On 2 Mar 2011 15:20:17 GMT
Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

But for most normal people the evidence against Hitler would be
absolutely rock solid.

That's kinda the problem with your whole line of logic, though.

You want to raise the bar PAST "Beyond _Reasonable_ Doubt". That can
ONLY introduce UNREASONABLE doubt as a block to prosecution.

"beyond reasonable doubt" is just vacuous legalese that doesn't actually
mean anything.

Don't be daft, man. It's plain bloody English.

Its also meaningless because theres no such thing as "unreasonable doubt".
If anyone has a doubt then to them its not unreasonable. Beyond reasonable
doubt simply means no doubt at all.

If there is solid incontravertable proof of guilt then thats all thats
needed.

The absence of reasonable doubt, y'mean?

Quite.

B2003