3 ms·

>>>>Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence. >>Or in other words guilty unless proven innocent?? Would you not put words in my mouth, ple

>>>>Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence. >>Or in other words guilty unless proven innocent?? Would you not put words in my mouth, please? Here are the facts: 1) You can't prove innocence, you can only prove guilt. 100 tests that fail to prove guilt do not prove innocence. That does not make him guilty, that just means the burden of proof is still on the accusers. 2) They say they will bring forth evidence that proves guilt. Their case rests on 10+ witnesses and blood tests. 3) He's stopping the process, which prevents them from submitting the evidence. 4) His current behaviour is not consistent with his previous behaviour. He's never given up without a fight before.

kamaal 14y ago
>>You can't prove innocence, you can only prove guilt. 100 tests that fail to prove guilt do not prove innocence. Sorry you can. A person is either innocent or guilty. Never both. So as long you don't prove him guilty he continues to remain innocent. >>They say they will bring forth evidence that proves guilt. Their case rests on 10+ witnesses and blood tests. 'They' should! Seriously. What are they waiting for, from the past 3-4 years? >>He's stopping the process, which prevents them from submitting the evidence. No body is stopping anything. All they have to do is give out their proof in open which can be validated. >>His current behaviour is not consistent with his previous behaviour. He's never given up without a fight before. That basically happens when you torture and trouble a person for years without proof, the person realizes that the other side has gamed the system to beat him hence playing more only means legitimizing their staged game.
- dagw 14y ago
  So as long you don't prove him guilty he continues to remain innocent. In a legal sense this is true under most jurisdictions, but it isn't true in any absolute sense. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that

kamaal 14y ago

>>You can't prove innocence, you can only prove guilt. 100 tests that fail to prove guilt do not prove innocence. Sorry you can. A person is either innocent or guilty. Never both. So as long you don't prove him guilty he continues to remain innocent. >>They say they will bring forth evidence that proves guilt. Their case rests on 10+ witnesses and blood tests. 'They' should! Seriously. What are they waiting for, from the past 3-4 years? >>He's stopping the process, which prevents them from submitting the evidence. No body is stopping anything. All they have to do is give out their proof in open which can be validated. >>His current behaviour is not consistent with his previous behaviour. He's never given up without a fight before. That basically happens when you torture and trouble a person for years without proof, the person realizes that the other side has gamed the system to beat him hence playing more only means legitimizing their staged game.

dagw 14y ago
So as long you don't prove him guilty he continues to remain innocent. In a legal sense this is true under most jurisdictions, but it isn't true in any absolute sense. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that