> You can't say that he probably was guilty I can and do, which is not nonsense applied to an infinite amount of theoretical past cases. That's not relevant.

> You can't say that he probably was guilty I can and do, which is not nonsense applied to an infinite amount of theoretical past cases. That's not relevant. Cases aren't assembled just to get a conviction on 20 specific items (http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/06-for-the-same-offence.html http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/06-for-th...). US justice system is not about truth or even justice, but an amalgamation of concerns and subject to the irregularities of reality (if key witness X has a heart attack and dies, a case Y can fall apart). I'm not subject to these concerns and limitations (which are both historical and societal, without being strictly law-related). He was probably guilty (in the moral, not legal sense if that's confusing anyone), based on what I have read and seen. That's distinctly different from saying he did something wrong or illegal or should be in jail or that it would be a public good to ignore.