I was saying ...

I don't think juries should have time limits, no.

But ... take the charge about an assault at an event in Portsmouth.  Surely, a name as big as this making an appearance would warrant a story in a local newspaper?  Surely hundreds of others must have attended?   Yet, the police could find nothing - no evidence at all that he was ever there.

He may be guilty of some, or even all, the offences.  Only he knows the full story.  My point is historic claims where there is no corroborative evidence are problematic.   I understand other victims have come forward during the trial.  Some may be telling the truth.  All may be telling the truth.  But no one can say for sure, unless non-victims can support the claims, eg an assault was witnessed, a parent or friend was confided in at the time, etc.