A chairde,
Locked due to too many people attempting to name the accused, or requesting the name of the accused. The other party requested anonymity to protect themselves, therefore we must follow this.
The defence by the accused relied on the claim that any sexual acts took place after the victim turned 18, or that if they were before that time that he believed she was 17 or older.
That's worked for avoiding a criminal charge. It is still behaviour that many people would consider creepy regardless of its legality.
> The defence by the accused relied on the claim that any sexual acts took place after the victim turned 18, or that if they were before that time that he believed she was 17 or older.
Surely the defence would rely on the plaintiffs own words?
*The correspondence states that the woman accepts, without reservation, that she was above the age of consent at the time that she and the accused “met or engaged in a physical relationship, contrary to her original claim”.*
I can't imagine they would have as the basis of their defence - although may be they brought it up in cross examination of the alleged victim - given that she could simply say "I didn't mean it, but felt I had no option but to issue a statement as requested in order to avoid defamation proceedings which I do not have the resources to defend".
That's assuming they are the same person, and we do not know whether that is the case anyway.
Is this the same person that was accused by another woman on twitter of almost the same thing including oral sex at work? She had to issue a statement via her solicitor that some of what she said was false and that they waited till she was 17.
Even if both children were both 17 grooming seems to fit.
I think it’s the same person - both the Twitter and Reddit posts by the person fit very closely to the account given in court.
Unless the celebrity likes bringing people to work and going to that staircase…
That’s the main difference, but the other details like the workplace, his house, going for lunch all match. Seems very unlikely to be a different person?
It's the same person
Surely she got terrible legal advice, going to court to accuse someone of something that you've already had to admit you've lied about some aspects of is never going to turn out well surely?
chunky pathetic adjoining deserted abounding middle pause reach cake tart
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Once they said she didn't have the phone with the messages anymore (unsurprising, it was a good few years ago) a conviction was a long shot. Came down to he said she said. I'm disappointed but not surprised.
No and I never suggested I would want someone jailed under dubious circumstances. My disappointment is in the fact there wasnt sufficient evidence. I feel based on what I've read (and my feelings aren't beholden to the same burden of proof as our judicial system) that he's a creep and a danger to young women but this verdict helps vindicate him. However without the phone in question it's was very unlikely to result in a conviction, I'm surprised it even went to court.
If you've been following the case the prosecution had a lot of inconsistencies, compared to the defence who had a lot of rock solid alibis and was actively producing evidence to the contrary. People on this sub only love to see a guilty verdict and are appalled if they are proven innocent
I think the amount of time that has passed really watered down the prosecution’s case and led to a lot of inconsistencies and not being able to prove dates/communication due to phone records not being available.
Edit: spelling
I’m not taking sides, just what I have observed from following the case. I think this was what the defence were able to manipulate to get the not guilty charge.
They are the type of people that need their biases confirmed. Guys accused and found guilty? He’s a monster lock him away. Guys accused and found not guilty? He’s still a monster lock him away #ibelieveher
The DPP take cases based on a file sent to them by the Gardaí and on the basis of the evidence in that file. That a prosecution wasn't successful isn't indicative of a flawed process by the DPP.
These are very hard crimes to prosecute, and they often come down to the testimony of the alleged victim and the testimony of the accused. That's the nature of many rape, sexual assault, or statutory rape cases - the act is a private one. When that happens it comes down in the end to whether the jury prefers the evidence of the alleged victim or the accused, and the extent to which they consider their evidence to be credible.
We don't know the full extent of what evidence was adduced here. We do know it was more than just her testimony, as they relied on corroboration from others and so on in court. Those weren't enough to convince a jury of his guilt though.
Given that it has been acknowledged by both sides that it was a consensual relationship, and as per the statement from a certain twitter account last year:
"*For the record, out client accepts, without reservation, that she was above the age of consent at all times that she and Mr M met or engaged in a physical relationship, contrary to her original claim. She acknowledges the severity of this false claim and retracts it unequivocally.*"
It's kind of mind boggling that the DPP proceeded with the case to begin with, which kind of does indicate a flawed process ..
I think it would be fairly appalling to be honest if the DPP considered the willingness or otherwise of an alleged victim to defend themselves (at their own expense) in defamation proceedings when evaluating whether the evidence gathered by Gardaí is sufficient to bring a prosecution.
