The rule is either "on the balance of probabilities" or "beyond a reasonable doubt". Neither of which was well-applied in the Horizon cases. "Mathematically p

The rule is either "on the balance of probabilities" or "beyond a reasonable doubt". Neither of which was well-applied in the Horizon cases. "Mathematically proven" is almost always the wrong standard for legal cases, as it doesn't speak to the quality of the proof. The relevant standard ought to have been "beyond a reasonable doubt", but obviously even those who did know better managed to convince the court that doubting the computer was unreasonable. Apparently without manually checking the output against reality, even when the defendent brought their own numbers? I strongly suspect that the racial discrimination that's being revealed by the press played its part in that -- no need to worry about the computer, or even about reality, if one's mind is set anyway.