alt.politics.usa.republican

"MioMyo" wrote in message
news: $ @ ...
>
> "Hugh Gibbons" wrote in message
> news: @ ...
> > In article ,
> > "Dan Kimmel" < @ > wrote:
> >
> >> It is guilty or not guilty. If you are "not guilty," you revert to the
> >> presumption of innocence.
> >
> > Not just presumed but FOUND innocent. It's more than a presumption at
> > that point. When presumed innocent, you can be indicted and charged and
> > convicted. When FOUND not guilty, you are no longer subject to
> > indictment, charge and conviction for the crime of which you were
> > accused. You're immune.
>
>
> Correct, and just as the legal ramifications have meaning, also the
founding
> fathers were smarter than those in this newsgroup, understanding that a
> pronouncement of "Not Guilty" is not necessarily the same as "Innocent,"
> .- the OJ Simpson verdict which I previously cited!

And which proves you are wrong. LEGALLY Simpson is innocent. He cannot be
charged with the murders.

As a matter of FACT (an area where you are clueless) everone knows he did
it.

Just like Ollie North, rightwing scuzzball freed on a technicality. Legally
he's innocent. Factually, everyone knows he's a wrongdoer.