Something is really bothering me about the Ben Roberts-Smith case. Nobody likes being a hypocrite. Unlike most, I actually go for a walk when I suspect myself of being one. On one hand, this prosecution stinks of liberal bias. Out of thousands of potential war crimes cases the social justice warrior police chief could have pursued, she picked THE most decorated soldier on the entire continent. That isn’t justice. That’s a public humiliation ritual. On the other hand, I do believe actual war criminals should stand trial regardless of rank or honors. And I know what’s coming: “John, Roberts-Smith already lost the 2023 defamation case. Justice Besanko found he committed the murders.” Yes. On the balance of probabilities. 51 percent. That’s the civil standard. Criminal conviction requires 99 percent. The same fragile evidence that barely cleared a coin flip is now supposed to send a man to prison for life. Here’s why my post is not hypocrisy. When the school got hit in Iran weeks ago, I said mistakes aren’t war crimes, but if it was intentional or grossly negligent, someone should be court-martialed. That strike is recent. Physical. Investigable. The Roberts-Smith allegations are 20 years old. And here’s what the Brereton Inquiry, for all its 510 witnesses & four years of work, could never get: No crime scene access. The Taliban didn’t let investigators into Uruzgan. No Afghan witnesses interviewed. No secured scene. No blood-spatter analysis. No DNA No autopsies. No recovered bodies. No weapons tied to victims. The investigators themselves admitted they “lacked access to Afghan crime scenes and were missing the physical evidence that would normally anchor a murder prosecution.” So what’s left? Memory. Twenty-year-old memory from men in the fog of war. The science is unambiguous. Countless research studies confirms memory is reconstructive: later suggestion, media exposure, and repeated questioning distort it. This is the textbook misinformation effect. Confidence and accuracy decouple within months, let alone decades. Studies on soldiers who suffer PTSD show the gaps get even larger. I admittedly don’t know 🇦🇺 law but US courts admit decades-old testimony but warn juries it is inherently fragile, not scientific proof. Australia is treating it as load-bearing concrete. The media says “20 former soldiers testified against him.” Fine. Was all their testimony actually against him? How clear was it? Did 20 people watch him murder a civilian in broad daylight? And even if they did, you still have to prove the dead man wasn’t Taliban. In Uruzgan. In 2009. Without a body. Some will say I’m being pedantic. Yes. I. Am. Because Ben Roberts-Smith was charged with murder, and under war-crimes law the same act can be framed as murder, willful killing, or killing a person hors de combat depending on the framing. How it gets framed sets precedent for every future war. And here’s the question nobody in Canberra wants asked: Why is the trigger-puller in the dock while the officers who wrote the rules of engagement, approved the missions, and signed the after-action reports keep their pensions? The Victoria Cross winner hangs. The chain of command walks. Past “War crime” cases with more hard evidence remain “unsolved” That isn’t accountability. That’s a scapegoat ritual. You do not get a Victoria Cross just for killing. You get it for extraordinary gallantry, valour, self-sacrifice & devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy. And here is what Australia just told every soldier watching: the reward for a VC is fame which will make you a target for future show trials built on 20-year-old memories, prosecuted by a police chief with no combat but more ribbons on her uniform than you. If murder can be proven without hard evidence decades later. That isn’t justice even if he is guilty. Proof of guilt matters. That’s a Marxist humiliation ceremony leading to national strategic disarmament by lawfare.