If you would read the judge's writing you'd notice he got off on a technicality: statute of limitations. No-one not named Laskar disputes he took that money. And he was, exactly as I said up post, charged with theft of the $50k.
Whether you get off on the statute of limitations or not does not matter, what matters is that there is no conviction, so you're simply wrong but for some reason you can't seem to move past that bit.
The rest of the case was not decided on its merits so you can't make statements like the ones you made and not everybody that is charged with something is guilty of it.
You will notice the very careful wording of that document including bits such as 'alleged', 'purportedly' and 'can'.
In other words, had the case gone forward there is always a chance that there would be a conviction, but since it did not we will simply never know.
But the judge leaves ample room for a case that would have been decided in the defendants favor on other grounds than the one chosen, which is that they simply waited too long.
And now it is up to you to decide why they waited that long.
Also, you keep claiming that he stole $50k, but the judge - rightly, in my opinion - writes that that's not what he did. Let me cite the article you linked:
"The question before the Court is what constituted the alleged thefts: the
taking of the chips or the taking of Georgia Tech's money? Defendant's technology was built from
from microchips, not bank notes.
What he purportedly
stole from Georgia Tech was the microchips
he (through Georgia Tech) ordered from CMP.
Those chips rightfully belonged to Georgia Tech because Georgia Tech ultimately, paid for them.
However, the University's payment for the merchandise is a collateral consequence of the Defendant's alleged theft, and a measure of the value of the goods Defendant allegedly stole. The Payment is not, however the 'theft' that allegedly occurred in this case."
In laymans terms that reads: The court decides that the theft if there was one was the chips, not the money and that the date when that happened is now so far in the past that the case is dead crucially, without deciding whether or not a theft actually took place.
Since this whole case seems to have started with jealousy and people smearing the defendant it is particularly ugly that you continue to write blatant un-truths.
It's quite strange how people are both arguing that the prosecutor is blind to justice (he was falsely accused, because he was not convicted, this is wrong!) but also not blind when counting the particulars of associated circumstances. I'm reminded of Aaron Hernandez being acquitted of murders, but convicted of the murder of a witness to cover up the deaths. At some point you have to rationalize that the law is not always correct and that goes both ways (for the innocent and the guilty). I never found the "they weren't convicted" argument much more weighty than the "they were convicted". He was probably guilty, they just couldn't get their case together.
> He was probably guilty, they just couldn't get their case together.
That's why there is such a thing as a statute of limitations. If you can't get your case together in an X amount of time that is the equivalent of not having a case.
So, given that he wasn't convicted, not guilty. You can't say that he probably was guilty and not say that about every other person that ever got acquitted, which is nonsense. So that claim simply does not hold up.
I agree with you that the law (or rather, justice) isn't correct and that this goes both ways. So if you are already of that opinion then why negate it after that by saying that he probably was guilty?
I can and do, which is not nonsense applied to an infinite amount of theoretical past cases. That's not relevant.
Cases aren't assembled just to get a conviction on 20 specific items (http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/06-for-th...). US justice system is not about truth or even justice, but an amalgamation of concerns and subject to the irregularities of reality (if key witness X has a heart attack and dies, a case Y can fall apart).
I'm not subject to these concerns and limitations (which are both historical and societal, without being strictly law-related). He was probably guilty (in the moral, not legal sense if that's confusing anyone), based on what I have read and seen. That's distinctly different from saying he did something wrong or illegal or should be in jail or that it would be a public good to ignore.
He got off on statute of limitations.