That's your prerogative.
But may I suggest that you concede your failure to be persuaded of Cain's innocence is based solely on your gut instinct, because you have zero evidence that the contemporary process that exonerated him was insufficent to determine the true facts, or that the process was corrupt?
This is what I mean as I've been using the term "celebrity crime" mentality on this thread. It's become the social norm -- flakked by the nihlist Left -- for people to think they can understand and evaluate the evidence in a case -- which evidence, by the way, they have never seen and may only have LSM reports on which to rely -- better than the fact-finders (juries and judges) and the appellate courts that actually heard the witnesses, saw the physical evidence, heard the comprehensive legal arguments (not bungled Cliff Notes in the press).
Hence, people who have never served on a jury of a murder trial, have not heard one witness' testimony or read one brief, etc. sit around looking at their navel and saying "I think Casey Anthony is guilty/innocent," "I think Amanda Knox is innocent because she's good-looking," "I think so-and-so should/should not get the death pentaly because of something I read in the NYT."
That's just embarrassing on its face.
Sure, have opinions about whatever you want. But at least concede all you're going on is a gut feeling based on extremely limited and probably highly biased information.
I mean: exactly no one writing about these cases in the medio or blabbering about them on tv have, um, read the briefs and reviewed the evidence that was before, say, the United States Supreme Court when it made its ruling.
I see nothing in the Cain situation that is out of the ordinary in regard to these types of cases, nor do I see anything that calls into question the process that addressed the complaint at the time and which completely exonerated Mr. Cain.
I do see some complainers who took the money and ran, rather than taking their chances in court. And I do know that this is often the route companies take once someone self-identifies as a false complainer or a hypersensitive ninny.
This isn't a court room. It's a presidential race. I pointed to clues that Herman Cain was reckless and arrogant. I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I made my case, and it looks like a lot of people were either 1.) concerned that my editorial rang true and attacked me, usually in a non-serious way, or 2.) Agreed with me.
Welcome to the First Amendment, baby!