> I find it horrifying that someone as well versed in law as you is fine with putting the burden of proof on the defendant, because it would be impractical to f

> I find it horrifying that someone as well versed in law as you is fine with putting the burden of proof on the defendant, because it would be impractical to force programmers of serious software with serious consequences to actually employ serious standards of work... That’s not exactly my position. Basically my concern is that with the hearsay provision of PACE, a fraudster could conceivably require the prosecution to prove that Excel works from first principles, which is absurd. It’s also patently absurd to refuse to entertain the idea that a computer system may produce an incorrect response. But the law is an ass and you can only work with what you’re given.