And exactly who are the legal experts that I referred to?
Noone in particular. Just in general, you asked for links from legal experts. But apparently, being a legal expert doesn't mean they always make a good decision. That's why arguing ad verecundiam is pointless
For the rest- I am not the one trying to convince you of anything. So take your basket of doubts some place else to sell.
Did I say you are trying to convince me? But if you call me a rape apologist, just like that, excuse me if I'm trying to explain why that's unjustified. Besides, you were talking about our points as conspiracy theory, despite it's your contention that fits the definition. I just pointed that out.
My doubts here are very relevant, because if it's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty, then he is to be acquitted as per in dubio pro reo.
I could also just tell you to sell your suspicion somewhere else.
Anyway I finally did some research because it makes it even more clear why this case is not so obviously rape under english law:
The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
“ 1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
You must be registered for see links
Now if you'd sentence this man to prison for life, despite admitting that the girl may be lying too, I could also just say that you are an apologist for sentencing innocent people and accusing decent people of being bribed whenever you encounter a verdict you don't like.
