Cedar Park Dad wrote:Yes the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
Here is my last comment on this. You are playing semantics. They found him not guilty. The definition of guilty is:
guilt·y/ˈgɪlti/ Show Spelled [gil-tee] Show IPA
adjective, guilt·i·er, guilt·i·est.
1. having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable: The jury found her guilty of murder.
2. characterized by, connected with, or involving guilt: guilty intent.
3. having or showing a sense of guilt, whether real or imagined: a guilty conscience.
So, he was found free of guilt or guiltless in this case.
The definition of innocent says:
in·no·cent/ˈɪnəsənt/ Show Spelled [in-uh-suhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
3. not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.
4. not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun.
5. devoid (usually followed by of ): a law innocent of merit.
So by definition he was innocent of the crime. If you want to argue it more, take it up with Mr. Webster and his dictionary.
