Benefit of Doubt Vs Blind Trust

I will always believe in the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." A person can be suspected to have committed a crime but unless there is strong evidence pointing his involvement in the crime no one has the right to declare him as the criminal. A person's prior record of crimes and his characteristics can be taken in to account while putting him under suspicion but a person should not be cruisified based only on his previous history of crimes or his violent nature. So I perfectly understand Anupama not wanting to reach any conclusion without knowing the full truth as it is said a half baked truth is worse than a lie. I support her for giving benefit of doubt to Mr Shah. But what I don't understand her blind faith for him. How is she so sure that Mr Shah can't ever kill any person? She may have lived with him for 25 years but she is a very poor judge of his character when it comes to him. She has time and again faced his betrayals yet how can she has so much trust on him when his sons and parents also have suspicion. She believed he could never cheat. He cheated on her for 8 years. She believed he could never taken advantage of a young woman. He played with Mukku's emotion to gain power over her and her money. She has been wrong about his potential to harm people before then how come she has still so much faith on him? If she said that untile she finds out the whole truth she ain't going to point fingers at Mr Shah then I would have understood her but her downright rejection of the fact that Mr Shah is not capable of murder is beyond my understanding. Is her love for Mr Shah the best quality filter in the world? It filters Mr Shah's innumerable crimes everyday. I am so done with "Mr Shah Ghatiya Nahin Hain", "Woh Kisi Ka Jaan Nahin Le Sakta".Each time she confidently vows for Mr Shah's innocence, Mr Shah breaks her trust in the speed of light, yet she believes him to be the best thing to have happened to humanity. It's spiritual love I say.

Copying my comment from previous thread

Originally posted by: TheSunShine

I understand “half truth is worse than a whole lie” and “innocent until proven guilty”. You don’t have complete information so don’t come to a conclusion. I can even agree to that, that Anupamaa who has lived more than half her life with V does not want to believe he can be a criminal and he can try to deliberately endanger Anuj. Believing in the goodness of humankind is one thing but why the blind trust, when RavanRaj has each and every time broken her trust. She admonished Devika that V won’t have an EMA when she tried to tell Anu, and had to face the worst kind of betrayal a wife can have. Anuj showed his discomfort seeing Malvika getting close to V and expressed his concerns. Anupam again gave a character certificate for V that “woh galat ho sakte hai par ghatiya nahi”. V showed the level of his ghatiyapan by trying to use Malvika against Anuj and almost succeeding. I almost laughed when she said “aurat unki kamzori nahi hai” and we are shown his list of EMA, Kavya wasn’t even the first affair he had. This accident is the third time she has dialogues from the writer that sound like giving a character certificate, the adamant and blind trust that V cannot harm.

If you don’t want to draw a conclusion based on incomplete information, don’t come to a conclusion be it positive or negative. Let the police do their duty and investigate whether it’s a crime or accident, why is it that Anupamaa doesn’t want to even think about a possibility, she doesn’t know what conspired there. I hope she will inform the police whatever Ravanraj says and not listen to Leela Shah.