At the most he is guilty only on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard of proof.
But that is not the criminal standard of proof, is it?
Guilty on the balance of probabilities can be expressed numerically as any number over 50 in 100.
Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt should perhaps be expressed numerically as any number over 75 in 100.
Do you really think the jury understood the difference?
I rather doubt it was even put to them, and if it had been most layman are not capable of such nuanced thinking.
Most people prefer to think he is guilty just to sleep easy at night.
I am saying it should never have come to trial.
I am saying it is a LOGICAL error. A complainant's uncorroborated testimony cannot amount to to proof beyond all reasonable doubt.
1 x 0 = 0
999,999 x 0 = 0
Even if there are many accusations, that in itself does not amount to evidence of the veracity of those accusations.
Probably, if you tried all those accusations SEPARATELY, they would not amount to proof BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.
If they fail individually, then they cannot be bundled up together. The law used to give the accused such protection, but no longer. Because of this paedo hysteria, it was adjudged "compassionate" to make it easier for the complainant to succeed, presumably because the victim could only be an alpha male that the matriarchy wanted to be revenged upon.
The floodgates of witch-hunting have been opened. Who else will be next? Rupert Murdoch?