[jims69camaro]

Originally Posted by mtnhopper1

THey would have to be able to prove who is in the tape, that the speedo was accurate, that it was on a public road, and that the tape wasn't altered. More importantly, the prosecutor has the burden to show all of these things beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a pretty high standard. It means that if there is any question about any of these, they couldn't convict. With as easy as it is to edit digital video, I think it would be pretty difficult for the prosecutor to affirmatively prove, without doubt, that the video wasn't tampered with. The offender can just sit there, without even testifying, and have his attorney raise the possibility of tampering. The prosecutor would have to prove otherwise or no conviction. No easy task, I'd say.

yeah, in this country. we're talking about scotland. big difference in the way their courts work.