It's too vague. For instance: Where is the girl in all of this? What does she claim (in court) that he did? What is considered adultery here?
The girl, Rose Ball Henninges, was in Australia in '06, at the time of the trial. As Celia pointed out, the accuser was Mrs. Russell, of course. If you just replace every occurrence of Reverend Billy Graham with Pastor Charles Russell, and replace Mrs. Graham with Mrs. Russell, you have the story almost exactly as it has come down to us in court documents and newspaper reports about the trial. In '06 it would have taken quite a while by ship to get Rose into court, and I really doubt that Mrs Russell wanted her there that badly.
One reason I repeated the story here was to get a better idea of whether people now see CTR as potentially more guilty, now that so many more cases of paedophilia and child molestation have been uncovered in the courts. A hundred years ago, of course, this accusation wasn't as common in the courts. I'd need to look at more cases to get a better idea of the likelihood that accusations such as this were more likely to come up in divorce cases 100 years ago. Today, I also believe it is more likely for a judge to consider such accusations as false if divorce is the issue.
I'm wondering how many here might think that apologists for Russell have seemed a bit too "generous" in this matter.
Gamaliel