"What were they thinking, allowing a twelve year old to spend time alone with an adult male? "

I can't believe somebody even thought that, let alone made it public.

All academic anyway. There's a paradox at work regarding the eventual verdict, in that a verdict of innocent can only be meaningless. Here's why...

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Roy Harper were guilty of the nine counts he's been charged with. After all these years, the likelihood of any substantial evidence existing is slim. That there could be any material evidence is next to impossible. That there were any eyeball witnesses is highly unlikely. So, as with many of these cases, it'll come down to one person's story versus another's.

Juries are discouraged from pronouncing guilty verdicts if there is even a shred of doubt in their minds as to whether the evidence is convincing. The likelihood of Roy Harper receiving a guilty verdict is extremely slim, even if he is guilty.

So, to state the obvious, a verdict of innocent could, of course, mean he's innocent. But if there's next to no chance he could be convicted *even if he were guilty as hell*, then, ergo, for thinking people, a verdict of innocent must be meaningless.