Question

Suppose I have some evidence of where I was while a crime was being committed, a recording of me visiting a bank and asking for the time of a transaction (which was completed at that time elsewhere). I was being accused of committing this crime, so someone phoned the bank and asked if the transaction existed, and they were told no. Allow me that there was - before the phone call - originally a 95% chance of the recording being real and not a deep fake (there is no evidence I can deep fake), and only a 90% chance that no one would/did change the transaction time (my enemies are nerds). Does that mean my evidence is more reliable? If my innocence is trivially derived from the authenticity of the recording, then am I more likely to be innocent, whatever other evidence there was before the phone call?

Answer 1

The reliability of evidence, such as a recording providing an alibi, is crucial in legal cases. Although the recording has a high chance of being real, there is some uncertainty surrounding the bank transaction record. Overall, all evidence must be evaluated collectively to determine the outcome of the case.

Step-by-step explanation:

In your scenario, you've discussed the reliability of evidence in the context of proving innocence in a crime you are being accused of. You mention a recording that ostensibly provides you with an alibi, suggesting you were at a bank during the time the crime was committed. The authentication of this recording plays a critical role in establishing your alibi. Meanwhile, there is suggestion that the bank transaction record, which could corroborate your presence at the bank, may have been tampered with, thereby reducing the certainty of that evidence. Assessing the reliability of evidence is a cornerstone of the legal system, and factors such as the suggestibility of eyewitnesses, the potential for deepfake technology, and the integrity of digital records like bank transactions all play into the evaluation process.

Considering the probabilities you've provided, a 95% chance of the recording being real implies high reliability, thus supporting your innocence. However, the 90% chance of the bank transaction time not being altered indicates a risk that the record may not be accurate. In legal scenarios, each piece of evidence must be weighed with its own merits, and while no evidence is foolproof, the strength of the evidence as a whole can point towards a conclusion. The case would likely depend on the balance of all available evidence paired with the principles of presumption of innocence and the burden of proof being on the prosecution.