If you're basing your entire opinion of anything based on the fact that a "jury of his peers found him guilty," I know two things about you. You've never sat on a court martial or a jury, and two, you have very little practical knowledge of how the justice system works. If you had you would understand that many things - facts, relevant facts - are withheld from the jury. I know this - I learned this - because I once was part of the jury on a court martial in which the member was found guilty, and only after we rendered our verdict and sentence recommendation, were we allowed to be made aware of things which the defense and the prosecution argued about allowing us to know. Why does this matter? Well, we may have still found the member guilty, but I believe the punishment we meted out would have been significantly moderated.
I hope you're never falsely accused of a crime. I hope you're never up against a DA or prosecutor that has an ax to grind. I hope that you're never in the wrong place at the wrong time or in the wrong circumstances. If you are, and you think that everything will be ok because the jury will just magically get it right since it's part of our constitutionally guaranteed set of rights, you had better reinterpret your threat environment, because juries absolutely can and do get it wrong. All. The. Time. Yes, a jury may have found him guilty. That is a fact. Whether or not he actually is guilty of the crime he was charged with is a separate question.