I was hacked is an alibi that is better , has been around for a long time , and has been used . I don ' t see how this new argument is better in any way . You argue that spez ' action inherently turns the presumption of evidence . I think that is a very weak argument because it involves accusing someone else with sweeping behavioral assumptions instead of specific facts . Again , even if it could , how do we know he wasn ' t hacked is a better excuse in the way that shrugging your shoulders is better than pointing fingers . Lastly , the strength of electronic information as evidence is related to how well it fits as something only the defendant could have provided . That is , if it were plausible that the employees of a company framed someone with a post , then the post itself wasn ' t really strong evidence in the first place . Give me any specific fact pattern specific crime , contents of post , timeline and I ' ll show you why .