Well, I would have shot him for the child porn.
The rest of the stuff was just her claims about what he said, and some testimony from a psychiatrist-for-hire.
I would guess you didn't, as I suggested, read both newspaper articles before opining?
There is a lot Of “rest of stuff’ that she did not make up - which backs up her story = and even then, everything didn't make it in the papers. This is a local story for me - in a rural area. People who had involvements with the man corroborate ‘stuff’ and people in small communities like this - word gets around. (Another hint: I worked for the local paper over 20 years. It's possible I know more about this than you do.)