As reported in the Cambridge (UK) Evening News, September 2, 2004, page 17:
A Jehovah's Witness accused of raping a 13-year-old has been acquitted by a jury.
Jon Hines had described the rape allegations as "farcical".
Mr Hines, formerly of Kingston Close, Huntingdon, and now living in Lowestoft, said his 20-year marriage had ended in divorce mainly because he had been unable to make love to his wife for several years as a result of prostrate problems.
The 61-year-old had denied three charges of raping the girl while she was visiting his Lowestoft home in 2002.
Although one of the guidelines for posting on this forum is not to add the same comment more than once, I am opening a subsequent thread to the newspaper report on the trial as his acquittal should receive no less publicity than the original allegations.
In my opinion, this trial is a cautionary note to the much criticised two-witness rule. As it happens, the accused in this particular case had convincing evidence he was incapable of the rape with which he was charged. But if he had no such evidence and it was simply his word against hers, would it have been right that he live the remainder of his life with this slur on his character simply on the word of one other.