Naive? Yes, incredibly, considering I was 56 and cynical.

But I really believed, beforehand, police were neither for you nor against you. Simply objective. Looking, on behalf of society, for the truth.

No. And understandably. That takes decency, honesty, integrity, intelligence and morality.

But the average policeman simply doesn't have the time or inclination for something that complicated. If there's a murder, they need to find the killer. And when they suspect someone, they need to find evidence he or she did it. End of story.

Ditto all crimes. Screw "benefit of the doubt". Budgets are set on targets. It's not our job to find alternative suspects or doubt about crimes. When we're told there's a crime, find the proof. End of story.

I assumed - if I didn't do something, there could be no evidence that I did. And there wasn't.

Under those circumstances, police have several options. They can invent or create evidence. They can drop the case. Or they can take it to the CPS and then to court.

Thanks to the media (which loves a good story) pretend evidence can be manufactured without breaking the law. And courts now accept that (one person's word against another's - similar fact evidence etc).

But, apart from the unfairness, media and public are fickle. They can turn against the catchy headline and it becomes a better story - police and CPS corruption, laziness, inefficiency.

If police and CPS seriously want to revive public respect, they must stop these witch hunts and remember

Their job is to find the truth. Not to get convictions.