> People, who work with Mr Hutchins investigating malware, have said "it looks like the US justice system has made a huge mistake".
Who on earth let this article go out with that in it?
Who on earth let this article go out with that in it?
> It's just poor writing. Either you paraphrase what people are saying, or you cite someone specific.
I'd call him a Hero for that.
Let us also not forget that these are allegations against him and until he is tried and found guilty, he is still an innocent person with only said good deeds to his name. If that changes, so be it, but let's not get ahead of ourselves until justice has ran its course.
'Beyond a reasonable doubt' doesn't have an agreed upon numerical probability AFAIK, but let's say it's 95%.
I can say, sure, don't put people in jail until it's 95% certain they're a bad guy, but if I think it's 75% likely they're a bad guy, I'm still gonna think they're probably not the most lawful person ever.
(I have zero evidence either way w.r.t to this case specifically, I'm not saying he's guilty, but I just don't think it's as black and white as you make it sound. If someone is accused of murdering children, and there is some evidence pointing to that, but not enough to reach 'beyond a reasonable doubt' so he is found not guilty, it's quite sane to refuse to hire him as a babysitter.)
> It is thought to be named after a mythological creature.
This article has some interesting framing issues. Aside from being simply incorrect in this case.