As I understand it, the Judge told him he could walk away from the whole nasty thing with his character intact and his reputation untarnished. Precisely to avoid the inference you have made re a 'not guilty' verdict. People should think much more carefully before firing off such posts about just about the most delicate and sensitive area there is. The end result of such rumours and whispering is the tragic case of Bijan Ebrahimi, beaten to death then set on fire for falsely (utterly falsely and beyond doubt) accused of being a *****phile.
How many people would read that, they just see he got off, OJ also got off with a not guilty as well. The only way most people truly believe a man is not guilty is when the accuser goes to prison themselves and if you dont believe me, ask parents if theyd leave their kids in the hands of a person whod been found not guilty in a ***** case. It just enforces what I said, 3 verdicts are needed with an explicit not guilty, guilty and couldnt be proven or do you not agree with that?
Flyer, if by 'explicit not guilty' you mean 'innocent' then I do agree with that. We have a legal system that has evolved over time and I have always thought it odd that 'not guilty' does not mean one is free from blame in some way. I suppose it is left up to the judges to make comments at the end of the case such as appeared to have happened here.
The problem is no one remembers the comments, just the verdict. Its unfortunate that men are still tainted even if found not guilty. I hope a third verdict would change that when not guilty actually means innocent and not that there wasnt enough proof for a conviction which still means he could have done it. As I said, most people only believe the bloke is truly innocent when a woman goes to prison for false accusations and thats obviously not going to happen with kids. Its a life wrecker and we should change the system to avoid it.
