In 1952, Berkshire Russell created a thought experiment known as Russell's T-Pot, which

relates to the burden of proof.

It goes as follows.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a China T-Pot revolving

about the Sun and an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion,

provided that we're careful to add that the T-Pot is too small to be revealed even by

our most powerful telescopes.

But, if I were to go on to say that since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an

intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be

thought to be talking nonsense.

If however, the existence of such a T-Pot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the

sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation

to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter

to the attentions of the psychiatrist and enlightened age, or of the inquisitor in an earlier

time.

Now, obviously, Russell is speaking directly on the subject of religion, and it's clear

where his sympathy lies.

But a similar logic can be applied to cases of possible wrongful convictions.

Imagine a world much Terns Lewis, where a 38-year-old man, working a 9-to-5 job and supporting

his family, and yet I said to you, you should believe he was involved in a murder in 1996,

based upon the word of a single eyewitness who admitted to smoking cracks soon before

the shooting.

...