well a court of law does not declare innocence, it just uses it legal term of not guilty or acquitted. So you can hang your hat on that he was not declared innocent but a court of law will never declare innocent.
So you interpret that no one is innocent if acquitted in the view of the law. So if a person is actually innocent and eventually acquitted, he still is not innocent.
Sorry you playing hide the word game using acquittal when he was actually acquitted
free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.
synonyms:
absolve ·
clear ·
exonerate ·
exculpate · declare innocent · find innocent
Your using a word used by those who believe he was guilty. You are free to believe that yet it is irrelevant as he was found not guilty and did not lose any rights or privileges granted to citizens. He lost his appeal to the general public.
Yet how does the notion innocent until proven guilty fit into the picture. Is it lip service. It is
not the job of the court to determine innocent. Generally guilty or not guilty or whatever other things they can do.
So innocent has little meaning in a trial. It is something to disagree with others about. A way for people to thing about a crime without really having any first hand knowledge of what happen.
So you are right that he was not found to be innocent of the crime but that is true for any case when the verdict return is not guilty. Yet that in itself does not proof that the person was not innocent of the crime. Unless the person admits to it or credible witnesses come forward who saw what happen.
IF that is not the case , it is irrelevant as the person is free to go about their business.
"Dishonest" seems like you use the work willingly without knowing anything about the person. That in itself is dishonest.
So why don't you leave it in the hands of the entity that will make the final judgment.
Sorry you were not there when the crime was committed so it is just your opinion.
