But how do you produce "hard" evidence - unless there was a child - after alleged offences took place between 1966 and 1984?

There wasn't DNA at that time so it's his word against the women. Again he's in a position to pay for a good lawyer who will far outsmart a CPS legal aid lawyer. I'm not saying he's guilty but  you have to wonder why all these other cases have all come up with an "not guilty" result. I can't believe that all these women are making up stories in order to benefit financially.

In the end it's his/her word against each other, because men don't generally **bleep** or molest with an audience...