First is that legal proof, unlike science, is not meant to describe the world as it is. It is meant to fit the gambler's philosophy of how sure we should be of something before imposing a burden on someone else.
But it is rather in this mode that Jabba hopes the anecdotes will be used. He doesn't want to establish fact at this point. He only wants to justify asking his critics to agree there's a 1% chance his immortal soul exists. That is the same sort of gamble. You've made one cogent argument against even that, based on the notion of falsifiability. I've made a different argument on the principle of
non sequitur.
Meanwhile, the definition of the crime might be subject to debate such that its truth value is moot in any case.
And this is what I have in mind when I pursue my
non sequitur rejection of Jabba's claim. Under the law a complaint is insufficient if its allegations do not track the elements of some well-defined offense such as a statute with enough specific detail to permit the defendant to mount a defense. Vague allegations of general misconduct do not form a cause of action. And in science vague claims of supernatural manifestation cannot prove a specific claim not known already to be related. "Something weird happened, therefore ghosts" is not science.
Importantly, the law still rejects the unfalsifiable claim.
Indeed my understanding of the law says this is why hearsay, for example, is inadmissible. Because the originator of the evidence cannot be examined, a defense has no power to test and possible falsify it. In the larger sense, the whole purpose of a trial is to test the evidence. Evidence that can't be tested isn't admissible.
Cross-examination exists specifically to falsifiably probe testimony.
Along with that is the notion that a court may admit from lay witness may only certain kinds of testimony. The lay witness tells what he perceived through his natural senses and, to a limited extent, what could be rationally gleaned from that. A witness may testify that he heard a loud explosion. He may not testify to his conclusion that it was a terrorist bomb. Similarly anecdotes recounting the witness' belief that his soul left his body are not evidence -- legal or scientific -- of the existence of a soul. His perception of the environment from a seemingly detached perspective would be the operant observation, not his speculation for how it came about.
Body cameras, radar guns, red light cameras, phone histories and more are all aimed at improving falsifiability.
'
Body cameras especially, where reasonable suspicion leading to probable cause is at issue, and law enforcement is under increased scrutiny of how they handle stops and arrests. Defendants benefit from having a basis from which to falsify an assumption of probable cause. Prosecutors benefit from having a basis from which to falsify claims of police brutality.