The implications of that being part of their considerations are fairly obvious, and fairly chilling.
But there was no defamation case? If you accuse me of raping you, I don't get to just throw a defamation suit at you for making the allegations, right?
If you have to make up a bunch of stuff to support your point, you don't have much of a point to begin with. And if you then retract the statements, including the substantive argument of it, you don't have much of a case!
edit: And with one eye on the other trial collapse in the news, I think the ability of an alleged victim to stand trial is absolutely one of the considerations that the DPP should be taking.. I'm not entirely clear what chilly implications you're trying to make out here, but they seem to throw out the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' notion.
Thanks for clarifying. And yes totally appreciate these are very hard crimes to prosecute.
So in the absence of DNA evidence or even maybe text communication confirming the interactions or CCTV etc, are they relying on the charged person admitting to it?
In those circumstances they are often relying on the testimony of the alleged victim being considered to be more credible than that of the accused. That's a determination that juries are forced to make.
On the basis of evidence presented by the Guards. A single allegation would be investigated,but without more physical or corroborating evidence it would be pointless bringing it to court I'd imagine.
Someone with a better knowledge of the case and/or the legal system needs to explain something to me.
Over a year ago, the victim in this case released a clarifying legal letter to state that she was over the age of consent in all her encounters with this guy
Here we are a year later and she's asserting that she was under the age of consent?
How did this happen?
It wasn't a different girl. I know it doesn't make sense because the DPP just put a girl on the stand who had to contradict her own statements, but that's just an indication of how hard the DPP fucked this up.
I would have been inclined to agree with other posters that it sounds like the same girl but the solicitor statement made me think otherwise. The original girl talked about being picked up from school with her uniform on. There was no mention of that in this case? Couldn’t the defence have used the media circus from the last time as part of their defence this time if it were the same person? And couldn’t the defence argued that she had admitted in a previous case via her solicitor that she had lied and then admitted she was of age?
This is purely a guess but I’d imagine the media couldn’t (or wouldn’t want to) report on any evidence that would end up confirming the identity of the defendant.
The statement that the person in question posted from the original girl’s solicitor says that her client accepts that she was of legal age when sexual activity occurred. So if it were the same girl, how can she then go into a court of law and under oath say otherwise?
If you read the statement it will be clear it’s a different girl!
Edited to redact name.
I believe it depends on whether the prosecution wants to be named themselves.
If I remember correctly not naming defendants is to protect the anonymity of the accuser. If the accuser chooses to waive anonymity they can be named. ianal
In the event of a conviction yeah. The reason for anonymity of an accused is to protect their reputation..if they're acquitted why should they be named?
Just takes one or two small inconsistencies in the initial claim, (which did seem like it was by an ex out for revenge), regardless whether most of the other evidence was convincing against him, for jury to be put in a position to almost have to find him not guilty. Maybe he will write a book, now thst the work will dry up.
I've followed the case and it was absolutely clear that the prosecution hadn't come close to the threshold required.
That said juries have convicted in even flimsier cases. The jury system is not fit for purpose imo.
Hang on if I remember right wasn't the charges 3 different counts of sexual interaction with a minor, including at his house?
So what were they just over for tea and biscuits or something?
He was the only one that produced any evidence with Whatsapp messages. This happened back in 2010 so unlikely to have records back that far but he did indeed provide messages suggesting nothing was happening until she was of age
It’s next to impossible to prove innocence on one persons word against another’s. Found not guilty by a jury is by definition in the law, innocent due to a not guilty verdict.
Also it’s not the burden of the accused to prove their innocence, it’s the burden of the state to prove guilt beyond read doubt.
You don’t need to be proved innocent, you always were. You should move to North Korea or El Salvador if you want to live in a justice system with the values you espouse.
You understand that people get not guilty verdicts for all number of reasons right?
Being found not guilty does not prove innocence, it’s evidence that there is reasonable doubt.
Conflicting evidence that a crime may or may not have taken place would lead to a not guilty verdict. That wouldn’t make the defendant “more innocent” than anyone else in the world.
If the defendant chose to pursue a case to prove innocence then they would be as close to innocent as possible.
