[roel_v]

Well yeah legal system, but the burden of proof for the public opinion is different. If a rapist is acquitted because of a legal procedural error, did he not do it? Of course not, he's still a rapist. He's not send to jail for it though. Those are different things. 'innocent until proven guilty' is a purely legal axiom, not more. Not being proven guilty by the standards set by law doesn't make someone not guilty.

The OP was, as I understood it, not making a legal claim, but merely stating his opinion on whether or not what he is accused of did or did not happen. Proof on this position can come from both sides, but claiming that it must not have happened because the government is after him does not pass Ockham's razor.

[drivebyacct2]

The legal system works that way for a reason and in a perfect world, the court of public opinion would work similarly. It's an all too common occurence to find out that all sorts of allegations of crimes turn out to be false and that the accused is permanently, materially harmed due to the allegation.

I have to say, high profile person embarassing a lot of people... I'm a little more skeptical than usual. I'm not dumb enough to give him a free pass just because of who he is, but I'm sure as hell not defaulting to assuming guilt.