The man's life has been ruined, even with a not guilty verdict.
I can't imagine the mental anguish and pain him and his family have gone through.
A substantial storyline won't make up for that.
agree with you viv, was only saying last night that in these matters either all parties should be named or no names whatsoever until a verdict has been reached.
Was she a god-daughter or a neighbour's child? All these youngsters will now be pointed at.
Emmie asked what the child would have to gain by lying. One disturbing aspect of this case was that on the 2nd or 3rd day of the trial, it was revealed that one of the first thing's the child's mother asked of the police was how she would go about selling the story to the media. When questioned on this, she replied that she had decided not to go down that route. Perhaps the media would only be interested in paying for the story would be with a guilty verdict. Just a theory, but perhaps that was the motivation behind all of this.
She can't be named - ever. Since 1976 each and every alleged victim of a sexual offence is protected by law giving them lifetime anonymity, even if the accused is found not guilty.
I'm still unsure whether that means he really didn't do it or there just wasn't enough evidence to prove he did. The girl definitely shouldn't be named. She may have been telling the truth. But he shouldn't have been named either, until and unless he was found guilty.