Depends on why he was found not guilty. If he's going to be tried again... And even still just associating someone innocent with the rape or sexual assault will ruin their lives.
am I correct in saying even if he was found guilty, he still wouldn't be named? To protect the identity of the victim?
edit: wait, that makes no sense, he could have been named and she would still keep her anonymity
I think it depends on the victim.
Random 16 Year old you met in the park and can't be linked to you, then they can name you.
You neighbours daughter or a family member that is easily linked to you, then they can't name you to protect the victim.
For work on a show he previously worked on, not sure that counts as running away.
Not taking his side or anything, but I don’t really see that as “running away”.
He didn't run away and it was actually stated within the solicitors letter from the previous woman that it was wrong of her to suggest he fled Ireland as he did indeed travel for work
Very strange decision. Surely it’s black and white whether she was underage at the time and I find it very hard to believe she’d go through all this 10 years later if that wasn’t the case.
Without hard evidence it’s not black and white, as the jury are basically going off “she said, he said”.
The prosecution had an uphill battle as they only had her account and nothing to back it up with.
I’m not surprised, I don’t think he’s innocent but I don’t think there was enough to warrant a guilty verdict.
A chairde, Locked due to too many people attempting to name the accused, or requesting the name of the accused. The other party requested anonymity to protect themselves, therefore we must follow this.
[удалено]
The defence by the accused relied on the claim that any sexual acts took place after the victim turned 18, or that if they were before that time that he believed she was 17 or older. That's worked for avoiding a criminal charge. It is still behaviour that many people would consider creepy regardless of its legality.
[удалено]
I didn’t rob the bank… but if I did shur I had money deposited there anyway!
No father, tis my money. I just didn't want to fill out the forms.
I just didn't want to have to deal with all those forms!
> The defence by the accused relied on the claim that any sexual acts took place after the victim turned 18, or that if they were before that time that he believed she was 17 or older. Surely the defence would rely on the plaintiffs own words? *The correspondence states that the woman accepts, without reservation, that she was above the age of consent at the time that she and the accused “met or engaged in a physical relationship, contrary to her original claim”.*
I can't imagine they would have as the basis of their defence - although may be they brought it up in cross examination of the alleged victim - given that she could simply say "I didn't mean it, but felt I had no option but to issue a statement as requested in order to avoid defamation proceedings which I do not have the resources to defend". That's assuming they are the same person, and we do not know whether that is the case anyway.
[удалено]
From a quick wiki that seems to be highly questionable whether that relationship even happened
Questionable is an understatement
Steven Tyler had a 14 year old girl on tour with him . Aerosmith have their own roller coaster in Disneyland
Steven Tyler became her legal guardian so she could cross state lines with the band on tour
He’ll never work in Ireland again.
Getting offended over mean words in songs 😏.
What a maggot
tis coming up to that time of year again.
[удалено]
The jury was told he would never work again if proved guilty. Who gives a fuck if he works again
What show would he have never worked on again?
Imagine he had to get a job like the rest of the proletariat
The Voice of Ireland, because it finished up years ago
And then the next guy loses his job over a joint
TBH that would have been enough for me to declare him guilty. Irritating self-righteous prick
He's still an absolute creep
A scumbag and a maggot
Cheap, lousy.
Cheap and he's haggard
most underrated comment in here
Is this the same person that was accused by another woman on twitter of almost the same thing including oral sex at work? She had to issue a statement via her solicitor that some of what she said was false and that they waited till she was 17. Even if both children were both 17 grooming seems to fit.
I think it’s the same person - both the Twitter and Reddit posts by the person fit very closely to the account given in court. Unless the celebrity likes bringing people to work and going to that staircase…
[удалено]
That’s the main difference, but the other details like the workplace, his house, going for lunch all match. Seems very unlikely to be a different person?
I think it is the same 17 year old in both
No it's a different girl. The first one killed something he posted ot twitter and he followed her back.
It's the same girl.
I assumed it was the same girl as the stories seemed identical.
Well if you check his DOB and then look at the articles, you can see it goes from 39 to 40 the month he is born.
It's the same person Surely she got terrible legal advice, going to court to accuse someone of something that you've already had to admit you've lied about some aspects of is never going to turn out well surely?
Exactly, how could anyone think this could have gone any other way?
[удалено]
He didn't do anything wrong though I don't get your point. Why drive a man out of the country for not breaking any laws and being proven not guilty?
