The emotional reaction in these situations is to look for the nearest tree and some rope, or find a handy can of gasoline and a Zippo, or a nice, sharp knife and a torniquet (if you didn't want to actually kill the person).
However, rules of evidence are there to protect you, when you just happen to look like a guy on a CCTV camera killing a convenience-store clerk, for example, and at times they do mean that guilty people go free, which is especially awful when it involves the abuse of children.
As this instance involves more recent events, and obviously isn't false-memories induced by therapy, then, statistically speaking, the guy is probably guilty. Children rarely lie about such a thing. But rarely is another way of saying they sometimes do.
You can't put someone in jail because it's statistically likely he is guilty, or because the alleged victims show distress when someone is let off. The words are 'beyond reasonable doubt'. And they have to, obviously, apply to everyone, even those accused of the most henious crimes, otherwise they are meaningless and the judicial system becomes even more of a joke than it is.
Of course, some people are of the opinion that some crimes are so bad that perhaps different standards of evidence should apply. They are completely entitled to that opinion, but the fact that rules of evidence need to be as they are is amply illustrated by the fact that, for example, more people have had the death penalty overturned (i.e., they didn't do it) than have been executed since judicial killing stared in the USA again.
The crimes committed against people are awful, no one will argue that. But this does not justify the state removing neccesary safeguards and becoming guilty of commiting the crime of unjustly convicting people for crimes they did not commit. Ever thought about what it must be like to be unjustly labelled a pedophile?
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...