Yes. That is correct. That is how it should be. But the DA did not then turn around and say, "Marilyn Manson is an innocent victim and every woman who accused him is lying through their teeth." So why is that your conclusion?

The DA did not look at who the accused is. That he is a scandalous rocker. No, he looked at the evidence. He looked at the testimony. That's what it should look like.

Manson cannot formally be ascribed the label of rapist without turning that into a celebration of how once again the justice system has proven inadequate to handle cases like this.

This is precisely the funniest thing. Smithline admitted two years ago that the main accuser is making things up. And it changed nothing. Only now did the DA come and say he was shutting down the whole circus.

I once again have to wonder what about this case is so delightful to you that you can't express any skepticism of Manson at all or any sympathy for his accusers. We can acknowledge that no legal consequence has been achieved and

in a manner that credits Manson with being a paragon at all costs and that dismisses any possibility that there are legitimate victims whom the legal system is not adequately equipped to help.

First of all, Smithline recanted her allegations two years ago. That leaves a dozen others at least. Second, I should probably ask you to cite your source, but it doesn't change the fact that you are bent on understanding this