A mate of mine who is a detective, told me that DNA evidence is not as cut and dried like a CSI or Cold Case episode would have you believe.
It is more unlikely than likely that you actually get a usable sample, meaning that a lot of cases can not rely on the utility of it.
When it is available, it is therefore obviously a powerful tool in tying an offender to a crime.
Court hearings don't go to criminal trials frivously, so I would imagine there would be more than the word of a Dad with fraudulent history versus Stewart.
There may well be other witnesses, as well as other physical trauma evidence consistent with the complaints.
It will be interesting nonetheless -perhaps, only the girl in question knows what happened for certain (if Stewart was too blind).
For this reason, all our presumptions of guilt or innocence are just that - unfounded presumptions.
If it is proved in a court of law that he did it - then he deserves to be punished.
