Abstract
I comment on two analyses of the Simonshaven case: one by Prakken (2019),
based on arguments, and the other by van Koppen and Mackor (2019), based on
scenarios (or stories, narratives). I argue that both analyses lack a clear account of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt because they lack a clear account of the notion of
plausibility. To illustrate this point, I focus on the defense argument during the appeal
trial and show that both analyses face difficulties in modeling key features of this
argument.