Quote:
Originally Posted by tdvance
A picky technicality, but he was found "not guilty" rather than "innocent"--the verdict is "not guilty" specifically because it means he wasn't proven guilty, not that he was proven innocent.
|
How does your technicality rationalize with the presumption of innocence? For me, the logical extension of 'presumption of innocence', is...if one is not proven guilty then one was innocent all along.
Again, whether we agree with the verdict or not, the OP is really about the book, is it not?