There are many evidentiary questions that might not be clear until there is an appeal (since many of them would have been decided other than in a open court, e.g., in discussions with the judge). The record on appeal, and appeal briefs, will be public documents.
If there was evidence that she was coached by a social worker, that is evidence that should have been admitted, and perhaps transcripts and the social workers notes should have been in evidence (N.B.: most “recovered memory” cases turned out to be hoaxes). If there was evidence that she had a revenge motive based on events not discussed at trial, that raises a serious fairness issue. Were her medical records ever discussed or available? Did the defendant ask for a change of venue? Why the delay in filing a complain? Were there witnesses to them being alone together? Were there witnesses to discuss if the “counseling” was held in a private place, or somewhere where yichud was observed? Was “yichud” explained to the jury? For most frum Jews, if they were alone in a locked room with a bed, something that should have been easy to find witnesses for, his cases collapses. Where the antics of persons other than the defendant (perhaps forgiveable if they were unaware of how American courts work, but still quite illegal) known to the jury, and should they have triggered a mistrial? Did the pretrial statements of advocacy groups and the District Attorney create a hostile atmosphere which would require a change in venue. Were there any Hasidic Jews on the jury, or in the jury pool? Did the court allow questioning on religious prejudice in the voir dire? Was there physical evidence that was inadmissable?
If, as the press reports, the only evidence was the girls testimony, that is a very weak case since under American law guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It could be there is other evidence. It could also be that the anti-frum groups in the “politically correct” establishment in New York were “railroading” an innocent person.
It should be remembered that most non-hareidi Jews deeply dispise Satmar for political reasons, and that the New York liberal establishment is increasingly angry at Orthodox Jews (of all types) for being vocal opponents of the “politically correct” positions on social issues. The fact they we see involvement by these groups, such as a public relations campaign by “victim’s rights” groups, should raise serious questions of fairness.