Does anyone think ... SPOILER alert

Does anyone think that Sgt. Johnson (Sean Connery) was the child molester? They never come right out and say it, but I think at first subtly and then not so subtly it appearsthere can be no other explanation. I didn't look closely at the posts or messages, but it didn't seem that this has been raised. So I'll go ahead and state the bases for my theory:

In the very beginning when Johnson is staking out the school he sees the 12 year old girl depart alone. Later, it is he who discovers her whereabouts in the woods after she is raped. A little too convenient I thought. Then when he goes to comfort her she starts screaming. Of course, she might do that because she would be afraid of any older man who approaches her thinking she would be raped again. But why couldn't she react that way because Johnson raped her and came back for more. When he tried to interrogate her in the ambulance she reacts similarly to him. Also the scene in the woods is very cryptic. I agree with another poster who stated that it looked like he was gaining some sort of sexual arrousal out of comforting the young girl. There is a particularly telling shot where you see both of them in fram from slightly afar and Connery is pretty much laying on top of her stroking her hair. Also he reacts with contrived outrage when the woman comes into the station hours after the rape. He would have seen the young girl depart alone long before this woman. His outrage at her was in my opinion an impromptu interview to see if she got a good look at the man accompanying the girl. I think he just wanted to make sure this witness could not identify him. Then of course during the interrogation of Baxter, Connery appears to be fantasizing about the girl. Lumet keeps cutting to shots of him looking warmly (yet provocatively) at the girl and stroking her cheek. I think he either had to find a patsy (Baxter) to avoid suspicion or subconsciously he couldn't accept that he did what he did so he had to conince himself that someone else (again, Baxter) did it. And then to seal it in his own mind he had to kill Baxter. He probably realized he needed to be punished but could not be punished for his more heinous sin so he killed Baxter to appear the vigilante as opposed to the pedophile he really was. And of course, the scene he has with long suffering wife, played by Vivien Merchant, indicates such a contempt for women. She's reaching out to him as any devoted wife would. He not only rejects her sympathy; he spews venom at her and all he says is that she's not beautiful and never has been. My impression was he was attracted to naive, female children because they did not have the sense and intelligence as his mature wife would. He could pretty much 'lay down the law' with these poor kids and have his way with them as he pleased.

Furthermore, there was no real evidence that Baxter was guilty. He certainly was no more of a suspect than any other man about London who did not have an alibi for his whereabouts for his afternoon-early evening. Indeed, it probably could have been verified that he was at the cinema as he stated. I think Trevor Howard cast grave doubt on Baxter's guilt in the follow-up interview he had with Johnson when he showed that Baxter had no prior record in that district or any other.

Let me know what you think.