And exactly what justice do you think a mob will impose? Lynching? Prison?
I don't know, but based on what I've seen on here it will be justice without waiting for any amount of actual evidence.
It seems attacking the accusers is the chosen stance of many. I mean if you wish to discuss mob justice.
"Attacking accusers" is the strawman argument you have created to make convicting/punishing someone without any real evidence sound more palatable.
Most people aren't "attacking" the accusers. Skepticism of the allegations (numerous and consistent as they are) is good, if uncomfortable. It's what allows the justice system to hand out punishment with any sort of credibility. I do understand that proving these cases is generally very difficult. You yourself have said that the accusers lawyer is really good at his job, and he has said that he will prove Watson's guilt. So why is it such an issue waiting for him to do just that?
