there are many ways to look at this...(as with everything)

first of all, in concept. I am definitely for "innocent til proven guilty"

it is an ideal...because there are many incidences where one can look guilty or be framed and before the electronic age, many innocent folks have been accused of crimes they did not commit.

usually, a person's character and actions will speak louder than their words and since we're all human. Human beings are programmed to form "opinions" first.

We all do that.

In this "Big Brother" era, where everything is tapped, taped, recorded, it makes it harder for the "innocent til proven guilty" to take effect because of the media thus opinions are definitely formed before the trial.

And I agree with the folks that stated that it goes deeper. Everything does.

But it is the whole picture...

Blag's actions have been louder than words. His actions have formed people's opinions about him already...

how would they prove for him to be innocent will be very hard...

IMHO, I think the only way for this case to be fair is to bring in people from other countries that have no access to our media. LOLOL

anyways, I know I didn't answer the question. My opinion is that innocent til proven guilty IS in my principle. But a person's actions will always affect my opinion..

and right now, Blag's actions aren't speaking well for him...that's just a fact...