> "Beyond reasonable doubt" means just that. It does NOT mean that if it
> was *possible* it could have been somebody else, then the case will
> automatically be dismissed.

Certainly but it is not difficult to illustrate that it's actually
incredibly easy and quite likely that someone could hop on to an
unprotected wireless network and use it without obvious detection by a
"typical" home user.

Therefore, in the absence of other incriminating evidence, doubt must
exist and can't by definition be "beyond reasonable doubt". Hey, we can
all play armchair legal etc but this is the case with wireless. Now on
the other hand, any good police force isn't going to just pick up a
computer and push for a prosecution just because of PC content but
rather aim to secure additional evidence. Evidence such as the owners
credit card details being used for pay sites of a type offering such
content. Telephone calls with other known offenders.

On the other hand, we are talking about the police force here and Thames
Valley police issued a statement saying that they weren't going to spend
time on investigations unless they knew who the offender was. They
seemsed to have lost the plot of what "investigation" actually means!

> If the jury believe there is no realistic likelihood that it *was*
> somebody else, then they are likely to convict.

Quite which is why the legal system is so muddy and potentially unjust.
Just because the jury believe the evidence, doesn't make it the right
story!

David.