It doesn't "imply" that it must have been rape, I'm afraid. There is nothing unusual in men who hold such attitudes having consensual sex on this particular occasion, or even generally.

None of us were there. I doubt if anyone on this thread has read a full transcript of the trial. Juries do sometimes find guilty people to be not guilty, just as they sometimes find people guilty when they shouldn't.

The traditional official view has been that the latter is worse, and that the courts are better to make mistakes in the other direction than risk falling into the latter. I suspect that in practice the opposite may often be the case - but that may not be true in the case of rape, where it is by the nature of things remarkably hard to prove what happened beyond a reasonable doubt.

The thing is "beyond a reasonable doubt" really should be a remarkably high level requirement. If a jury member believes merely someone was "probably" guilty, they should opt for Not Guilty.