From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 12:47:20 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 10:21:11 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:    
   > > Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The   
   verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the    
   > > prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had   
   murdered two people.   
   > Another one of Corbett's lies. Verdicts don't include the jury's review of   
   the prosecution's case or WHY the jury came to the decision that it did.    
   > Verdicts only declare the defendant guilty or not guilty.    
      
   If the jury believes the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt,   
   they are obligated to render a verdict of not   
   guilty. That is all that can be concluded from a not guilty verdict. In some   
   cases, the jury might actually believe the accused   
   was innocent, but in others the not guilty verdict only indicates the   
   prosecution has failed to prove its case. There are cases   
   where the jury believes it is more likely than not the accused committed the   
   crime(s) they are charged with but there was   
   enough doubt that they rule not guilty. Without polling individual jurors,   
   there is no way to know which mindset led them to   
   a not guilty verdict. A not guilty verdict doesn't mean they jury thought the   
   accused was innocent. It only indicates the jury   
   had doubts about his guilt.     
      
   The conflicting verdicts in the OJ case can be attributed to the different   
   levels of proof required for a criminal trial as opposed   
   to civil trial. It might also be a reflection on the skill of the lawyers in   
   the two cases.   
      
   > In keeping with that, this verdict said no such thing.    
   >    
   > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rurKd569xRw   
      
   The verdict only indicates that the jury were unanimous in their opinion that   
   the prosecution had not proven OJ's guilty beyond   
   a reasonable doubt. Individual jurors might have had different levels of   
   doubt. Some might have actually believed he was    
   innocent. Some might have been completely undecided whether or not OJ had   
   committed. Some might have thought he was   
   guilty but not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)