Purr - you say you're 'legally trained' - as what, I don't know, but if you are then you've just entirely overlooked what was exactly the same sort of case which I was jurying on.
We had no physical evidence, other than photos of the school where some of the alleged attacks took place. We had the word of one supposedly respectable, middle-class man with a respectable, middle-class family against three blokes, one who cheerfully admitted he'd been 'dodgy' - did drugs, stole, was generally 'a bit of a wide boy'. The reason they'd been in contact with the accused was because they were all deemed 'unmanageable'.
Yet, 12 sensible people sat down and convicted on 12 of 13 counts of sexual battery because of not of the 'evidence' brought - there was none, since records had long ago been destroyed when the school was closed - but because of the fact that too much of the information from both sides drew us inevitably to those conclusions.
Purr, you seem determined to have seen one film and have decided that juries are idiots - which presumably you and Stav would also be if called - and that you can't see how a jury could have reached the conclusion it did. You seem to think that no-one could win a date rape case, which is nonsense, because plenty of women have.
We convicted on the basis of verbal evidence only. We convicted on the basis of a 'higher status' accused versus three previous little scrotes. We convicted on the basis of the much higher likelihood that the acts described DID take place. We convicted on the basis that we put aside any bias we might have had - did you bother to read that one of our jurors had been similarly attacked, yet refused to trade on this, remaining objective and calm?
If anyone's biased, it seems to be you, Purr! And if that's what legal training does, I'm rather glad you're not on a jury!
