[IronJack]

Just because you can copy and paste a Latin term doesn't mean you comprehend its meaning.

Your argument (such as it is) is circular: she is guilty because she was convicted and she was convicted because she was guilty. That is a post hoc argument, which is specious logic.

If anyone is failing to comprehend the meaning of the term, it is the one who keeps failing to heed its implications ... you.

[OneWingedShark]

Take a look at the thread since my #111; I think it’s safe to say we’ve found a pattern in his thinking/reasoning.
I wonder what his response to #120 will be; by bet is on some punt about “safety” or somesuch, what’s yours?

[Mojave]

Your argument (such as it is) is circular: she is guilty because she was convicted and she was convicted because she was guilty.

No. She committed the crime. She was convicted because the court examined the evidence and decided that she committed the crime.

She's only entitled to a legal presumption of innocence prior to conviction.