A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented. That presumption is designed to place the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It effectively protects the accused against having to prove non-guilt.
In this particular circumstance LHO was not on trial. Therefore, technically, your question isn’t applicable to this case. An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report. Contrary to your earlier claim, this was a proper legal setting for this particular circumstance. A trial, and all of its procedures, would not have been a proper legal setting.
So many words and still not an answer to my question.
A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented. No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always. Even outside a court, when you accuse me of doing something wrong, you need to prove it either to law enforcement or just people around you. You can not go around accusing somebody of doing something wrong without proving it! If that wasn't the case, I could accuse you right now of robbing a bank, rape and whatever else comes to mind without consequence. Your reply would be - quite rightly so - that you didn't do any of it and that there is no evidence to support the claims. So, don't give me any of this theoretical crap!
In this particular circumstance LHO was not on trial. Therefore, technically, your question isn’t applicable to this case. An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report. So, basically what you are saying is that the WC could find an already dead Oswald guilty, without there ever having been a trial and that somehow means you can argue that he is guilty, despite the fact that he never had his day in court. Do you understand how insane that is?
It's in fact pathethic beyond belief. Oswald is being declared guilty by a commission, without ever having been on trial and despite the fact that the commission's opinion is in no way a legal finding of guilt, we, according to you and your ilk, still have to consider Oswald to somehow be proven guilty... Is that what you are really saying? When did this country become a third world banana republic?
An investigation is not a trial. The WC drew it’s conclusions based on the results of the investigation and stated their reasoning in the report. It is true that an investigation is not a trial. But, as a trial is the only setting where somebody can be found guilty or innocent by a jury of his peers, the conclusions of the commission can in no way be considered to be a legal verdict of guilt, right? So. why are you and your ilk still claiming that Oswald was proven to be guilty?
