Not necessarily, it's just that when it comes to certain matters the burden of proof is inverted.

As in, irregular chain of custody does not prove culpability, and on a regular criminal case it wouldn't be enough to do anything, it's just a pointer that'll help you know what to put your efforts into. On a criminal case the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, hence why many kinds of evidence are not gonna put you in jail, they may indicate that you could be guilty but they don't prove it.

When it comes to an election it's common sense that it's the opposite, the burden of proof is inverted. The election is fraudulent unless proven otherwise, this applies to every election and this is why all of the process is so carefully dictated, organized and protocolized, you basically do everything by the book in order for you to be able to defend your process, because you're considered guilty from the start. Some people may believe this argument is insane, but ask yourself how the IRS works... you gotta pay your taxes and if you lost a receipt then that's too bad, as long as the IRS knows that receipt doesn't exist and it's on you to prove it's existence, you're guilty until proven otherwise.

This is why I fail to understand anyone not seeing what's happening in this election, normally I'd say it's all a conspiracy and whatnot, but the MSM have convinced me there was more fraud than we even think there was (rationally speaking, I don't buy the "Trump won in all counties" argument, sorry) since they refuse to even acknowledge any of it.