[Buttons840]

I don't think that is the answer to the question.

The OP asked, "doesn't there need to be evidence beyond just 'a computer said so'?".

You said the answer is that "the computer said so" and then the operator of the computer said "I agree with the computer".

In my mind, the question still remains. Isn't there any requirement to show where the money went, what account it went into, give dates and details about how they stole the money, etc?

Of course, hiding the known bugs in the software is a scandal and worth talking about, but it doesn't answer the original question I think.

[mcguire]

What kind of standard of proof do you expect, beyond "convincing to a jury"?

[smallnamespace]

Money is just a number in a database somewhere, so you’re also advocating for ‘the computer said so’, for a slightly different set of computers.

[Buttons840]

I'm not advocating for anything. Just saying that "Why isn't there a higher legal standard for proof?" answered with "The Post Office management knew about the bugs." isn't a satisfying question/answer exchange.