Demonstrating that you can't comply and claiming it are obviously two different things. The issue is that they're not required to convince a jury that you can't beyond a reasonable doubt before locking you up, and then what do you get from claiming it when you can't prove a negative?

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Contempt charges like this are an established part of judicial process for when a participant is not cooperating with the process.

A core way to appeal a civil contempt is on the grounds that you cannot comply.

Then the human beings involved have to assess whether or not the claim has merit.

It would seem insane to sit in jail for 10 years without even attempting to make that claim if he legitimately couldn’t remember where he stashed an actual treasure trove. And yet, as far as I can see he did not even make the attempt.

Based on that, it looks pretty clearly like he knew where the treasure was, he knew they knew where it was, and he was willing to sit in jail rather than give it up.

> It would seem insane to sit in jail for 10 years without even attempting to make that claim if he legitimately couldn’t remember where he stashed an actual treasure trove. And yet, as far as I can see he did not even make the attempt.

How would you propose to prove that you can't remember something?

Did he try and you disagree about the standards of evidence that the courts use?

Courts determine things that can’t be absolutely proven every day, by a variety of different standards.

You’re likely most familiar with “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but in other contexts the standard is a preponderance of evidence.

Not that it matters because he and his lawyers appear to have never attempted to make the claim.