Justice Kavanaugh’s reputation could be unjustly tainted because the mob didn’t get its own way

I HAVE read and re-read Dr David Capper’s statement about Justice Brett Kavanaugh not being entitled to the presumption of innocence because he was not facing a court of law, or in danger of losing his liberty, with a feeling of incredulity (Write Back, October 18).

Does this mean that anyone who is said to have done, or said, something wrong is guilty until proven innocent if police are not involved? So, a person can be accused of lying, cheating, stealing, libel, or whatever, and, as long as he is not taken to court, he can be considered guilty until proven otherwise?

This seems to me to fly in the face of all that our law has taught for centuries. I thought all accused were considered innocent until proven guilty.

If Dr Capper is right, it will lead to anarchy.

According to six FBI investigations, Justice Kavanaugh was considered a fit person to hold the various offices he had held for the previous 25 years.

But I wonder, if Dr Capper had to endure the six months of hysteria from liberal and pro-abortion opponents, including death threats to himself and his family, followed at the last minute by accusations of rape (which were far from credible, not “far from incredible”) that Justice Kavanaugh endured, would his response have been any different?

It is easy to judge from the sidelines. If the justice’s reputation is tainted, it will be because of the modern phenomenon of mob rule on the part of those who don’t like it when things don’t go their way.

We have already seen this happen here, sadly.

STELLA WILSON Tandragee, Co Armagh