I don't know if anyone's posted here since the judge started his summing up, but, I just heard that the medical evidence was 'neutral' from which I conclude that there's no evidence of the girl being raped as a 6 year old, as you'd expect some evidence of harm. In the absence of that, unless the girl has been very, very convincing, I can't see Levelle being convicted.
He seemed to put his denials across pretty well as far as I can make out, and, if he gets off, then as much as I detest the snivelling rag git, he'll have my sympathy for having been falsely accused. We'll be quick to put him down if he's convicted, so, it has to work both ways in my eyes.