"He was convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of one individual."
So you're effectively saying all pedos convicted of historical crimes shouldn't have been convicted. Because the circumstances here are similar to most other historical pedo cases. Unfortunately that's why a lot of pedos get off in these cases, becuase they're hard to prove. But in this case it was proven.
The prosecution needs to show that he committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt, and they did. And a second court upheld the conviction.
