Peter Greenaway Quotes

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence.

Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist.

The perverse presumption that places the burden of proof on the challenger of spending must be inverted, back to the rule that applies elsewhere in life: 'Prove to me why we should.'

I didn't do what they said I did. I may have done enough so that I don't know if I can prove my innocence.

Skeptics question the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.

By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt.

The prosecutor, who is supposed to carry the burden of proof, really is an author.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Criminal cases require strategy, and prosecutors should attempt to prove only what can be proved.

Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

We must never assume that which is incapable of proof.

I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof

People in general have no notion of the sort and amount of evidence often needed to prove the simplest matter of fact.

The onus of proof lies on the plaintiff.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth — whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials — and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker.

We can establish a Jewish and democratic state, but the burden of proof is on us.

There is no such thing as absolute proof. There is only evidence.

I don't believe anything till I have seen the proof. For anything without proof, I think we should believe the theory that gives us peace. It doesn't matter whether the theory is true or not.

There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist.

If my interlocutor desires to convince me that Jupiter has inhabitants, and that his description of them is accurate, it is for him to bring forward evidence in support of his contention. The burden of proof evidently lies on him; it is not for me to prove that no such beings exist before my non-belief is justified, but for him to prove that they do exist before my belief can be fairly claimed. Similarly, it is for the affirmer of God's existence to bring evidence in support of his affirmation; the burden of proof lies on him.