[sokoloff]

> yet MJ was deemed guilty even after proven innocent.

He was not “proven innocent”; that’s not how the legal system works. He was “found not guilty” which is a much lower standard than “proven innocent”.

(OJ Simpson was similarly found not guilty; do you think he was also “proven innocent”?)

[applfanboysbgon]

I am aware. Being pedantically correct would ruin the intended rhetorical point of reversing the standard phrase, though. "Deemed guilty even after found not guilty" just doesn't really work. I even knew I was going to get a reply about OJ when I wrote it. Miscarriages of justice certainly do happen, but still we should broadly presume innocence until proven guilty, and none of the evidence or testimony in MJ's case came close to being as compelling as OJ's, nor was there any indication that the jury was making a political statement by acquitting.

[appletrotter]

> Being pedantically correct would ruin the intended rhetorical point of reversing the standard phrase, though

Maybe it's a sign