Quote from: nullius on February 05, 2018, 05:54:42 AM

Reasonable (articulable) suspicion: You have a suspicion which can be clearly explained in reasonable terms. More than a mere hunch; much more than a guess. But still no more than a suspicion.
Probable cause: On the face of things (at first sight, prima facie), the accused probably did it.
Preponderance of the evidence: Evidence of guilt outweighs evidence of innocence. Implemented via those balance scales you see carved into statues of blindfolded ladies. Note: This requires reasonable thoroughness in loading both sides of the scale, not just stuffing one side and jumping to a conclusion.
Clear and convincing evidence: Evidence of guilt is strong. Evidence of innocence is weak or nonexistent.
Moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt: The only way he didnt do it is if space aliens did it instead.

What would you say is the standard of evidence in this case? Kind of seems like it would barely qualify for the first one...

Except in this case you have a bunch of people throwing accusations into a hat and taping them together as if they make each other valid like some kind of accusatory Voltron that has more powers when they combine. None of these accusations meet the minimum standard of evidence and they are all referencing back to each other, none of them referencing anything documented or observable that is evidence of anything objectionable whatsoever. Frankly in spite of my low expectations for people in general, I am amazed how many here think this has any substance to it whatsoever when it is literally nothing more than an accusation. All from people with long publicly documented histories of antipathy toward me of course...