If the guy is guilty, he outta hang.
However, I read the article and the information here is sparse. An interview was conducted, was there a medical examination? Is there physical evidence of molestation, or just the little girl's word?
On most cirmes, I feel confident that when law enforcement and district attorneys bring a charge, they probably have the right man. But the hysteria of many social workers and child pschologists to make cases like this has led to many innocent people being charged on very flimsy evidence, with not a few convictions. I've seen videotapes of such interviews, and they can be very leading and suggestive, to the point of using dirty words, almost role-playing a molestation, and then asking the child if this is what "X" did to them. Kids will often tell adults what they think is expected of them, and repeated sessions like this (often with parents excluded) can lead to a false "suggested memory." Think about all of the bogus "recovered memory" cases you've seen over the years.
There has been a heinous degree of irresponsibility on the part of child advocates in this area, to the point where I think that child-abuse charges could often be brought against them.
I'd like to know more about the track record of the Pittsburgh D.A. in cases like this.
I'd also like to know more about the histery of this guy that's been charged.
Like I said, if he's guilty, he oughtta hang.
