I disagree with the proposition:
The allagation of trial by mob works both ways, both in defending him and finding him guilty.
There's an important difference.
Those arguing that he should be presumed to be innocent are being sensible and fair.
The mob who've already 'found him guilty' and condemned him are not.
We've just seen (in the Manchester case) a good illustration of why it's wrong to jump to conclusions before the facts are known.
Unfortunately, there will always be people quick to do so.
FL