> 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?

Criminal trials use "beyond all reasonable doubt" as their burden of proof. A criminal trial does not clear the accused of any charges. The jury may well think "he probably did it, and I would not leave him alone with my daughter, but the prosecution failed to prove that he did it beyond all reasonable doubt". Juries do not clear someone.

Guilty people are found not guilty, by design, every day.

I changed the language I used in my comment.

Maybe it's now deserving of a response.