www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-53243586/the-trial-was-worse-than-the-rape
If you've not got time to watch this, there's CCTV footage of the man making the victim get out money from her account, she was found in his van, people heard her screaming, she had bruises on her wrists and her back, he had her phone so there was GPS of where he took her. Yet he was acquitted.
Also they were asked about her mental health issues (she had depression when younger) and they were able to ask what she was wearing. I thought they weren't allowed to ask those questions any more (unless there was eg. direct evidence of her having made previous similar claims what bearing has previous depression got). What the fuck difference does it make if she was wearing a bikini, or was completely naked, it doesn't mean consent to sex. What part of this is not clear and why are judges not making this obvious to the jury and indeed preventing these kind of questions. They also implied that she was being paid for sex. I'm not sure how that fitted in with him taking money out of her account (!).
Also what the hell was the prosecution barrister doing, surely they should have been able to neutralise these kinds of questions? For instance, having a psychologist to confirm there is no correlation between depression and false rape claims.
No wonder the conviction rate for rape is ridiculously low. I wish I'd been on that jury.