firearms.” Things aren’t 100% knowable in forensics, there will always be uncertainties.
They say these things because they need to build and show a case to a judge/jury that “beyond all reasonable doubt” the accused committed a crime. That’s the standard that criminal prosecutions are held to. Uncertainties introduce reasonable doubt.
So instead of adknowledging the system is broken they just… lie and pretend there is no reasonable doubt? Ugh…
Unfortunately, yes.
The underpinnings of the criminal justice system was invented well before modern forensics, and you know how resistant politicians are about touching any of the old cruft.
In particle physics beyond reasonable doubt means 5 sigma statistics.