On a point of order, and with no wish to become embroiled in any kind of argey -bargey with anyone, in British criminal law, a defendant does not have to ‘prove’ his innocence, it is the responsibility of the Prosecution to prove guilt, and there is no such verdict as ‘Innocent’ available to the courts, only ‘Guilty’, or ‘Not Guilty’. The burden of proof of guilt in criminal law is ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’, not ‘absolute certainty’. So a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ does not indicate the absolute certainty of innocence, merely that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove guilt ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. By the same token, a verdict of ‘Guilty’ does not indicate the absolute certainty of guilt, only that the defendant is guilty ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’.

The plain, unvarnished truth is that the only ones who actually know whether Assange committed the sexual offences of which he was accused are his accusers, and Assange himself. Certainly none of us here have the faintest idea whether, in fact, he did it or not.

Over and out.