Figure 1: participants of the judicial processes include the judge, jury, the accused and the defence counsel, the accusers, the detectives, witnesses, and a fact-checker
The neutral fact-checker replaces the prosecutor. We see prosecution’s role as negative and non essential. Prosecutors, supposedly, represent the interests of society. However, the interests of the society are already taken care of by establishing the law that has been introduced by another representative of society’s interests before, and which was presumably broken. The trial itself, the judge, and the jury represent the interests of the society and the society itself, for that matter, because justice is in the interests of the society.
We consider a neutral fact-checker who is presented by the court with a list of simple non-personal facts to check, compiled by the defence and offence. A multitude of simple facts is very hard to calculate and remember, and pretty much impossible to falsify. He or she must work in isolation from other participants and not be aware of which fact was submitted for scrutiny by which party. That person’s role is akin to a method of filtering data, known in the field of Information Technology as “sanitizing the input.”