Nevertheless, there was no conviction. All I said was aren't we supposed to consider someone innocent until proven guilty? I've not seen one shred of evidence used by the grand jury or the church, so why should I jump to the conclusion that the man was guilty?
And O.J. is innocent too.
There was plenty of evidence against OJ and it was made public. From that evidence, we know he was guilty, and I have no problem saying so. Show me the evidence against this man, or I can't call him guilty. I'm sure you'd want the same benefit of the doubt if you were indicted but not convicted.
It is the judicial system that cannot consider someone guilty until they are convicted.
That doesn’t apply to me.
That man is damn guilty. And I will spread that around any chance I get.
See my tagline.