Quote:
Originally Posted by idi banashapan
an official verdict still does not mean fact 100% of the time. if there is any room for doubt, we must not dismiss other options - however to progress, we must assume one opinion or another, thus we accept the 'most likely' according to the evidence presented to us. I'm pretty sure that not a single one of us here was in the car Diana was in that night. this means we have gotten the information we are basing our opinion on from the second hand sources we have either been presented, or found ourselves - myself included when I say I believe this was an accident. but that doesn't mean it was an accident.
|
In criminal trials, the level of proof is
beyond reasonable doubt - that is to say, it is unreasonable to hold the contrary view. You can describe all manner of scenarios, but the fact that you can describe them does not make them plausible, much less does it make them likely.
In an inquest, most verdicts require a lower level of proof,
on the balance of probabilities, i.e. it is more likely than not to have happened in a certain way. Unlawful Killing as an inquest verdict, however, requires the higher burden of proof that satisfies the requirement
beyond reasonable doubt. This is the verdict reached in Diana's inquest.
In fact, the inquest went even further, reaching a narrative verdict that went on to make findings about
how she was unlawfully killed. By definition, this verdict states that it is
not reasonable to conclude Diana was killed by any means other than as a result of a road crash caused by alcohol and reckless pursuit.
For the purposes of a debate such as this, it is all well and interesting to point out the possibility that a verdict is wrong. In the real world, we have judicial processes which acknowledge that possibility. But if we acknowledge the possibility, that is an unhelpful observation unless we also acknowledge the likelihood. Conspiracy theories breed in the gap between the possible and the likely, often because the theorist is committing some fairly basic errors in the weighing of evidence.
Diana may have been abducted by aliens and had her body swapped with a clever facsimilie. But it's not likely, if you weigh up the actual evidence in support of the idea. She could have been murdered by sinister State forces. But it's not likely, if you weigh up the actual evidence in support of the idea. The evidence for that particularly persistent conspiracy theory simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And that's where you enter tinfoil territory, with the very refutation of the "evidence", such as it is, held up as further evidence of a cover up. At this point, we're not weighing evidence, we're rubbing up against a world view, and there's little point continuing.