Innocent Until Proven Guilty What It Really Means

Innocent until proven guilty; a legal principle

The phrase, innocent until proven guilty, is a widely misunderstood legal phrase. It is a principle of law, a legal instrument that should ensure fair trials. The police, the lawyers and judges should regard the accused as innocent and put the evidence to the test.

Scales of Justice
© Marco Uliana –

It is the prosecution and investigators who are on trial because they should never present a case to court until they have gathered irrefutable evidence. Irrefutable that is to the best of their knowledge. It is the prosecution who has to prove guilt and not the accused to prove innocence.

So why do I say it is widely misunderstood? It is widely misunderstood and often deliberately ‘misunderstood’, by critics of the media (particularly new media), barrack-room lawyers and criminal apologists. It constantly comes up in criticism of articles on this blog, but this blog is not a court of law, this blog is not part of the prosecution, this blog investigates and reports facts. Sometimes, as the Editor, I may give my opinion, but my opinion is expressed mainly in the comments, not the articles.

Innocent until proven guilty; a few examples

I will now illustrate this argument with a few examples, and for simplicity, I will continue to make the suspects masculine.

Imagine waking up at 3 am, and there is a stranger in your bedroom. He is putting your valuables into a sack. You tackle him and knock him out and call the police. Is he a burglar or is he not a burglar? Yes of course he is!

The second scenario; a neighbour enters your home and rapes your wife. You are not there, but she recognises him and tells you who it was. Your wife is an honest woman and does not tell lies. The police are called and make an arrest. Is your neighbour innocent or guilty? GUILTY! You know the answers

The answer to both those scenarios is guilty! You see the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty is not fact, it is a presumption. The victims know who the guilty are, witnesses also know who is guilty, and the perpetrator knows he is guilty.

The accused must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, so that the investigators and prosecutors gather evidence and present that evidence to the court and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is indeed guilty of the offence. That is the basis of a fair trial.

The presumption of innocence does apply to news reporting as well of course. However, what if a witness writes the report or a video shows the incident in indisputable detail? What if documents are available that proves guilt? Is it wrong in those circumstances to report the accused as guilty? I don’t think so, providing that the report does not prejudice the fairness of the trial.

How many innocents who could have been saved?

If the Internet had been available 50-years ago, many victims of Jimmy Savile, the MP Cyril Smith, ex-Prime Minister Edward Heath and ‘Lord’ Alistair McAlpine would have been saved from their abuse. This is why I interpret the rules less strictly than the mainstream media (MSM), they can’t publish a word without a lawyer passes it. Except, of course, they are willing to overstep the mark when hacking a dead girl’s mobile phone.

You may also like


    1. Hi, If you read the rest of the blog you would know that it was hacked yet again and all the articles lost. Could that be a c*nt like you, or Cur Cliff’s friends or what?


      1. Dave,

        So sorry to hear that your site was hacked. I came here to read some of your latest material (and my comments again). Your articles regarding famous, wealthy pedophiles who preyed on children were valuable and eye-opening. I hope you are able to put most of your content up again.

        I’m very pleased, though, to see that the king of pedophiles, Michael Jackson, is being outed for the pervert he is, in the new movie, Leaving Neverland. My kids always thought I was a bit rabid when it came to his music – I REFUSED to ever allow any play of his music in my house or car – because I firmly believe he molested and raped hundreds of young boys. If he were still alive, I firmly believe he would eventually be found guilty of child molestation and child rape.

        One of my daughters was molested at age 12 by a trusted family member and a respected member of the banking community in my city. Sadly, I was fooled. Me. The mama bear who thought she had a radar that could detect any child molester within a 100 mile radius.

        My daughter and I will watch Leaving Neverland together, first chance we get. We support all efforts to expose and prosecute adults who rape and sexually assault – no matter who they are. Whether we liked their movies. Or their music. Or their other talents. We are disgusted when an aging pop star and a prince seem to have gotten away with molesting kids because law enforcement must bow and curtsy to the aristocracy. We, however are heartened when we see that creeps like Rolf Harris and Bill Cosby are being found guilty and thrown in prison.

        Dave, do you plan to watch Leaving Neverland? If so, please write about after you have watched it.

        Best regards,


      2. You were hacked, I am so sorry.*

        *Editor: I changed this rude person’s comment from negative to positive just to piss him off.


  1. Hello Esther,

    Firstly may I apologise for not responding to your excellent comment when you posted it. The last hack was the third, and while it didn’t destroy the structure of the blog, I did lose the articles and comments. It did knock the wind out of me, and I have only just got my energy back, so here I go again. I admit I lost my enthusiasm and couldn’t face rebuilding the site. However, my passion has rekindled, and here I am starting again.

    It seems sometimes the world is full of perverts. It isn’t of course, I still believe the vast majority of humans have the capacity for decency, whatever their core beliefs.

    I totally agree with you shielding your daughters from the influence of Michael Jackson and all like him. When they are older, they will be able to understand why his behaviour isn’t something to be admired.

    I’ve not read ‘Leaving Neverland’ yet, but I have ordered a copy from the United States and should have it in early June.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.