I don’t think that’s how legal system or science works(at least in statistics). We can assume that null hypothesis is that there was no leak/engineering of the virus, i.e. defendant isn’t guilty. Then it’s up to a prosecutor/someone with the evidence to reject that hypothesis. But you don’t start proving the alternative hypothesis when doing science, since it’s much more complicated. And again, the defendant doesn’t have to prove his innocence.
The circumstantial evidence exists though and I’m not making a claim to be a court of law, I’m claiming that these are how I view the probabilities, as a layman, and that anyone who doesn’t work on these things for a living that suggests they are more confident in one of these probabilities than another probably has some biases they need to check.
I don’t think that’s how legal system or science works(at least in statistics). We can assume that null hypothesis is that there was no leak/engineering of the virus, i.e. defendant isn’t guilty. Then it’s up to a prosecutor/someone with the evidence to reject that hypothesis. But you don’t start proving the alternative hypothesis when doing science, since it’s much more complicated. And again, the defendant doesn’t have to prove his innocence.