Numbers, let me also add that while OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" it is my belief that his actions with respect to the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Brown fit none of the definitions of "innocent" that you provided.
You are entitled to your opinion, and even to your own definitions.
One small disagreement I had with Grinder involved his use of the word "framed" (in the "colloquial" legal sense). He stated that if the police (or prosecutor) believed AK and RS guilty, and then proceeded to manufacture evidence against them, the police could not, by definition, be framing them, because by definition, one can only frame an innocent person.
But I pointed out that by the Italian Constitution and the European Convention and ECHR case law, one is innocent until a final conviction. Therefore, by his definition, they could be framed by the manufacture of evidence. He refused to agree to that. I also suggested a better terminology for the police (and prosecution) behavior in manufacturing, withholding, and misinterpreting evidence (commonly termed "framing") would be the more legalistic "official misconduct". No dice on that either, for Grinder.
Grinder also believed that one cannot coin and define words, that only dictionary definitions are meaningful, although I pointed out scientists do that all the time. I should have added that, at least in the US, every generation of teenagers coins and defines words.
So you, contrary to Grinder's position, apparently do not agree with the use of a dictionary definition that I provided from a US dictionary, which states that one meaning of "innocent" is "found legally not guilty".
I suggest that another way of looking at this is to insert the phrase "wrongfully found" before the "not guilty" or the colloquial "innocent".
You don't have to agree with what I write, but remember this reality:
Simpson was found not guilty of the murder of Brown and Goldman and may not be tried in a criminal court again on those charges. He was found liable in a civil trial for their wrongful deaths. And these legal facts are true even though one may consider that the jury wrongfully found that Simpson was not guilty in the criminal case. The "legal innocence" must not be confused with "moral innocence" or "actual innocence" or "civil liability" or "rightful blame" in my definitions, and Webster's Dictionary definition 1c is the colloquial "legal innocence" being equivalent to a court judgment of "not guilty".
And those facts have nothing to do with the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who were wrongfully arrested and detained and suffered official misconduct at the hands of the Italian authorities, actions in violation of Italian law and Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Sollecito has applied for compensation for wrongful detention and a judgment on his application may be made soon by the Italian judicial system. Do you believe that the perceptions you allege that Sollecito was not truly fully acquitted by the CSC, that the judges believed he may be guilty, but just didn't have enough evidence to convict him, are shared by the Italian judicial system, and that this may affect his case for compensation? Are you aware of any such reports in the Italian media - again, I exclude PGP blogs or PGP fake wikis?
I strongly disagree with this effort to claim that Knox and Sollecito are not innocent; it is clear that there was no credible evidence against them.
And I have never maintained that any of the acquittals of Knox and Sollecito were or should have been under CPP Article 530.1. In my opinion based on my reading of Italian legal sources, that paragraph is an unnecessary holdover from the inquisitional system that Italy used to have.
), but you are wrong about the rest. 