[CobrastanJorji]

> If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder.

That is not the case. You are describing "found innocent." "Not guilty" is just that: the absence of having been found guilty of a crime.

In other words, legally that person has not been found to be guilty of murder, but they also have not been found to have not committed murder. Nothing has been found one way or the other.

[KGIII]

Hmm...

In America, we find people not guilty. We also uphold the innocent until proven guilty thing. Perhaps your jurisdiction is different?

If they are not found guilty, the presumption is innocence.

[throwaway2048]

The presumption is innocence within the criminal justice system. It is not proof of innocence, nor a statement of innocence.

This has legal ramifications in the civil justice system (the one where somebody sues another), where the barrier of judgment is a "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

OJ Simpson escaped a murder charge with a verdict of not guilty, but was found in civil court to have committed the tort of "wrongful death", and had to pay a lot of money (civil court cannot jail you).

Does anyone really think OJ Simpson was actually innocent?

[CobrastanJorji]

I agree with you. I think we're simply going around in circles because English is weird.

People who have not yet been found guilty are presumed to be innocent. You are absolutely correct. However, the statement I disagreed with was different. It was "If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder." Legally, that person is presumed innocent, like everyone else, but being found not guilty grants no special "definitely didn't commit murder" status.