I think what you may have here, with all due respect, is confirmation bias. There may be good reason for you to think these things and draw these parallels, but as you stated yourself - you’re basing this off one question you’ve seen answered and your own subjective experience.

It’s for that reason we have a) experts b) lawyers and c) a jury comprised of multiple people. I have watched the vast majority of the case, live from the courtroom itself. I would be remiss to think I’m free from bias - but what I can say is read down this comments list.

You see there are lots of people who ‘know’, and would be prepared to convict without trial. There are also people who ‘know’ a woman who is abused is ‘asking for it’. The law is designed to protect those people caught in the middle…. By seeing objectively that nobody ‘knows’ but things must be proven.

I would urge you to watch the trial (staying emotionally safe as you do so) because you may find a different narrative emerges as the evidence and cross examinations emerge. Your first intuitive thought, primarily guided by emotion and experience is often very helpful, in this instance I don’t believe so.