On the subject of the thread... Ahem. I'm sure that could be a fair take on a 'pre revenge of the nerds' story! I had no idea how tall/short he is. I just think "oh yeah, the Microsoft guy." Is it all over for 'Pre-mogul cels?'
***DISCLAIMER! I'm not taking a 'side' on this, but rather putting my .02 into what some misnomers are when it comes to arguments, facts, evidence, proof and burden of proof.***
The important question to ask is "Where does the burden of proof lie?" My moniker includes "Rabbit." Does this mean I am beyond all reasonable doubt a Rabbit? I'll use science! Taxonomy and phylogenetics to be precise. I'll just say "Yes! Rabbits and Humans are both eukaryotes! Therefore we're the same! Therefore I'm a Rabbit!" All the defense has to say is, "Well, you know that pine trees are also eukaryotes, right?"
The important definitions to remember are as follows. "Facts and evidence can't prove anything on their own. Two things may be true at the same time." "The truth is what the facts are." "A fact must be objectively verifiable." "Eyewitness testimony is one of the weakest forms of evidence. Memory is an active process that fills in gaps, meaning it changes over time and can be influenced by information learned after the event. Leading questions from police or attorneys, as well as suggestive lineups, can alter a witness's memory. High-stress situations, such as witnessing a crime with a weapon, can narrow a person's focus, causing them to miss other details. A witness's confidence in their testimony can increase after receiving positive feedback, even if their memory of the event is inaccurate." That last sentence is highly represented and observable in many an SJW 'cause du jour.'
In conclusion, proof in a court of law could be defined as thus. "Proof is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence which is positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one claim/explanation over any other beyond a reasonable doubt." Why do trials take so long even when the case seems "SOOO OBVIOUS" and there actually IS a mountain of evidence against the accused? This is why. We're on dangerous grounds if we operate justice on "He started it" or "Just look what she was wearing!"
If someone accuses me of anything, calls me some trendy insult or name without mentioning any details I can dismiss it. "That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence" aka "I know you are, but what am I?" Or perhaps an oldie but goodie, "When did you stop b3ating your w1fe?" / "Stop smoking cr@ck?" or a modern favorite "N@ZI!" Show me that I am or shove off.
I'm not an attorney or prosecutor, I just know a bit about what is essential to having a credible/valid case. This is mostly due to me being very familiar with how a court of law (especially federal courts in America) can and does impact the gatekeeping of scientific consensus. Obviously, science and criminal accusations aren't the same. In either pursuit, a claimant has the burden of proof. In either pursuit, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be to support that claim.