I'm "biased" (AKA have an opinion like every human being ever does about anything) because 99.9% of the time I'm pro-victim in these types of cases. I really don't care about being fair to accused rapists and sex offenders because the vast majority of the time nothing ever happens to them and they get away with it. These are the types of crimes where the victim is fighting a supremely lopsided and uphill battle the entire way, and that's just magnified when the person accused is rich and/or famous. And dancing around this notion that rich and famous people are dramatically more likely to have false rape/sexual assault charges leveled a them to the point that it inexplicably makes them exempt or separate or whatever from "common people" sexual assault is just silly. You can pretend like you're always evenhanded, but the reality is your history is packed with you ranting about sending people to gulags and the like. Obviously there's a ton of hyperbole in play, but there's been plenty of events and issues where you've obviously made up your mind about which side your on regardless of how it actually plays out, just like I'm doing here. And I'm not calling you out as doing anything wrong with that; it's what we all do. It's just hypocritical and ultimately pretty meaningless when people start calling out others for being "biased" when it's clear the reason they're doing so is because they don't like what's being accused of someone they admire or like. We're not journalists or a jury or anything along those lines; we can think whatever we want based on we know so far. I'm under zero obligation to be equally fair to Patrick Kane and his accuser.