I think inappropriate is the bare minimum- but it's also the best case I can see against him. Not only did none of the charges ever stick, the motives of the parents involved make it clear that, in at least those cases, they were cash grabs and nothing more.

In terms of the actual charges, if they had the goods, he'd have been done.

He's a case where the reasonable doubt regarding the charges against him is significant, IMO.

I'm not as versed as I once was, and my memory is fuzzy on a lot, so I can't speak with my chest out like I once could. But I'm still comfortable saying he didn't do the things that were alleged, and so I think the push back against anyone saying he's a pederast is valid.

Whether he was a pedophile is a different discussion, and I can see where it's reasonable to come to that conclusion. But that in itself is not a crime until/unless he acted on it, and the evidence for that is minuscule to the best of my recollection, to the degree that it's reasonable to conclude that he didn't do the things that were alleged.

I think the problem in a case like his is the lack of nuance.

His music means a whole hell of a lot to me, so it's dishonest of me to say that I don't have an immediate bias. I have nothing but warm memories of the man as a child. So I'm sure that plays a role in my thinking, but I think the objective facts- and lack thereof- still made it incredibly hard to conclude that he was guilty.