Reply #143: Simply examining 'whose interests were served' does not prove guilt

[LeftishBrit]

It may provide hypotheses to be tested; but does not prove them.

In a murder trial, if the victim's spouse stood to inherit a lot of money, this might lead to their being considered as a suspect, but does not mean that they are guilty. "Who done it" in any crime, political or non-political, is a question of fact.

In all of science, testing a hypothesis generally *is* a matter of demonstrating that something is true 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It is rarely possible to prove that a hypothesis is undoubtedly true. It is only possible to demonstrate that the chance that it is untrue is less than 5%, or less than 1%, or less than 1 in 1000, etc. So there is more similarity between science and law than might appear at first sight. And in both cases, personal considerations of 'who might have gained', etc. are only potentially relevant to the creation of hypotheses, not to their proof.