I think many people do not understand the difference between "a shadow of a doubt" and "reasonable doubt". Well, of course there is no proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, that is impossible and is not even the legal standard in most places. The standard is "beyond reasonable doubt". But this has lead to some wild theories about what "could'a happened".
I have seen a few people actually saying something close to "there is no proof beyond a shadow of a doubt because he said/she said/it was dark/
he was in the other room etc". If that were the case then there would be no need for a legal system, because an accused person could simply say "It was a man who looked very much like me, but it was not me. Think about it, and let's set about to capture this impostor!" BOOM! Shadow of a doubt, case closed, completely innocent.
The main area of doubt is about positively identifying who did what - I agree with an earlier comment that the jury probably felt she could not identify LI because his friend was orally sodomizing her. Further doubt came from his claim of impotence. In this context it was assumed by the jury that the whole situation was rape and everyone involved knew it,
or should have reasonably known it, but there was reasonable doubt in LI's case about whether he penetrated her. That much I think everyone agrees on - except the condition of "reasonably knowing she was not a willing participant"...
Some posters, such as KGB, are arguing that there is
some doubt on the grounds that LI could have thought the girl was willing - despite acknowledging that everyone else in the room was rightfully convicted (which in KGB's argument means they knew she was not willing which is information that LI may not have had).
Fair enough, read on.
It has been argued that he was in the other room, or the room was dark and he was drunk and possibly stupid/naive - but likely not evil - and therefore may not have known it was rape. Stupidity and ignorance are not crimes per se, but stupid actions can be if you break the law - even if you do not know that you are breaking the law.
Would he be stupid/naive/"young" for not thinking things through a bit more and coming to the conclusion that she was not willing? Let's say yes, as some of his defenders have done.
Does simply not knowing it was rape excuse him from raping her?
No. Because then everyone else in the room except the guys who threatened her would be set free and stupidity/ignorance of all kinds would be a get out of jail free card.
So the argument from KGB is plausible, maybe LI really didn't know. But,
he really should have known, and ignorance/stupidity/sobriety/age are not excuses.
"I didn't know you can't hold a woman down, cover her mouth, and have sex with her. Besides, watching my friend jam his penis in her mouth was kind of a turn off so I lost my erection. And so I'll just go home now, bye!"
"But but but...he could have not known!!"