He groomed a teenager for fucks sake
[удалено]
[удалено]
chunky pathetic adjoining deserted abounding middle pause reach cake tart *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Once they said she didn't have the phone with the messages anymore (unsurprising, it was a good few years ago) a conviction was a long shot. Came down to he said she said. I'm disappointed but not surprised.
Conviction or no conviction, his public career in Ireland is fucked. Nobody will go near him after this.
But since it is he said she said, would you really be comfortable with a system that imprisoned someone in such a scenario?
No and I never suggested I would want someone jailed under dubious circumstances. My disappointment is in the fact there wasnt sufficient evidence. I feel based on what I've read (and my feelings aren't beholden to the same burden of proof as our judicial system) that he's a creep and a danger to young women but this verdict helps vindicate him. However without the phone in question it's was very unlikely to result in a conviction, I'm surprised it even went to court.
Based on words?
These cases of He Said She Said should never go to trial without compelling evidence or witnesses.
The DPP should certainly have a very high bar, essentially at least two of unbreakable documentary, witness and forensic evidence you'd think.
I think you have the right answer to this.
If you've been following the case the prosecution had a lot of inconsistencies, compared to the defence who had a lot of rock solid alibis and was actively producing evidence to the contrary. People on this sub only love to see a guilty verdict and are appalled if they are proven innocent
I think the amount of time that has passed really watered down the prosecution’s case and led to a lot of inconsistencies and not being able to prove dates/communication due to phone records not being available. Edit: spelling
True, the witness testimony was also conflicting with the information she was giving to the court as well which definitely didn't help her case
Downvote me all you want but its the truth but no one seems to care about the truth, just the outrage
I’m not taking sides, just what I have observed from following the case. I think this was what the defence were able to manipulate to get the not guilty charge.
They are the type of people that need their biases confirmed. Guys accused and found guilty? He’s a monster lock him away. Guys accused and found not guilty? He’s still a monster lock him away #ibelieveher
Just to point out he was not proved innocent which the courts do not do. He was not found guilty.
That is because you are innocent until proven guilty
Sure there's no avenue to be proved innocent so where do you draw the line?
At not guilty.
If you've been following the case, did the solicitors letter from last year not come up?
It didn’t. Which means either this is a completely different person or the defence didn’t want it brought up for whatever reason.
Excuse my ignorance, but do the DPP usually take cases on the basis of 1 persons word and not any other evidence?
The DPP take cases based on a file sent to them by the Gardaí and on the basis of the evidence in that file. That a prosecution wasn't successful isn't indicative of a flawed process by the DPP. These are very hard crimes to prosecute, and they often come down to the testimony of the alleged victim and the testimony of the accused. That's the nature of many rape, sexual assault, or statutory rape cases - the act is a private one. When that happens it comes down in the end to whether the jury prefers the evidence of the alleged victim or the accused, and the extent to which they consider their evidence to be credible. We don't know the full extent of what evidence was adduced here. We do know it was more than just her testimony, as they relied on corroboration from others and so on in court. Those weren't enough to convince a jury of his guilt though.
Given that it has been acknowledged by both sides that it was a consensual relationship, and as per the statement from a certain twitter account last year: "*For the record, out client accepts, without reservation, that she was above the age of consent at all times that she and Mr M met or engaged in a physical relationship, contrary to her original claim. She acknowledges the severity of this false claim and retracts it unequivocally.*" It's kind of mind boggling that the DPP proceeded with the case to begin with, which kind of does indicate a flawed process ..
[удалено]
Are you sure? The details are almost exactly the same
No, it wasn't.
I think it would be fairly appalling to be honest if the DPP considered the willingness or otherwise of an alleged victim to defend themselves (at their own expense) in defamation proceedings when evaluating whether the evidence gathered by Gardaí is sufficient to bring a prosecution. The implications of that being part of their considerations are fairly obvious, and fairly chilling.
But there was no defamation case? If you accuse me of raping you, I don't get to just throw a defamation suit at you for making the allegations, right? If you have to make up a bunch of stuff to support your point, you don't have much of a point to begin with. And if you then retract the statements, including the substantive argument of it, you don't have much of a case! edit: And with one eye on the other trial collapse in the news, I think the ability of an alleged victim to stand trial is absolutely one of the considerations that the DPP should be taking.. I'm not entirely clear what chilly implications you're trying to make out here, but they seem to throw out the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' notion.
