It is easy to say but hard to follow. It needs tact.
How can we presumed someone innocent until proven guilty. Well, we just assume that when no evident is presented, one remains innocent. What about the one used to do thing that is under consideration? That history does not define a person, particularly the unfavourable deed. This continuity does not translate into current doing. When we hear that argument of “used to do that”, we need to be conscious that a fallacy is committed.
Because we are not there, we do not know the truth, yet the truth is not important until the truth is shown by evident. The important thing is to retain the innocence for one on our side, because other side has the supporter already.
When things happen, we yarn for support. That is what we can give, when the truth cannot be verified.