On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:20:25 +0900, SaSaSushi <SaSa@Sushi.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 19:59:51 +0900, Eric Takabayashi
><etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
>
>>Raj Feridun wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:12:43 -0500, Kevin Gowen
>>> <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> >> No, I think one is declared innocent of the crimes once they've been
>>> >> acquitted.
>
>>> >You think wrong. Nothing of the kind is declared. There is a very good
>>> >reason why the verdict is "not guilty" rather than "innocent".
>
>>> It means Clinton is declared not guilty of the specific offenses for
>>> which he was charged. He is legally blameless. Spin it all you like.
>
>>Do you believe not prosecuted or not "guilty" equals "did not do"?
>
>No, I believe it means that the prosecution has not proven beyond a
>reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crimes for which they
>were accused of. All accused in the USA are considered innocent until
>proven guilty. What do you think?

Oops, posted these under my alternate nym.

Raj

Friggin Usenetserver lost a server and I've had to switch to Giganews
for the past 12 hours.