Quote:
Originally Posted by Veeger
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?
|
legally being presumed innocent is far different than actually being innocent.
it just means that the prosecution has to prove that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt- and they didn't do much to prove to the jury that he did it more than the defense cast doubt on whether he did it.
i watched that trial every day when it was on, and the prosecution just seemed like they were in way over their heads and trying to play to the cameras, and the Defense had Johnny Cochran and his precursor to the Chewbacca defense..