Alistair sim version is my fave , muppets Christmas carol ain ' t far behind <| sep |> Do you breed any mons ? <| sep |> Did you bother to read 901 ? I ' m asking because it ' s basically right in there . I ' m assuming you didn ' t . To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence , the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is . They can do anything which satisfies that standard . I really think you ' re confusing admissibility arguments with weight arguments . Again I reiterate that absent anything to indicate that the comment in question was edited you don ' t have an argument to make on this point about admissibility . I guess you could try pointing out that the comment could have been changed in an attempt to get the jury to weigh it less but I think you ' d probably just come off looking stupid if you don ' t have anything else to go on . Bad evidence in the sense that it could be fake I ' m using could to mean possible despite having no evidence to suggest it happened because this is apparently the meaning you ' re using can survive the authentication process . Lots of regular evidence we use could again loosely have been tampered with before it was collected while still meeting the requisite standard sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is what it is claimed to be , but absent anything to suggest that it happened if that standard is met then you ' re just wasting your time . I feel like I keep repeating this and I ' m not sure what ' s so confusing about it at this point .