3 ms·

What someone is convicted of, and what someone is guilty of, are often different things.

• darawk 7y ago
  Totally agree. But what he was convicted of is what people publicly knew at the time.
  • jasonwatkinspdx 7y ago
    You need to actually review the facts of the case. The reason this blew open again is entirely because the settlement acosta offered was judged illegal. They concealed the deal from the victims' legal staff. You, pointing to this corrupt deal as evidence of exoneration, makes very clear what your goals here are. Revolting.
    • darawk 7y ago
      You should probably calm down and make fewer assumptions. It's always impressive to me just how bad people are at understanding the world retrospectively. Yes, today we know that Acosta gave him a sweetheart deal that he didn't deserve. Today. There was no reason for the MIT media lab to understand that. Their job is not to investigate every single person that wants to give them money.