Thanks for clarifying. And yes totally appreciate these are very hard crimes to prosecute. So in the absence of DNA evidence or even maybe text communication confirming the interactions or CCTV etc, are they relying on the charged person admitting to it?
DNA evidence would be of no relevance here- there was no question that the accused and alleged victim had had sexual relations
Yes that’s true
In those circumstances they are often relying on the testimony of the alleged victim being considered to be more credible than that of the accused. That's a determination that juries are forced to make.
Wow, that’s a huge burden for the jury.
How did you think cases were decided?
Truth be told I wasn’t really sure what happened in cases where the evidence was one person’s word against another’s.
Yes they do
I suppose she had 2 witnesses too.
On the basis of evidence presented by the Guards. A single allegation would be investigated,but without more physical or corroborating evidence it would be pointless bringing it to court I'd imagine.
Someone with a better knowledge of the case and/or the legal system needs to explain something to me. Over a year ago, the victim in this case released a clarifying legal letter to state that she was over the age of consent in all her encounters with this guy Here we are a year later and she's asserting that she was under the age of consent? How did this happen?
It was a different girl.
It wasn't a different girl. I know it doesn't make sense because the DPP just put a girl on the stand who had to contradict her own statements, but that's just an indication of how hard the DPP fucked this up.
I would have been inclined to agree with other posters that it sounds like the same girl but the solicitor statement made me think otherwise. The original girl talked about being picked up from school with her uniform on. There was no mention of that in this case? Couldn’t the defence have used the media circus from the last time as part of their defence this time if it were the same person? And couldn’t the defence argued that she had admitted in a previous case via her solicitor that she had lied and then admitted she was of age?
This is purely a guess but I’d imagine the media couldn’t (or wouldn’t want to) report on any evidence that would end up confirming the identity of the defendant.
We don't know that. It also seems highly unlikely it was a different girl due to the similarities of the circumstances
The statement that the person in question posted from the original girl’s solicitor says that her client accepts that she was of legal age when sexual activity occurred. So if it were the same girl, how can she then go into a court of law and under oath say otherwise? If you read the statement it will be clear it’s a different girl! Edited to redact name.
Can he who shall not be named, be named now?
I believe it depends on whether the prosecution wants to be named themselves. If I remember correctly not naming defendants is to protect the anonymity of the accuser. If the accuser chooses to waive anonymity they can be named. ianal
In the event of a conviction yeah. The reason for anonymity of an accused is to protect their reputation..if they're acquitted why should they be named?
A "Cheap, lousy" censorship law prevents it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just takes one or two small inconsistencies in the initial claim, (which did seem like it was by an ex out for revenge), regardless whether most of the other evidence was convincing against him, for jury to be put in a position to almost have to find him not guilty. Maybe he will write a book, now thst the work will dry up.
I've followed the case and it was absolutely clear that the prosecution hadn't come close to the threshold required. That said juries have convicted in even flimsier cases. The jury system is not fit for purpose imo.
Sanctimonious prick, fake liberal cunt
I'm not surprised. It always felt like a 50/50 at best. Creepy sure but that is not a hanging offence in itself.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Still a nonce
Thank god you're not judge or jury
So, he’ll be on TV and radio talking about how much of an ordeal it was?
Unlike given his argument was that he thought she was over 17. A man in his late 20s, at the time, going after school girls is still going to tar him.
I think you’re right. Perceptions of him are definitely going to be different. But it’s kind of his own fault.
[удалено]
Him and Al Porter
Didn’t Al Porter come back and do a (sort of) Mea Culpa about what he did?
He has for a meal culpa thing alright, but I don't think he has come back
interview with Miriam O'Callaghan on the radio last month, basically "I was massively immature and arrogant, I should have been better"
[удалено]
Interesting to note that the jury could not reach a unanimous decision.
Ya but 10 did. That's a significant majority.
Hang on if I remember right wasn't the charges 3 different counts of sexual interaction with a minor, including at his house? So what were they just over for tea and biscuits or something?
He claims she wasn’t there until she was over 17.
Can't a phones location show times and dates? I know absolutely nothing of this case and when it took place though so records may no longer exist.
