Wooh hold up there. Convictions is not whether they were telling the truth, also 2% is actually proven false claims. Most cases end in the murky ground of not enough evidence.

1 testimony is usually never enough for a conviction, especially when alcohol is involved.

All there need to be some level of doubt that consent 'could' have been given, and that's enough to get a not guilt.

There's well documented scientific evidence that people's memory suck, especially over time, and especially around traumatic experiences.

All that the defence attorney needs to show is that the victim remembered incorrectly and without not evidence the case is dead in the water.

I know of a case where the alleged victim claimed she was raped and being ashamed by the whole thing, claimed that she had made no sexual advances or anything with the alleged perpetrator. Now when the police interviewed witnesses they said they had been flirting a lot that night.

Now flirting doesn't mean consent so she could have definitely could have been raped still, but the fact the victims initial report contradict ed witness statements meant the case was dead and there was no way at all to continue the case without any evidence.

Was she lying? I have no idea. And I have no intention to try push people one way or another. Was that one of those 92% open reported rape cases, absolutely.

Should the guy go to Jail half his life? I'd say no, there is reasonable doubt, even if I believe that the victim believes they were raped.