When an alleged crime is reported and brought to trial many years later, it could really have happened, or the alleged victim could have a false memory or could simply be lying. There is no way to be sure, but the best method we have is presentation of whatever evidence exists, including the claims of both parties, to a jury.

In the Harper case, that was done, the jury couldn't agree on a verdict, and the prosecution decided that there is insufficient evidence to make a retrial worthwhile. That looks to me like a vindication of the jury system and of "innocent until proven guilty".

If he really was guilty and has got away with it, that's unfortunate. If he really was innocent and has had horrendous trouble and expense before reaching this point, that also unfortunate.

In either case, shit happens (as they say).