The presumption of innocence is used to defned individuals from government overreach. It is not a logical law.
You got confused. We are still looking at whether the presumption of innocence makes sense outside of a courtroom.
Let us imagine something.
Abe and Bea are in a locked room with the Carat diamond. Suddenly, the lights go out, and when the lights come back on, the C diamond is gone!
Obviously, A and B are both suspects. A says B did it, B says A did it.
Both cases go to trial and A gets acquitted because there is a reasonable doubt that B did it.
B gets acquitted because there is a reasonable doubt that A did it.
Now, by your logic, the CD was never actually stolen. But we know it was.
Using real logic, we know that one of them stole it but that we have no evidence to make a clear decision about what happened.
To relate this back to Kavanaugh, we do not have enough evidence to determine his guilt, but we also do not have enough evidence to determine that he did not sexually assault anyone.
Your hypothetical scenario is not relatable.
Whatever. Kavanaugh's on the bench. If you believe he shouldn't be there, then go ahead and believe he shouldn't be there. I'll go ahead and continue to believe he belongs there.