• Noughmad
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    He also wasn’t found “innocent”, but “not guilty”.

    There’s a vast difference between that. Not guilty means that we can’t prove he’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that we can prove that he’s innocent.

    It’s still very likely he committed crimes, but we can’t be sure enough to send him to jail.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Came here to say this! With all we’ve heard about the man, I’d say he’s slam-dunk “not innocent”. BUT, he was found not guilty as charged.

      People really get up in arms because they don’t know the difference. And it’s not just some legal shenanigans, it’s a real-world thing.

      Another example is my sleezebag Congressman, Matt Gaetz. People act like he wasn’t prosecuted due to being in Congress, money, whatever. No, he wasn’t prosecuted due to lack of evidence and witness testimony.

      Is he an innocent man? Fuck no. But that’s not enough to lock him up. Given the nature of the case, I wouldn’t have prosecuted either. About zero chance of a jury returning a guilty verdict. Pretty sad about it, I really hoped to see that man in orange.

      • Heringssalat@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the closest you get to that is if you counter-sue (or they get sued for lying in court, etc.) the accusers and win.