Having gone through a similar trial, this is painfully familiar. The reality seems to be that the legal process optimises for whoever argues the most manipulat

Having gone through a similar trial, this is painfully familiar. The reality seems to be that the legal process optimises for whoever argues the most manipulatively (using every dirty trick in the book) rather than actually optimising for truth. Perhaps this is inevitable: rather than hoping to successfully convey a logical scientific argument to the judge/jury/arbitrator about a deeply technical area, instead the lawyers find themselves painting a more subjective simplified story that the audience may relate to... at which point you have to fight like with like. It's almost a post-truth kind of situation; the actual reality is irrelevant; it's instead how well the theatrical posturing is executed or how compelling the simplified version of the story is. That said, I have no idea whether Carmack is in the right or wrong here. In my instance the system worked in my favour, but I suspect it had a lot more to do with having lawyers who were good at debating than the almost incidental fact that objectively and demonstrably I had done nothing wrong...