Originally Posted by jeffleppard
The complainant's various claims are evidence though (e.g. messages/discussion with friends, statement to doctor, statements to police, evidence in chief in court, responses to cross examination etc.) The jury could have considered that evidence credible in its own right.
Therefore, if they considered her a credible witness, and there's no doubt digital penetration and oral sex occurred, then they'd also have to accept the following:
1. Jackson and Olding's version of events is not compatible with the complainant's, so they must be lying about what happened
2. She didn't consent to those acts
3. In her version of events Jackson/Olding could not reasonably have believed those acts were consensual
I find it very difficult to believe there's a scenario where the jury accepts the complainant as a credible witness, believe PJ/SO to be lying, yet don't find Jackson/Olding guilty of those two acts that they admitted to doing.
In McIlroy's case the evidence against him is her word. That's it. There is no other evidence against McIlroy, and he admitted he was naked. They believe her and he gets convicted, simple as that.
It simply isn't a case of her evidence against theirs though. That's the thing.
You had Dara Florence, who said it looked like everyone was consenting (which helps PJ/SO) but she also said Jackson have having intercourse with her (which Jackson denied). That evidence alone casts reasonable doubt as it makes out that both the complainant and Jackson aren't telling the truth.
You've the medical examinations, which both the prosecution and defence had experts interpreting it in different ways.
You've got the exchange with a Rory Harrison, and his subsequent exchanges with Blaine McIlroy about what she said. She said from the off that it wasn't consensual, which is evidence in itself.
However, and this is something Olding touched on in his statement, they're giving their accounts of what happened that night.
It's possible she didn't consent but was afraid to say it because of the situation she found herself in (its not a rare thing for people to just 'let it happen').
As you've correctly highlighted as well, though, because of this PJ/SO probably weren't any the wiser. Olding referred to this in his statement by acknowledging her account of the night's events but sticking by his.
With McIlroy his evidence alone is reasonable doubt. I always felt that if anyone wasn't ever going to get done it would be him. It's one word against another. That's it. You can't convict based on that.
As I've said, only they really know what happened, but juries could absolutely believe or prejudge what happened, but by law can't possible find them guilty.
Again, that's only something they know. We can't make assumptions on where their heads were at. We can analyse it like we are, but to assume is another matter altogether.