Motley, our opinions regarding the nature of our justice system are extremely important.  I did not comment on this particular case, I commented on our system exemplified by the subject case where a charge is levied likely without any physical evidence and in the end the reality of a crime or not a crime is determined only by who is believed.  I think objectively we or a jury can never know the truth in cases like this, the jury will most likely be voting their prejudices and personal world views.  You know a grand jury is a rubber stamp and an indictment via them carries no special validation.  Grand juries approve what 99 +% of indictments sought?  When it goes to trial, the trial jury will hear a person charge another with crimes having no physical reality in the current world.  Our practice of convicting under such circumstances is a morally dubious.  We cannot rule out malfeasance on the part of the accuser any more than we can rule out malfeasance on the part of the defendent.