Thanks for you considered response Numbers. I believe I mentioned somewhere earlier in the discussion that both Grinder and I were approaching this discussion from an American perspective and I've always assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you are not American. My main reason for believing so is your vast expertise on European law. If true, that may be the source of some of the confusion between us. Although I would caution you to never underestimate the stupidity of the American public, I think it safe to say that the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is pretty well-ingrained in our culture and generally speaking Americans understand the difference between "She didn't do it" and "She may have of done it, but there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Americans understand that a "not guilty" verdict does not mean "factual innocence" and I am confident to say that Americans typically use "innocence" colloquially to mean "factual innocence" not "legal innocence". Again, the statement "OJ was found not guilty of the murder of Nicole Brown but he isn't innocent" would cause little if any confusion in the US. It is frustrating to me that what I perceive to be such a simple concept generated so much blowback from you. I still don't understand if you believe my use of "innocent" is incorrect legally or colloquially or what. As best I can tell you think it is correct legally but wrong colloquially which doesn't make much sense to me.
My understanding is that US courts avoid using "innocent" not because of the many definitions of the word but because "factual innocence" is logically incompatible with the notion of a court deciding a criminal case using a beyond a reasonable doubt standard (which still leaves room for some doubt). Vixen drives me crazy with her reliance on "judicial truths". That concept has no meaning to me. As I've understood your explanation of the history, the same reasoning was behind the addition of paragraph 2 since "the accused did not commit it" (which reads to me as "innocent", i.e. "factual innocence") is not compatible with new adversarial/BARD system. I'm not sure I've made it well, but my point is that the difference in language between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 and even the rationale behind the addition of paragraph 2 are all consistent with the distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty" that I naturally make. Reading through posts in Continuation Part 14 I have the strong impression that many other posters also made the same connection even if it was the result of a misperception. I'd also note that even back then you tried to correct any misperception.
I understand some of the confusion. Remember that in the US (and elsewhere) the term "presumption of innocence" is used to describe the status of a defendant (called an "accused" in Italy) and that it is the obligation of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the criminal charge. Thus, if a not guilty verdict is delivered, in a sense the "presumption of innocence" sticks with the defendant, and many would say - in my US experience, and I am an American - that the person was "found innocent".
Trials, however, are human processes, and juries and even judges sometimes wrongfully acquit defendants who have indeed committed the crime; such defendants are thus, as you point out, not really innocent. But unless it is very clear that the acquittal was wrongful, there is no way for an outside observer - one who didn't witness the crime, or have other special knowledge, for example - to know that the acquittal was wrongful.
So that outside observer would, based on the not guilty verdict, and lacking knowledge of the "true" facts, would rightfully assume that the former defendant was indeed innocent. In the US, that wrongfully acquitted person cannot legally be retried on the same criminal charges. However, the acquitted person can be tried in civil court and found liable for damages, if there are facts that can be used to show that with the lesser standard of proof in a civil trial - typically, preponderance of the evidence - that person committed or was responsible for the acts which harmed someone.
It's important to understand, however, that verdicts in criminal trials are generally only of two kinds*, whether in the US or Italy: "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". There are NO verdicts that are "Not Guilty, but somehow Guilty".
You are, it seems to me, mistaking the concept of "Guilty only if guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt" with the inquisitional concept of "Guilty unless non-guilt is shown beyond a reasonable doubt". ____
* Since I made the above broad statement that there are only two verdicts, I must add that there are exceptions:
In Italy, cases often run past the statute of limitations (which in Italy continues to run during the trial), so there is a verdict of dismissal because the charge is extinguished. The dismissal is considered an acquittal in its effects, although the dismissed person may indeed have committed the criminal act. In Italy, many persons charged with crimes that have statutes of limitations (murder does not) seek to have their trial run as long as possible to take advantage of this dismissal being an effective acquittal.
In the US, there is the possible exception with the verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity"; some jurisdictions have changed this verdict to "guilty but mentally ill" to help avoid premature release into society of an individual considered dangerous.
____
I should perhaps add that my alleged expertise in Italian law, the European Convention, and European Court of Human Rights case-law is due solely to reading. In particular, the ECHR publishes extensive summaries of its case-law, and the case judgments are available online in the HUDOC database.
