Like Jane says, so is Jeremy's. The fact that you don't want to believe it, doesn't make him any less guilty and don't post the usual "PROVE IT" - not unless you can prove he didn't.
What do you mean I don't want to believe it? I ask you time and time again for you to prove it and you come back with nothing substantial, then leave the responsibility with the accused. Shifting the burden of proof. That in itself speaks volumes
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. —Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), The latin
semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges"
The philosophical burden of proof lies with the accuser(You). All I have to do show doubt on the evidence that the accusers produce. And so far you make that an easy Job, claims such as "Shelia would not have chosen that spot to shoot herself" or "Julie Mugford said so" is not just weak its worthy of ridicule
