You're correct, we weren't in the courtroom, but that doesn't make juries infallible.
So it seems you really know very little given the evidence I've seen so far, and your insistence that you know enough is frankly disturbing.
I'd appreciate that you not make accusations like this, and I think this violates HN conduct guidelines.
In any case. I've presented evidence that includes quotes from the testimony. You're argument rests on the jury having deliberated for 30 minutes. Juries are incredibly stupid. They can be misled, they can and do get things wrong, all the time.
My argument can be summed up as "the jury is wrong, here's why". Your counterargument is "the jury disagrees with you". And to that I'd say "duh, that's why I said they're wrong". Using the Jury's conclusion as a counterargument to the statement "The jury is incorrect" is not an argument.
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Your statements about "absurdity" and "arrogance" are unwarranted. And you're now also putting words in my mouth. I won't be responding further.
The jury deliberated on this rape case for 30 minutes on all of the evidence and apparently easily reached a not guilty verdict, but this is apparently evidence of a grand conpsiracy rather than the more reasonable conclusion that the facts reported in this article do not convey the whole story.