thesis

[© tweed]

if talking about a past moment, details will be omitted.  this is out of pure necessity and is the lone possibility.  therefore there will always be other 'variables' present in the listener's mind that are representations of details not communicated.  any of these variables could represent the main 'cause' for an effect that is documented clearly in the account. 

logical progressions in argument on the part of the communicator can logically explain a result that is untrue to our reality.  a large quantity of omitted details results in a high incidence of 'false positives' and 'true negatives' that are logically explainable in the dimension of the conversation taking place.

if we operate under the ASSUMPTION that human beings do not have meaningful ability to diagnose the true causality of what takes place in 99.99..% of cases, a conclusion such the above creates a difficult problem for those who justify any system of criminal justice remotely similar to any of those currently in use.