|
I think you misunderstand the nature of proof then. This is not 100% proof either. Videotapes can be altered, exclude certan mitigating (or completely context-changing)circumstances, etc. A videotape represents extra evidence, but it is not certain proof. The reason justice systems exist is because there is no such thing as certain proof, and thus educated guesses must be made based on the available evidence. That's exactly what Synozeer did.
Is it 100% certain that MM cheated? No. On the other hand, is it 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow? No. But, if you ask me if I'm certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, I'm going to say 'yes' unless the context in which we are speaking is one in which formal logical proofs are expected. That's not the case in any justice system or system of man-made rules in the world.
There's a continuum there, and where you draw the line for declaring guilt is pretty arbitrary. The line on the continuum from 0% proof to 100% proof that Synozeer chose to draw is perhaps in a different place than where you choose to draw it, but that is his right, as he's the judge.
--matt
|