I agree with what was said, except he naturally had more of "pro-defence" spin, than I would. side note: My only reservation about finally saying I support the verdict, is I haven't read the full transcripts. If I was on the jury, and had reasonable doubt, of course I would acquit. I agree with his defence of the jury system, and "reasonable doubt". He gives a perfectly clear explanation. Few other editorials even want to admit doubt exists, so can't say what to do with it. He's smart to point out how molestation cases have more false convictions *and* guilty acquittals than any other type of crime. I agree with his *implied* opposition to elections of prosecutors. Being Canadian, I prefer our career professionals as prosecutors (and judges). But, there's big flaws either way. In Canada and Britain, there are dangerous concentrations of power when it comes to appointing prosecutors and judges. One other think I like about the Canadian system, that he didn't mention, is a defendant can always elect to be tried by a judge without jury, even in the most serious of crimes. I *think* in the US, you have to face a jury for felony trials, right? Great closing quote: "But I would say about trial by jury what Churchill said about democracy: it is the worst system, except for all the others that have been tried over time"