This innocent until proven guilty thing isn't actually right though is it. That means Jack the Ripper, whoever he was, is an innocent chap. People who get off on technicalities are innocent. So on and so forth.
Being found innocent or guilty by a jury doesn't actually change whether you have or have not committed a crime. Does "innocent until proven guilty" mean "guilty upon being proven guilty"? If so I feel for the people who wrongly go down for crimes they haven't committed.
At some point common sense needs to come into it and not just what a jury have decided. That said I have no ****ing idea as to whether he's done it or not. I can't really imagine how evidence to suggest grooming has taken place can result in an innocent verdict. I doubt it's just her word against his at this point.
Being found innocent or guilty by a jury doesn't actually change whether you have or have not committed a crime. Does "innocent until proven guilty" mean "guilty upon being proven guilty"? If so I feel for the people who wrongly go down for crimes they haven't committed.
At some point common sense needs to come into it and not just what a jury have decided. That said I have no ****ing idea as to whether he's done it or not. I can't really imagine how evidence to suggest grooming has taken place can result in an innocent verdict. I doubt it's just her word against his at this point.