All of the BBC historical sex abuse cases enough for you? Not as if they've been low profile or anything.
Seems your knowledge of the criminal justice system is as comprehensive as your knowledge of football.
Or you're just quite thick (whoever you are) and don't understand the discussion. One person's word against another securing a conviction independent of witnesses and other evidence. No? Exactly. Pipe down.
You are correct in saying one persons word against another will not secure a conviction, there will need to be other 'evidence' to support the claims of one more than the other.
For example, in the Johnson case - if SAFC turned up and said he didn't turn up at the ground until 18:20, that would support the girl and possibly lead to a conviction
It doesn't necessarily have to be DNA or fingerprint evidence, it could just be one person having the more believable version of events with other circumstances showing that they are more likely to be telling the truth than the other.
I think people are misinterpreting what you are saying.
So circumstantial evidence is admissible in court now?