All the evidence points that way too: the fact that the Vogue shoot was centered around the 13-14 year old age range, the fact that he was working through her mother. Confession + evidence = not quite indisputable, but good enough for 99% of people, especially when those people are just the ordinary public and not a jury.

That's why some are looking at you strangely over this. When you try to counter BOTH elements, it really seems like you have a weird kind of agenda. Not saying that's the case, but it is strange how insistent you are at arguing the possibility of his innocence. Do we KNOW for sure what happened? Of course not. But the public never really know the absolute truth of any court case that becomes in/famous through the media. Since we are people, that doesn't stop us from discussing as if we did. So yeah, this is no exception, especially since it's not even a particularly ambiguous case.