I watched this and thought it was quite predictable that he would be found not guilty and that he had actually committed rape.
There was no way he could possibly have been found guilty - it was his word against hers. Remember, being found 'not guilty' is not the same as being found 'innocent'....the former simply means that it cannot be proven he did it.
As the defence summed up - the jurors needed to be sure he did it, not probably did it, may of did it, or could have done it.
As there was NO solid evidence that he was lying and she was telling the truth, the decision was the correct one. It's better for a guilty man to walk free than an innocent man to be sent to jail for many years for a crime he did not commit.
Re the jurors (muppets as you call them) - what did you expect? These are supposed to represent a cross-section of the British public, so why the hell did you expect them all to be level-headed and intelligent? There are morons and idiots everywhere (take a look at any message board for example) so on every jury you're going to get some people who have pretty blinkered and ignorant views on certain issues.
I'm not sure it will put women off reporting an attack (far too many go unreported as it is) - perhaps (hopefully) women watching will realise that if this does happen to them then they need to report it asap, not wait for days after other circumstances have come into play (such as her boss making her rapist her equal and then refusing to sack him on her demand).
His aquittal was more down to her actions afterwards than the inadequacies of the jury.
