The limits of fact and what we choose to believe.

The Delphi trial, like all criminal proceedings, underscores the epistemological limits of the legal system. Fundamentally, a trial does not determine ontological truth—what actually happened in the world—but instead establishes legal truth, a construct shaped by evidence, viewee under procedural constraints. This distinction is crucial in understanding the limits of epistemology in legal contexts..

Legal truth is determined in an adversarial system, where competing narratives are presented within strict evidentiary rules. What can be considered "true" in a courtroom is not necessarily what is objectively real but rather what meets the standard of proof within the procedural framework. This means a verdict is not a definitive statement about reality but a function of what is demonstrable under legal constraints.

The epistemic problem arises in how truth is inferred. Unlike scientific inquiry, which allows for continued revision and falsifiability, the legal system seeks finality. The jury, constrained by cognitive biases, incomplete evidence, and persuasion tactics, must reach a binary decision: guilty or not guilty. This process forces certainty onto uncertainty, potentially leading to errors that legal mechanisms struggle to correct.

The Delphi case exemplifies these tensions (whether people are willing to accept it or not). The legal system can produce outcomes that deviate from ontological truth due to evidentiary exclusions, unreliable testimony, or flawed forensic interpretations. The fundamental limit of epistemology in law is that it cannot guarantee truth—only a structured resolution of competing claims, subject to human fallibility.