slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Jay, it would be original research to claim that someone is a "criminal" even though they haven't been convicted. Committing a crime is not just the apparent performance of a prohibited act, but is also (usually) connected to the actor's state of mind at the time, something a court rules on based on the available evidence. Wikipedia editors are not in a position to judge what a court would have ruled, no matter how obvious the case might seem (e.g. a public figure admitting they once stole something from a store).
We're not in a position to make the judgment ourselves, but we *are* in a position to summarize judgments other people have made. Courts are one obvious source, but there is no reason they must be the only one---if it were, in fact, widespread consensus that someone who was acquitted was actually guilty (perhaps they were acquitted on a technicality, and everyone agrees they actually committed the crime), we can cite a published source claiming that, which would not be original research.
-Mark