[CJefferson]

Almost nothing can be protected from that..

Witnesses can be wrong or just lie, paperwork and signatures can be forged.

We can't live in a world where every conviction is somehow "mathematically proved", we live in a world of "beyond reasonable doubt". It's messy and imperfect, but seems (to me) to be better than the alternatives.

[roblabla]

signatures are hard to fake. virtual logs, not so much. Planting evidence in there is so easy it hurts. And people might not know how easy it is to fake that evidence, whereas it's pretty obvious to anyone that a witness can lie...

I'm not saying we should disregard those kind of virtual evidence, I'm just saying we might need to educate more about the risks of falsifications more.

[ams6110]

So it's up to the defense to introduce resonable doubt then. Such as: a plausible motive to fake the log entries. A demonstration of how easy it is to do. A convincing argument that there was an opportunity to do it.