[Epistemological Misunderstandings of the German Federal Court of Justice in Criminal Cases Regarding the Null Hypothesis: Verification in the Credibility Assessment].

Epistemological Misunderstandings of the German Federal Court of Justice in Criminal Cases Regarding the Null Hypothesis: Verification in the Credibility Assessment Abstract: Background: The article deals with the decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) in criminal matters regarding credibility assessment dated 30 July 1999 (1 StR 618/98, BGHSt 45, 164). Regarding criminal matters, the BGH formulated specific requirements for credibility assessments based on two published scientific expert reports. Method: We analyzed conflicting postulates of scientific theory in the expert reports and the reception of these principles in the BGH judgment by examining the original quotes. Results: Given the central importance of this BGH decision, we analyzed the original expert reports for their epistemological content. The BGH formulated the scientific approach of starting from the assumption that the statement is untrue - the so-called "null hypothesis". In doing so, it referred to Popper's deductivism, albeit without addressing the rules of hypothesis testing. Based on the second expert report, which argues for inductive.