Legal Truth-Evidence Gap / 法律真相与证据差距

Legal truth-evidence gap / 法律真相与证据差距 is the distance between what actually happened and what a court can responsibly decide from admissible evidence. 24.捍卫雅各布：相信你是我唯一的执念 makes the concept concrete through [[DefendingJacob|《捍卫雅各布》 / Defending Jacob]]: listeners may feel that [[JacobBarber|Jacob Barber]] is dangerous, but the law still has to ask whether the murder has been proved.

The source treats this gap as a necessary limit, not a failure to care about truth. If courts could punish on suspicion, family history, personality risk, or public certainty, criminal law would stop being a check on power. At the same time, the gap is emotionally brutal for parents, victims’ families, and communities because legal acquittal does not create private certainty.

Key Claims

• Courts work with evidence, procedure, and burdens of proof rather than omniscient truth.
• Evidence gaps can protect the innocent and frustrate people who believe they know what happened.
• A legal verdict is not identical to psychological closure or moral certainty.
• The concept needs Rational Humility: missing proof should reduce confidence, not license louder accusation.
• The same gap makes Internet Moral Trial / 互联网审判 especially dangerous because online publics often treat fragments as a complete case.

Connections

• [[DefendingJacob|《捍卫雅各布》 / Defending Jacob]], Andy Barber, and Jacob Barber - source case.
• Forensic Science / 法证鉴识, Evidence Over Testimony, and Drowning Forensic Uncertainty - evidence and uncertainty neighbors.
• Criminal Law As Power Limitation and Law-Morality Boundary - legal reasons the gap cannot simply be bypassed.
• Rational Humility and Internet Moral Trial / 互联网审判 - judgment discipline outside court.