We all know by now that a not guilty verdict does not mean she is innocent.
Originally Posted by lilred_robin
Absolutely! The innocent are convicted from time-to-time. The guilty are acquitted. It's not a perfect world...
As Jackie said above, it only means that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it .
Originally Posted by lilred_robin
Fixed that for 'ya!
The $64M question...allowing for inflation...is did the government meet its burden & the jury simply wasn't paying attention...who knows? I didn't watch enough of the trial to render an informed opinion. From what little I've watched & read about the case, it may stand for the preposition that what's said by a defense attorney in the opening statement carries much more weight than anything done thereafter. Why run the risk of cross-examination by taking the stand to deny guilt & offer alternative theories of the crime if your attorney can do it for you in the opening?
I for one would much rather live in a place where we are innocent until proven guilty than the other way 'round.
Originally Posted by lilred_robin
Ding, ding, ding!!! The system was
designed to operate under the premise that it is better to acquit a guilty party than it is to convict an innocent party.
As sad as it is, I appreciate the jurors using their head instead of emotion to carry out their jobs as they should.
Originally Posted by lilred_robin
If that is what they did, then good for them! If they didn't, shame on them! That's about all you can say at this point. You hope they came to a logical conclusion based on
all the evidence.
BTW, good to see your face around the place!! Welcome back to the land of the big PX!