If not guilty doesn't mean innocent...

Remove this Banner Ad

Bit of a difference between a full 'not guilty' and a 'not enough evidence' ruling.

Lets wait for the case, it is positive that an independent court is ruling on this, as it should have been at the start. Won't say whether they are guilty or not, not sure anyone knows. Lets wait for the case. There is no rush, lets get the decision right.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I'm in a kind of "not guilty" limbo right now.
 
It's true. Plenty of innocent people get found guilty for stuff.


So if Essendon get found guilty, then you're within your rights to walk around completely deluded and deny they did it. I'd recommend and big cardboard sign with handwritten ramblings on it, held above your head on a street corner in the city somewhere.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
It's true. Plenty of innocent people get found guilty for stuff.


So if Essendon get found guilty, then you're within your rights to walk around completely deluded and deny they did it. I'd recommend and big cardboard sign with handwritten ramblings on it, held above your head on a street corner in the city somewhere.
Click to expand...
Same applies for those carrying on as if the players are drug cheats despite a not guilty finding. As you said, deluded.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
It's true. Plenty of innocent people get found guilty for stuff.


So if Essendon get found guilty, then you're within your rights to walk around completely deluded and deny they did it. I'd recommend and big cardboard sign with handwritten ramblings on it, held above your head on a street corner in the city somewhere.
Click to expand...

Or at the least, jump on their Facebook page again
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
Bit of a difference between a full 'not guilty' and a 'not enough evidence' ruling.

Lets wait for the case, it is positive that an independent court is ruling on this, as it should have been at the start. Won't say whether they are guilty or not, not sure anyone knows. Lets wait for the case. There is no rush, lets get the decision right.
Click to expand...
It was a not guilty finding. Not guilty findings are always due to a lack of evidence. The only reason you're not in prison for murder right now is because there's no evidence to prove you committed the crime.
 
GuzzLG said:
It was a not guilty finding. Not guilty findings are always due to a lack of evidence. The only reason you're not in prison for murder right now is because there's no evidence to prove you committed the crime.
Click to expand...

No it was a lack of evidence....at a non independent tribunal.

How about we wait to the real trial? This case should always have been at an independent tribunal not at an AFL sanctioned one.

For the last time what is the issue with taking time and getting the decision right one ay or another?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GuzzLG said:
Same applies for those carrying on as if the players are drug cheats despite a not guilty finding. As you said, deluded.
Click to expand...

Sort of. Kinda.

Hanging your hat on two words is foolish really. In this case, it's actually three words: 'not comfortably satisfied'. Categorically believing that someone is innocent based purely on the fact that 3 people couldn't be comfortably satisfied of their guilt, is madness.

You need to look deeper into the findings and the reasons given in order to develop an opinion on whether they're actually innocent or not. And in this case, we've had 2 years worth of information to form our views.

Same for 'guilty'. Or 'comfortably satisfied'. Just because a tribunal were to be comfortably satisfied they did it, wouldn't mean I would immediately and staunchly believe they did it.


The reason I'm convinced they're drug cheats has nothing to do with the actual words uttered by the tribunal in their verdict.
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
No it was a lack of evidence....at a non independent tribunal.

How about we wait to the real trial? This case should always have been at an independent tribunal not at an AFL sanctioned one.

For the last time what is the issue with taking time and getting the decision right one ay or another?
Click to expand...
Yeah, They rushed the whole jfk thing and got the wrong man

There is a lesson there for all of us
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
Sort of. Kinda.

Hanging your hat on two words is foolish really. In this case, it's actually three words words 'not comfortably satisfied'. Categorically believing that someone is innocent based purely on the fact that 3 people couldn't be comfortably satisfied of their guilt, is madness.

You need to look deeper into the findings and the reasons given in order to develop an opinion on whether they're actually innocent or not.

Same for 'guilty'. Or 'comfortably satisfied'. Just because a tribunal were to be comfortably satisfied they did it, wouldn't mean I would immediately and staunchly believe they did it.


The reason I'm convinced they're drug cheats has nothing to do with the actual words uttered by the tribunal in their verdict.
Click to expand...
Agree. So there's no real point in any of these proceedings.
 
yebiga said:
Yeah, They rushed the whole jfk thing and got the wrong man

There is a lesson there for all of us
Click to expand...

Also a lesson for Essendon supporters over how 'unfair' it is for WADA to appeal. Well actually no it isn't 'unfair'. It is about finding out what happened, whatever that be.
 
GuzzLG said:
It follows that guilty doesn't mean not innocent.

Whatever the next year brings is really quite irrelevant as WADA can never prove any player's lack of innocence.
Click to expand...

They are only 'not guilty' because they lost their documentation.
As convenient as that might be for Essendon, I seriously doubt that will hold up in the CAS.
And.. If it does, that is a green light for all athletes around the world.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
And the fact that there's no circumstantial evidence and accusation to suggest he murdered anyone.
Click to expand...
Sure there is.

Person was murdered on planet earth. He was on planet earth at that time. That's a circumstance. It is evidence pointing towards rather than against him being the murderer. Not very probative, not enough to find him guilty. The only reason he is not guilty is due to a lack of evidence.
 
GuzzLG said:
Agree. So there's no real point in any of these proceedings.
Click to expand...

In Your View.

In others' views they want to know what happened, and exactly what happened. An INDEPENDENT tribunal allows this. We don't need AFL tribunals giving decisions on these matters.

Wait for the case, you may be exonerated, who knows. There is ZERO rush.
 
GuzzLG said:
Sure there is.

Person was murdered on planet earth. He was on planet earth at that time. That's a circumstance. It is evidence pointing towards rather than against him being the murderer. Not very probative, not enough to find him guilty. The only reason he is not guilty is due to a lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

Oh dear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top