Thanks for the link.
The first thing to say is that the "penetration by accident" stuff is something the prosecution said in their opening remarks and was their interpretation of the defendant's second interview with the police. It is, of course, in the prosecution's interests to make the defendant's explanations to the police sound as ridiculous as possible. If you don't think the defendant is guilty after the prosecution's opening speech they aren't doing their job properly.
The trial appears to have lasted a week. The only reports I can find cover the prosecution's opening remarks and the verdict. The prosecution's evidence and the defence case don't appear to have been reported, beyond a brief mention that the defence accused the victim of lying. Given the lack of coverage, we don't even know if the prosecution's version of the defendant's statement was accurate.
Juries do sometimes arrive at surprising verdicts. I cannot rule out the possibility that this was the defence and the jury bought it but I find that difficult to believe.
The defendant was a very wealthy individual and I would not be surprised if that was a factor in his acquittal
I note the petition suggesting the judge was bribed. The basis for this seems to be that 20 minutes of the defence case was heard in private and therefore we don't know what was said, and that the judge decided the defendant's story was true. The petition is wrong on both counts. When evidence is given in private there is a named member of the press present who can report on proceedings. We don't know what was said in the defence case because the press chose not to report it, not because the press were excluded. And the judge does not decide whether or not the defendant's story is true. That is a matter for the jury. The judge's role is to ensure the correct process is followed and guide the jury on the relevant law.