More accurately, why does he HAVE to? Our criminal justice system is founded on the doctrine of presumptive INNOCENCE; the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
In other words, the defendant doesn't have to prove he DIDN'T commit the crime; the prosecution has to prove he DID.
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?