Originally Posted by skinny

Here you make a subtle yet discernible shift away from "proof of guilt", to "proof that the "proof of guilt" is valid", which is what Landis is doing. This is of course what drunk drivers often fall back on in court.

Of course your post also begs other questions: Why are perpetrators of a crime arrested and incarcerated if they are presumed innocent? Doesn't a perpetrator face his accuser at the time of arrest?