A few random ramblings…

How do you go about proving something?

Well, in the case of something that has happened, it’s simple… evidence. Direct observation, secondary factors that only exist in the presence of a specific event, surveillance, intelligence and any number of factors.

Essentially, to prove something, we look for that big ticket “slam dunk” item that irrefutably determines, one way or another, the truth of a situation.

But what if that item, that piece of evidence, doesn’t exist? What if the evidence is purely circumstantial?

What if we are trying to prove that something didn’t happen?

Before we get started, a disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. It is an opinion piece. In fact, being an opinion piece (in part) about lawyers, one could argue then that it’s a piece of s**t… but I will actually defend lawyers this time, as many I’ve met are honourable advocates of those who cannot do so for themselves, rather than money driven, glory hungry, ambulance chasers.

Anyway, on to the main event…

Recent news items are highlighting that jury’s nowadays have a false expectation that forensics will display all the evidence needed to reach an accuarate and decisive verdict in court cases. And beyond that, employers are more and more using evidence that can have multiple explanations for the summary dismissal of staff… leading to an increase in the need for forensic accountants and forensic IT specialists, often hired by those wrongfully dissmissed, in an attempt to not only gain compensation, but to also attempt to clear their reputations… something considerably more difficult and having much larger longterm consequences.

And in many lines of work, reputations carry more weight than performance. Sad, but true.

Some years ago, a number of staffmembers at my workplace were investigated for their use of email in storing material deemed ‘inappropriate’. A few resigned rather than face the difficulties of proving their innocence, many fought it, and a few were dismissed.

My issue in all of this was that there was no conclusive means of proving a person had done what they had been accused of since, at the time, the email systems in question had no auditing or journalling, and even basic IT Helpdesk call centre staff could access the mailboxes of any staff member, right up to the upper echelons of management. This meant that the presence of an email with suspect content alone was not, in my opinion, enough to charge someone, as the possibility existed that someone could have placed it there without the mailbox owner ever having known about it.

In legal terms, there was sufficient doubt and means for any punishment dished out to be rescinded and met with a compensation claims. The burden of proof had, wrongly, been place on those accused and not those making the accusations.

And this is where we get to the notion of proving that you didn’t do something. An ex of mine, in her more paranoid and neurotic moments, accuse me of cheating whenever I so much as walked on the same side of the street as another woman. It got so bad at one point that I figured, “Hey, I’m copping the grief and the punishment… I may as well go and do it anyway!”.

Thankfully, rational minds won out and I never did do what I’d been accused of… but when someone draws lines of reason from A to B to G, missing C, D, E and F in between, and using that as the basis of an accusation that they then place responsibility on you to prove wrong, how does one go about doing so?

Thankfully, in Australia’s system of jurisprudence, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution in making a case based on evidence to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt”. The drawback to this is that if the evidence of a crime is insufficient, or if enough doubt can be cast upon the evidence and the logic connecting a defendent to the crime, there is the possibility that someone who has indeed committed an offence may walk free.

Conversely, an adept prosecutor may well convince a jury that an otherwise innocent person, accused and charged, is guilty.

And somewhat sadly, our friends, peers, coworkers, employers and families don’t have the same requirements and processes when it comes to making their determinations on what a person may or may not have done. I’ve seen people believe the flimsiest circumstantial ‘evidence’ as proof, from gods lips to their ears, that the most insane accusations are true.

These same people will also denounce the possibility of being wrong, requiring that others prove them so, when such proof is impossible to obtain. It’s the same thinking that has had people put to the sword, burned at the stake and otherwise persecuted by religious zealots, hate mongerers and tribes/villages/governments since the dawn of time. You’d think by now that the human race would have woken up to itself, but no, this still happens. I’m loathe to hold the USA up as an example, but being a country of extremes, they provide the best examples in their bible belt fundamentalist christians, examples of antisemitism, racism, segregation, bigotry… and all culminates in the (re)electing of a president who chose to wage war on a country based on the flimsiest excuses, and never finding the proof of his claims, that the people demanded he provide.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; America has an inordinate amount of power but lacks the wisdom and reason to wield it responsibly.

But I digress.

I guess the argument that counters all of this is the one of ‘Lack of proof does not equate to lack of existence’… and I hate to use an argument that SETI have purported for their continued search for extraterrestrial intelligence as a countenance to the one that I’ve put forward thus far.

At the end of this one, I have no answers… but the absence of an answer for my question does not negate the value of the question.

So, ponder for yourself: when have you demanded proof that something did not happen, and when has it been demanded of you?

Maybe then, when accusing people or judging them, we can be a little more objective.