>“We’re suppose to take some ‘hacking company’’s word for it that they’re doing everything forensically correctly, and the prosecution expects us to just trust them?”
You'd be surprised. The courts are not scientific debate arenas. Burn forensics? Pseudoscience. Bite mark forensics? Pseudoscience. Lots of DNA-based forensics? Totally unreliable. Firearms ballistics forensics? Laughable pseudoscience. Polygraph tests? Laughable pseudoscience. Field sobriety tests / "drug recognition expert" certifications? Lol, lmao even.
All of this nonsense has been successfully used to convict people in court. Turns out, putting someone with PhD after their name or a white lab coat or a phony certification on the stand tends to work for prosecutors.
You'd be surprised. The courts are not scientific debate arenas. Burn forensics? Pseudoscience. Bite mark forensics? Pseudoscience. Lots of DNA-based forensics? Totally unreliable. Firearms ballistics forensics? Laughable pseudoscience. Polygraph tests? Laughable pseudoscience. Field sobriety tests / "drug recognition expert" certifications? Lol, lmao even.
All of this nonsense has been successfully used to convict people in court. Turns out, putting someone with PhD after their name or a white lab coat or a phony certification on the stand tends to work for prosecutors.