In that case, I’d rate it as “enough for an indictment” or even “highly suspicious” rather than “likely to be true”.
Calling something “likely to be true” when the evidence just isn’t there feels like an invitation for people on the internet to round up to “100% true and real”.
(Not saying people won’t do that anyway, but that’s a tendency I don’t want to contribute to.)
@railway692 ‘More likely than not’ is part of the operant doctrine of a grand jury. An indictment is brought if the grand jury believes that a conviction is possible. In fact, even the grand jury won’t happen unless a prosecutor and DA also believe that.
The standard of evidence for that is less than that required for a conviction, but greater than mere suspicion.
You are trying to argue a case ahead of trial. Your dispute is based on the discrepancy between different standards of evidence.
In that case, I’d rate it as “enough for an indictment” or even “highly suspicious” rather than “likely to be true”.
Calling something “likely to be true” when the evidence just isn’t there feels like an invitation for people on the internet to round up to “100% true and real”.
(Not saying people won’t do that anyway, but that’s a tendency I don’t want to contribute to.)
@railway692 ‘More likely than not’ is part of the operant doctrine of a grand jury. An indictment is brought if the grand jury believes that a conviction is possible. In fact, even the grand jury won’t happen unless a prosecutor and DA also believe that.
The standard of evidence for that is less than that required for a conviction, but greater than mere suspicion.
You are trying to argue a case ahead of trial. Your dispute is based on the discrepancy between different standards of evidence.