While I have no doubt that elements of this are true and certainly can't argue with the basic premise, it casts a disturbing level of doubt on the meaning and p

While I have no doubt that elements of this are true and certainly can't argue with the basic premise, it casts a disturbing level of doubt on the meaning and practical viability of the concepts of: 1. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty; 2. Proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; since when is the lack of a logical impossibility that someone may have done something sufficient to obtain a conviction? 3. Witness credibility; it seems like a witness that "cannot clearly recall" what someone said but speculates as to its exact content anyhow cannot be taken seriously, and is editorialising answers; 4. Hearsay - if statements made by police in favour of the defendant are hearsay, why are not statements of similar nature and anatomy (e.g. structurally similar claim, but opposite conclusion) made in support of the prosecution not also to be struck as objectionable hearsay?