[slimed]

This is exactly the problem. You want to determine guilt based on what you believe is generally true about the world. Not about the facts of the case at hand.

The negative ramifications of this mindset for the accused are hard to overstate.

[ZeroGravitas]

How is that not equally true of anyone who makes the opposite determination?

We have no information besides a third party report of an accusation and a retraction.

My understanding of the world is that false accusations are rarer than many people think and false retractions are more common.

There's negative ramifications that are hard to overstate to that as well.

[slimed]

Have you considered that it is not your job to make a determination?

If someone shares a story like this you politely believe them and move on, comfortable in the knowledge that it may or may not be true.

"Your understanding" is purely anecdotal.

[wnoise]

> you politely believe them and move on, comfortable in the knowledge that it may or may not be true.

You have a very different understanding of the word "believe" than I do.

[slimed]

Someone may be speaking honestly but still be incorrect.

When I believe someone I am making a judgement that they are not deceiving me, not that they are infallible.

[manfredo]

It isn't different from the opposite determination in that sense. But the burden if proof is on the accuser (or at least it was, until recently), as expecting people proving a negative is often not feasible.