Abstract
This paper presents the hybrid theory of stories and arguments for reasoning with evidence in legal cases and applies this theory to the Simonshaven case. In the hybrid theory, alternative hypothetical stories about "what happened" in a case are constructed and discussed in a dialectical process of argument and counterargument. After informally explaining stories, arguments, and the ways in which they interact, this paper gives a method for rational proof based on critical questions and shows how this method can be used in the Simonshaven case.