One thing I do feel I need to state with regards to the widespread outcry of “innocent until proven guilty” from the pro-Turner side of things:

This is not a courtroom. We are not lawyers.

We do not have access to a forensics lab, we cannot assemble a jury of peers, and no-one is remotely capable of holding this situation to the standard of law (and for frame of reference, I personally studied criminal law as part of a forensics degree).

But do you know who also has to act prior to definitive judicial conclusion? The police, those guys you keep saying should have been involved in the first place. Officers in the field will make judgements based on what evidence is visible to them each given moment and will act based upon their own personal conclusions from that evidence. How often do you hear officers arresting people on “suspicion” of a crime? It is not done casually.



We are in the same position here. We are collecting evidence that might not be up to the standard of a courtroom but which is still significant and relevant to the circumstance, and from it we must draw our conclusions.

These are not going to be of the same standard, no-one will be imprisoned or sentenced because of them, but they will be meaningful conclusions nonetheless and we will be able to form plans of action from them.

If we can agree that there is insufficient credible evidence available to suggest that Turner is guilty, then great we can go about our day carefree. If the opposite is true, then we need to make real decisions about how Turner’s content is approached and how we support it.



“Innocent until proven guilty” is a dodge tactic to avoid considering whatever facts and other evidence is set infront of you, an excuse to stop thinking and simply retain your pre-existing viewpoint.

