Would you care to elaborate how you reached a conclusion so wildly different from the jury in this particular instance? I'm genuinely curious. Either you saw something that nobody else saw (which is plausible) or you have allowed your pre-existing logic to interfere with your reasoning (which is also plausible).

I would indeed accept those answers, video evidence, evidence of absence etc. She doesn't have to 100% prove she is telling the truth, she has to convince a jury on the balance of probabilities that she was raped. That's what the law is. It's not about indisputable truth, because only the two people engaged in the act will 'know'.... and I would suggest in some cases that this isn't true either. I think it's perfectly possible for two people to have subjective interpretations of an event and ask a jury to decide based on their independent stories. I would like to think if I were on a jury for a rape trial (and I never have been) that I would be open minded enough to be argued towards the truth.

Indeed, being prosecuted for rape wouldn't float their boat - which is why, as I have suggested before, the correct answer is to adjust the legal system so more of them DO get prosecuted, not get behind false allegations (as I believe Heard to be) to allow men the get out clause they were always going to use. It was a huge own goal.