This time last year I was unfortunate to be a member of a Jury on a murder trial

Tragically a witness to the attack was a child of 7/8 who was interviewed by the police on video tape shortly after the fatality
Although I winced at some of the 'leading questions' the testimony of the child, while obviously the 'truth,' as he understood it (having been woken up by the noise) was at distinct odds with some of the physical evidence.

It is important to remember that children too often do give the answer most likely to satisfy/please the questioner when conducting interviews with young witnesses (or the accused ) and they don't always understand the concepts of the truth the whole truth etc

"remove the rule and permit the child to prove that it did not know that what was done was wrong"

Richard isn't this just another form of presumption of guilt until proved innocent?