Ah, unless you predicted he wasn't guilty, you didn't win anything.
Nah, I never predicted he was guilty or not. All I said was that there was not sufficient evidence, in any court of law in this country, to warrant a conviction.
I still say that there was not sufficient evidence to convict.
He'll be set free eventually for that very reason, no matter what the court rules are.
My opinion: He is as guilty as sin BUT he should not have been convicted based upon the meager or actually no evidence that was presented at trial.
Correction: No direct evidence.