He also wasn’t found “innocent”, but “not guilty”.
There’s a vast difference between that. Not guilty means that we can’t prove he’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that we can prove that he’s innocent.
It’s still very likely he committed crimes, but we can’t be sure enough to send him to jail.
He also wasn’t found “innocent”, but “not guilty”.
There’s a vast difference between that. Not guilty means that we can’t prove he’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that we can prove that he’s innocent.
It’s still very likely he committed crimes, but we can’t be sure enough to send him to jail.
Came here to say this! With all we’ve heard about the man, I’d say he’s slam-dunk “not innocent”. BUT, he was found not guilty as charged.
People really get up in arms because they don’t know the difference. And it’s not just some legal shenanigans, it’s a real-world thing.
I have never heard about an “innocent” verdict, is that really a thing?
They are just making a point. No such thing, just pointing out that criminal courts don’t prove innocence.