Lets see people are accused of being Defenders of Weberman.
Then they are accused of being in “denial”.
Then someone brings in the women of Satmar.
Lets take them one by one.
Even in secular law the presumption of innocence is considered a foundational principle of Justice.
For a person to be convicted legally guilt must proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In other words a reasonable case must not be made to prove the person is innocent.
Innocence is assumed, guilt must be proven.
It seems to me that each poster has reiterated the fact they do not know if Weberman is guilty or innocent.
They have merely asked how a rasonable case can be constructed that he is “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”.
No proof what so ever has been offered that he is guilty.
Some circumstantial evidence has been brought forth that he did things that may indicate that he was guilty.
Each point raised has been ansewered.
Still those daring to question the conviction of a man based on one girls word.
A case that all have basically acknowledged is He said/she said.
Are being accused of being in Denial?
The only Denial is being exhibited by those certain of a mans guilt when they have no evidence what so ever.
As for the Satmar Women.
The vast majority believe he is 100% innocent.