Thanks Kikashi, that link is really helpful.
I am still really bothered by the medical injuries.
See excerpt below from Irish Times.
"The jury also heard medical evidence of the woman’s injuries when she presented at the Rowan Clinic. Giving evidence for the prosecution, Dr Philip Lavery said the most significant injury was a laceration to the woman’s vaginal wall which was still bleeding when she attended at the clinic on the evening after the rape.
Dr Janet Hall, appearing for the defence, said she examined Dr Lavery’s notes along with a video of the woman’s vaginal examination and determined it was not possible to state with certainty the blood came from an injury and not from menstruation.
Both doctors disagreed on the injuries to such an extent that at one stage there was a concern the video of the vaginal examination would have to be shown to the jury. In the end this was avoided and the conflicts were dealt with through the doctors’ evidence.
Overall the medical evidence was of little benefit to jurors one way or the other. Both doctors agreed the injuries did not prove penile penetration or a lack of consent. Furthermore, most sexual assaults do not result in injury, Dr Hall said."
How then do the doctors or jury explain the internal injuries????? Do they think she was impaled on a railing?!
I don't understand. How can a woman ever show she was raped if she cannot rely on internal vaginal injuries following the act? I want to weep...is there an inherent assumption that all women consent to injury and violence, then??