Therefore if you want the best flight safety system, the quid pro quo is that you must assume those involved are innocent until proven guilty.
This attitude, while pretty common in today's ultra liberal, ultra PC world, is simply wrong and shows a lack of understand of what justice is.
Yes, when a defendant enters a court of law, the "LAW" must treat him with a presumption of innocence and, generally speaking, it is the state which must prove him guilty to some degree of certainty. The defendant need not prove his innocence since it is assumed.
But that's about where the presumption of innocence ends, at the courthouse door.
For example, before the sheriff comes to arrest me, I want him to be darn sure that I'm guilty. Not only the Sheriff, but also the D.A., and everyone else who has looked at the situation. I sure don't want to be cuffed and led away because some sheriff thinks I'm innocent.
And, on a forum such as this one, anyone can decide that the person in question is innocent or, if they wish, they may look at the facts, rumors, news stories, and assorted BS and decide that the guy is guilty as sin.
Furthermore, in a place which is supposed to support a free exchange of ideas, you may argue the other side but there is no righteousness in prohibiting a determination of guilt before any trial takes place. In that respect, a forum poster is no different from the D.A. and Sheriff.
Feel free to disagree but you have no right to say someone "must assume those involved are innocent until proven guilty". Doing so exhibits an ignorance of what is just and what is reasonable in a civilized society.