[zamler]

Originally Posted by jammies

To make an analogy, if I was accused of murder, and my story was that I was seen fleeing the scene with blood all over my clothes because I was in training to be a butcher but got horrified and sick, and then ran away, I am not going to be believed if I don't back that story up with some evidence. That my story is "presumed true" is going to help me not at all. I don't find Ghomeshi's narrative credible either, so to me, he needs to provide some evidence that it's true. And actually, that's pretty well my whole argument, so I'm not sure what the purpose is of pointing out that the burden of proof is on the Crown, I'm well aware of that, I'm saying that there is plenty of proof by testimony, context, and logic, so he'd better have more than "Nope. Didn't do it! They're all liars!" as a defence.

Uh, what?