>technical people developed the systems that print out confusing glyphs.
And they aren't in the court room to assist with technical analysis. Why we need to keep revisiting this confuses me.
>it's certainly nobody else's fault.
Not sure I would agree, but even if I did how is this a relevant reply? What's important to the defense is identifying the point at which the technical evidence is faulty. Blame and penalty for the screw up is irrelevant to the goal of getting the innocent party out of prison.
alt Hacker News
>technical people developed the systems that print out confusing glyphs.
And they aren't in the court room to assist with technical analysis. Why we need to keep revisiting this confuses me.
>it's certainly nobody else's fault.
Not sure I would agree, but even if I did how is this a relevant reply? What's important to the defense is identifying the point at which the technical evidence is faulty. Blame and penalty for the screw up is irrelevant to the goal of getting the innocent party out of prison.