Furthermore, even if, for the sake of argument, this HAD been actually decided in Manson's favor and he was thoroughly cleared of all charges and it did turn out that all his accusers were lying through their teeth (which is not

He was dropped by his label, and din't tour in four years, so... Yeah, it nearly destroyed his career. If something hasn't been proven, you can't say he's guilty either. That's a double sword edge here.

be made easier for victims to speak up earlier and that people like Manson shouldn't be allowed to use their power and influence to get away with criminal and indecent acts for such long periods of time.

not a declaration that Manson never did anything wrong and we should now immediately apologize to him and spurn the victims for having falsely accused him. If there's anything we should "learn" from this case, it's that it should

to the victims for being unable to continue the prosecution. It's true that Manson will not be officially convicted of any crime (in this particular case, that is), but this is a failure to drive the prosecution home, it's

allegations could not be proven "beyond the shadow of a doubt". That does not mean that Manson was found innocent. Huge amounts of physical and testimonial evidence were still produced, such that the judge effectively apologized

evidence" is not the entire story and it's also not a good-faith understanding of what that part of the story is. The case was dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired, first of all, and it was found that the