My understanding, but I would defer to a competent attorney, is that a defendant is innocent unless proven guilty; the presumption is not that the accused is not guilty until proven guilty; there is the presumption that the accused is "innocent," not a presumption that he/she is"not guilty". In the Coffin vs United States Case, the Supreme Court stated,
"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law."
Unfortunately, when mud is thrown at an individual, it sticks. Many (most?) people do not believe in the innocence of an individual if he is charged with a crime, even if not convicted. Case in point, Bix's arrest. Bixophiles will give Bix the benefit of the doubt in the sense that they are not certain that he committed the alleged offense. But they are not certain that he did not commit it. To me, the presumption of innocence is not just a legal phrase, but a living principle.To me, an individual who is not proven guilty is innocent, not only in the legal sense, but also in fact.
I don't know how many of you have seen the posting of Sarah Ivens's daughter in
http://www.network54.com/Forum/27140/message/1249675435/ (I edited the message to remove the email address of Marianne Beveridge; it took me several attempts)
You will see that Sarah Ivens was visually impaired. I may write some more about this whole business in the future. But at this point, I will ask the question, "How is it possible for a 5-year old, visually impaired little gilr to be one mile from her home?"