1. It’s rude to the defendant.
2. It’s impossible to discuss the case without discussing forbidden subjects. You could say, the Brooklyn DA, in response to political pressures, prosecuted an Orthodox Jew in spite of their being no evidence other than the testimony of witness who admitted her goal was to discredit the Orthodox community, and that it was announced in advance of the trial by the secular media that he was guilty since it is well known all Orthodox Jews are guilty.
3. The most you could say is that she accused him of yichud and negiah but no one else saw anything to back it up.
4. There were a lot of similar case in the American south (Scottsboro Boys, for example, cf the novel “To kill a mockingbird”), and the case does have some resemblance to earlier cases involve Beilis, Frank, Dreyfus, etc. – except in all those cases the prosecution claimed to have evidence beyond a single witness who admitted having a grudge against the defendant (and the possibility of making big bucks on the deal).
5. Unlike Europe where the goyim accused us of killing their children and eating them, in America the charges typically come from frei Jews and are of a nature that the substance isn’t something discussed in YWN. These charges are increasingly widespread, and it is becoming a pattern that they have no physical evidence or corroborating witnesses – a pattern that strongly suggests what the goyim refer to as a “witch hunt” (cf. play “The crucbile”).
3.