In other words, the defendant doesn't have to prove he DIDN'T commit the crime; the prosecution has to prove he DID.
Which is exactly my point. Absent any evidence of a crime, why was this man even brought to trial, let alone prosecuted for it? If one believes this story hook, line, and sinker, this man was convicted of rape on nothing but his wife's word. Nothing but. How in the world can that possibly be the case?
Think back. Surely you remember the atmosphere at the time, the campaigns about awareness about spousal abuse and child abuse? Due process went out the window. There's cases in Washington State, Wenatchee; Janet Reno made her career on cases now considered to be bogus. The daycare abuse cases. Remember "Women/children wouldn't lie?"
HG: You can be convicted of most crimes upon the the testimony of one person, even if you deny it. Juries weigh the credibility of testimony and decide who's being truthful. Happens every day.
For example, would a police officer's testimony outweigh a ten-time crook's, that is, that if you were on a jury would you tend to believe the cop over the crook? I would, and I think I'm more biased against cops than the general population. Cops are just as willing to perjure themselves as crooks. But cops rarely lie about the actual crime being committed, and usually apprehend the right guy. And no matter what the claim here is, 99% of the time, if a case goes to court, the defendant did commit the crime and is just gambling.