He's been cleared by the jury but not because he is necessarily innocent, but because the prosecution's evidence was not sufficient to secure a conviction.
So, whilst the outcome was the right one in law, I don't think either party is going to feel justice has been done as the person who claims to have been assaulted will feel let down and the defendant has the less than glowing comments about the not guilty verdict.
"The defendant was acquitted on the evidence, and rightly so, but it is important that the complainant, who is clearly scarred by an experience, should understand that the jury verdicts does not necessarily involve rejection of his account of a sexual encounter or encounters with the defendant."
"It is a statement that the prosecution have failed to make the jury sure that abuse of the type alleged occurred during the period covered by the indictment and in particular before the complainant's 16th birthday, now more than 18 years ago."
So, in a way, it's almost like saying that yes, the incident probably did occur but there's not enough evidence for a conviction. That actor may find his career is still blighted.
The right time would have been to complain at the time, but of course, we're then back to the problems of making a complaint / bringing charges in those days and for an under-aged person too.
********************************************************************************
My body is an old warehouse full of declining storage, my mind is a dusty old reference library, strictly for members and archaeologists only
r9)c!s!BMe7Sm0zi!~~_7.JPG "electric*mayhem*band"){kind=avatar}
7ryMJjyBMgowKMZdQ~~_7.JPG "cee-dee"){kind=avatar}
