> Except in most of these cases the allegations aren't false, and harm was done. The harm isn't being done to the abusive men, but to the vulnerable women. The

> Except in most of these cases the allegations aren't false, and harm was done. The harm isn't being done to the abusive men, but to the vulnerable women. There was not only no evidence of any crime committed by the accused, there was evidence of the accusers lying. A jury, after being presented evidence by both sides, first found the accused not guilty. Later, a different jury, after being presented evidence by two sides, found the accusers guilty of lying. What makes you so confident that, after reading an article that is objectively one-sided, you have a better grasp of the situation than the jurors in question? This absolutely boggles my mind. Maybe they all have been found not guilty by another jury by now and I just glossed over that fact?