This is why a Judge directs Jurors only to find guilt if they are convinced 'beyond' reasonable doubt.

My father was once working on a case and was close to charging someone with a crime as the evidence appeared strong yet not quite enough in his mind to convince a Jury. Then some fresh evidence turned up that cleared that person and he arrested someone else.

He wasn't their long because he admitted guilt to my brother and blamed the kids for sobbing him in. Yes we've had different lives, however that doesn't change the fact that everyone is innocent unless proven guilty in Court.

If you met Patrick you'd have liked him and thought he was a top bloke. My brother loved him as a brother. When his wife kicked him out after the Police charged him, my brother and sist in law gave him a bed to sleep in whilst they waited to learn the evidence.

My daughter got sexually assaulted by some teenage boys in Melbourne. That doesn't mean I assume 95% of teen boys are sexual abusers. My sister in law's brother died in jail after being found guilty of sexualy abusing his son and daughter. It doesn't mean all men are like that.

oh, and final thought on this topic... the WW1 vets were very opposed to 11/11 being extended to other conflicts. frankly, i agree with them. WW1 was a unique conflict.

My father charged people with crimes and I'd hear him say "We believe we have enough evidence to prove guilt, it will be up to a Jury". Allegations are just allegations until proven.

This is why we see what seems absurd situations where footage of crimes and who committed it are shown in the media and they say "alleged".

I believe you. Meanwhile I'll continue to follow what my father taught me as someone who served with VicPol for 27 years and retired as a Detective Chief Inspector. "Everyone is presumed innocent unless PROVEN GUILTY in a Court of Law".

I'd just like a Predident who honors and respects all of those past and present who sacrificed for service to this country.