You are presenting your argument well but you are assuming that I was speeding at some point but just not caught....yet you have no evidence that i ever did, just evidence that I did not. You cannot just "well you had to be at one time speeding" you could be wrong and maybe I am a very law abiding citizen. Innocent until "proven" guilty, maybe I do not read up enough but I have never heard of any of his tests that were tested positive but would be interested in reading some facts about that. You are correct tests are only good as the current technology and knowledge but its beginning to sound like a witch hunt of "guilty" lets just burn him at the stakes because everyone says he's guilty and just the test were not good enough to catch him. I say the prosecution must prove his guilt...he does not have to prove his innocence. I do not know which it is but right now all I've seen is a couple of guys that need a deal from the law pointing at him.