The idea that the trial was secretive is bollocks. Some journalists attended every day of it they were just bound not to report on it until the supression order was lifted.
You don't seem to realise that the journalists and public were banned from even hearing the complainants evidence or the cross examination in both trials. (which was given on video, not even in the court).
They were banned from a reading a transcript.
I very much like to know if this is a regular occurrence in court trials these days.
The fact remains in this case there was no corroboration and no forensic evidence - just the sworn say so of one witness given in secret of events 22 years before.