The court found him guilty, therefore he is guilty. Jurisprudence is a lot of really bad liberal philosophy, so I’m not going to get into the semantics of “guilty”.
Did he actually rape the women who alleged that he did? I’ve really no idea. I didn’t hear the testimonies, don’t know what the exact allegations were, and I don’t know what evidence was presented. It doesn’t really matter either. The court found him guilty, and that’s that.
Sometimes the application and interpretation of law reflects current norms, and he really was the “victim of PC culture wars”. It doesn’t matter. The court found him guilty. He’s guilty.
If evidence were the primary requirement of a court room, cases would be conducted by scientists searching for “objective truth”, and not by skilled rhetoricians manipulating jurors with language and ambiguity, where the result of any individual case can depend on the abilities of the lawyers, the whims and thinking skills of the jurors, and the influence of the judge.
In a bygone era, maybe it would have been all shrugged off, the accusors dismissed as hysterical harridans, and that they were really consenting to, or even instigating sex, because they thought it would advance their careers—something that was the ‘norm’ for Weinstein—until the culture, social norms, and expectations changed, and he became a “victim” of a changing world, and he could no longer sexual harass, manipulate, and likely rape women.