Having said what I have said about it and the cabal of moderators that don't believe in free speech or any sort of moderation tools without nuking entirety of posts by a person when they could censor out individual words. 

Aside from all of that, I do stand behind the principle of not placing guilt of any allegations that amounts to crimes outside of actual trial in court where the jury of the trial makes the verdict. Whenever the public at large is allowed to freely claim a person is guilty on just allegations alone, the accused is denied the right of a fair trial with impartial jury because they will have reached a conclusive opinion and it is about impossible to change the opinion of a person once they are fixed and committed to that viewpoint which is instant with nearly every person the moment the person hears or reads allegations of heinous crimes. 

Therefore I would not place verdict nor should anyone so as to not be tampering with the jury pool. This is the internet and any post on the internet is accessible everywhere that there is internet connection. 

Yet, as more news and sources comes out, the news does in fact look gloomy and even damning for Sir David Adjaye but it is important to hold off opinions. Tabloids and media are in business to sell controversy. There is no such thing as an unbiased media. Only exists in fiction. If there is a media unbiased, it is simply because they just are not interested in the news story to cover any of it at all. Therefore, what you will hear and read and edited and formatted to sell the controversy. Why? It makes them money. It sells to publish a vile allegation and bias the world. The media supports vigilantism and the "court of public opinion" phenomenon is a cultural institution of vigilantism that should be criminalized and prosecuted as with any other act of vigilante. 

The public, albeit has a freedom of speech and expression also has the right to shut up and not speak. 

Regarding the allegations and controversy, I agree the story does indicate some serious problems at Adjaye Associates. The allegations and additional opines from employees of the firm does not look good for Mr. Adjaye because the accusers and their supporter are trying the case in the general public and not the court where the case belongs because they want to destroy the man before any court even hears the case and that there would not be any unbiased juror left by that time. Adjaye's defense needs to play the game and defend or he's just going to be not only destroyed, the firm would be effectively destroyed, but he'll be convicted by a biased jury that all hates him in disgust because of the disgusting and vile nature of the crimes that he is being accused of committing. 

If he was to be convicted, it should be done by a jury that is impartial, unbiased, and not tainted by the media coverage. Then, it would be just and not just railroading someone to prison. No one regardless if they are guilty or not, should be railroaded in this kind of manner. In fact, the media should be statutorily gagged from coverage of any pre-trial stage legal matter from when a crime is reported and bein investigated to start of trial when jury is selected. Ideally, it should be this way and changes should be made to prevent pre-trial defamation and harm to the accused. In addition, it should be a crime to publicly accuse anyone of a felony with sentences equal to the sentences for the crimes committed. Such law would not apply to lawful reporting of a crime but using the tabloids/media to shove down the public's throat that "_________ committed _________ crimes." In other words, using the media to deny a person a fair jury trial.

I'm concerned that Mr. Adjaye would not get a fair trial if this goes to court. I am not saying he's innocent or guilty. From my observation, the media coverage makes him look guilty and that's by design. That is what they want to sell because it sells more and makes them more money than publishing anything that makes the person look innocent. Ultimately, for the media, it is about money not who is innocent or guilty. If it made them more money to present a story that projects Adjaye as innocent, they would. It's about money and what will be more financially gainful to them. I don't think Mr. Adjaye has sufficient money and clout to stop a smear campaign against him by the media.