It was the Huffington Post's headline immediately after the verdict.
They were relying on the fact that the standard of proven guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt". So an acquittal does not on its own assert a person's innocence.
This may be true. But the presumption of innocence also never leaves the defendant unless proven guilty. Hence people are obliged to use words like "alleged assailant" when describing a person who has been arrested for a crime. Once in court, they become the defendant. And if found not guilty, they are entitled to the protections the law provides.
So asserting z as being "not innocent" is contrary to the law's presumption. A person is indeed presumed innocent if found not guilty.
The presumption of innocence is "the golden thread" of Anglo-Saxon law.
HP chose to ignore this principle and is still trying to inflame tensions on its site by pretending there has been some miscarriage of justice.
It's a garden-variety tragedy. Not a criminal situation.
| 