Clearly, there is legal due process that must occur in this case. As such the defendants are afforded the absolute right of innocent until proven guilty. Testimony at the grand jury is not the same as testimony at trial. The legal process will wind its way to an outcome to culpability.

On the other hand, there is a clear sense of moral outrage that is separate and distinct from the legal proceedings, and people clearly have the right to express that outrage even in the absence of findings of fact. Even the allegations provoke this response, and it is valid and has merit.

So perhaps we should try to separate due process from our emotional reaction to the actions (or inaction) of the principals in this situation.

IMO there should be a profound and sustained outrage even at this allegation. It raises some fundamental questions about human nature, the tyranny of authority and money, etc... Simply the allegation of abuse should be evocative.

This is emotional response clearly should not be allowed to interfere with the legal findings in this case.

However, we get to feel the way we feel.