[archy]

...I can only document that they found him not guilty of the charges against him. There is a huge difference between being determined to be innocent (he flat out didn't do it) and being found not guilty (the evidence never rose above the level of "reasonable doubt"). ... [#136"]

Actually;he wss found "not guilty",
Not guilty of the crimes as charged;
Nobody is "found innocent".

Under the constitution that is the source of the laws under which he was tried, he remains innocent until proven and found guilty. Until then his innocence is a given, and a legal finding of *not guilty* restores that presumption of innocence.

He is just as innocent as Lee Harvey Oswald, the Columbine killers Kleybold and Harris, and any other number of felons and miscreants who may well have been culpable of various crimes, but remained unconvicted and thereby innocent of them.

Nevertheless, either the underlying principle of the founding document that establishes the law remains in effect, or the laws themselves are moot and meaningless, and have no legitimate moral authority behind them.

-archy-/-

[norton]

"..a legal finding of *not guilty* restores that presumption of innocence."

True; it restores presumption of innocence, it does NOT prove that innocence.

OJ pretty well sums that up as do the several cases where murder and lesser charges have been not proven only to have 'conspiracy' or some such then held up as a result of the same actions not proven before.

"Not Guilty" is not "innocent" but pending new charges, any one is presumed innocent until proven in court.