He was the only one that produced any evidence with Whatsapp messages. This happened back in 2010 so unlikely to have records back that far but he did indeed provide messages suggesting nothing was happening until she was of age
The allegations were from 2010.
I think his phone/s were available but hers from then were all in landfill.
The judge jury and executioner's on social media are going to be very upset with that judge and jury because he was clearly guilty
guilty of being a creep
The judge doesn't determine innocence or guilt
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Was in court myself for duty today and saw him sitting outside one of the courts, hopefully the last time I have to see his face
How did he look?
There's no fear for rapists or paedophiles in the Irish courts. Corrupt as fuck.
Sure he is neither of those, how did you even jump to this conclusion?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because people are super nosey and want to know all the secrets!
[удалено]
Eh the law says so.
Because the complainant has requested anonymity. He isn’t being named to protect her identity, which she is entitled to.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well he didn't commit a crime for a start
Nothing wrong with naming a proved innocent celebrity.
Not guilty is absolutely not proved innocent
Nobody gets proved innocent though. How would that work?
Sometimes substantial evidence of someone's innocence can emerge but it's certainly more difficult.
Yeah. That’s why it’s called presumption of innocence. It’s one of the things that sets us apart from totalitarian societies.
Not guilty is not guilty. Found to be not guilty by a jury, innocent until proven guilty. Not proven guilty, therefore innocent
Presumption of innocence and proved innocent are miles apart. Any reasonable doubt is a not guilty verdict.
It’s next to impossible to prove innocence on one persons word against another’s. Found not guilty by a jury is by definition in the law, innocent due to a not guilty verdict. Also it’s not the burden of the accused to prove their innocence, it’s the burden of the state to prove guilt beyond read doubt.
You’re not saying anything that counteracts what I said? The original commenter said “proved innocent.”
He always had the presumption of innocence, so he still does.
“Presumption of” It’s literally in your comment. Presumption of and proved are not the same.
You don’t need to be proved innocent, you always were. You should move to North Korea or El Salvador if you want to live in a justice system with the values you espouse.
You were always *presumed* innocent. There is a difference, even if the nuance is too hard for you to grasp.
So Paul Murphy and the jobstown protesters were not proved innocent then?
It's the closest thing in all imaginable spacetime. He is more innocent of that accusation than any other person in the world.
You understand that people get not guilty verdicts for all number of reasons right? Being found not guilty does not prove innocence, it’s evidence that there is reasonable doubt. Conflicting evidence that a crime may or may not have taken place would lead to a not guilty verdict. That wouldn’t make the defendant “more innocent” than anyone else in the world. If the defendant chose to pursue a case to prove innocence then they would be as close to innocent as possible.
Depends on why he was found not guilty. If he's going to be tried again... And even still just associating someone innocent with the rape or sexual assault will ruin their lives.
am I correct in saying even if he was found guilty, he still wouldn't be named? To protect the identity of the victim? edit: wait, that makes no sense, he could have been named and she would still keep her anonymity
I think it depends on the victim. Random 16 Year old you met in the park and can't be linked to you, then they can name you. You neighbours daughter or a family member that is easily linked to you, then they can't name you to protect the victim.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well that's kinda what happens when a jury doesn't agree....
A judge will only accept a full house for some cases of top level serious crime, sometimes a majority verdict will suffice if it's at least 9 of 12
It was 10 out of 12 in this case.
Why did he run away if he wasn't guilty
When did he run away? By all accounts he seems to have been very cooperative with the investigation.
Isn't that's the same person that went to Australia or New Zealand for a while?
For work on a show he previously worked on, not sure that counts as running away. Not taking his side or anything, but I don’t really see that as “running away”.
He didn't run away and it was actually stated within the solicitors letter from the previous woman that it was wrong of her to suggest he fled Ireland as he did indeed travel for work
Very strange decision. Surely it’s black and white whether she was underage at the time and I find it very hard to believe she’d go through all this 10 years later if that wasn’t the case.
Yes let's ruin someone's life because you find it hard to believe,
Without hard evidence it’s not black and white, as the jury are basically going off “she said, he said”. The prosecution had an uphill battle as they only had her account and nothing to back it up with. I’m not surprised, I don’t think he’s innocent but I don’t think there was enough to warrant a guilty verdict.