[protocolture]

>oh c'mon, if a technical person receives a piece of paper with a printed out user__name on it with the wrong number of underscores they'd just as likely make the same mistake.

A technical person did make the mistake, likely a police cyber forensics type.

But there's no one technical in the court room capable of reviewing their work and identifying the fault.

[fsckboy]

technical people developed the systems that print out confusing glyphs. it's certainly nobody else's fault.

[protocolture]

>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.