One further, and hopefully final, comment on this.
The Judge in the civil proof heard the evidence. He made his decision on credibility and reliability and consistency with other evidence on the basis not only of the evidence delivered but how it was delivered. Posters appear to be deciding on evidential issues based on what they are reading (and reading into) the comments in the judgement. I’m not in any doubt the Judge was best placed to assess the evidence and reach a reasoned judgement.
Reference has been made to comments allegedly made by the Pursuer (“Don’t come inside me….”) and to the neighbour hearing “giggling” as being proof she wasn’t raped. The key question in this case is “Was she capable of consenting?” If, due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed she was incapable of consenting, it wouldn’t matter how often or loudly she giggled or how often she used explicit words of consent. If she’s incapable of consent, then that’s the end of it.
She doesn’t need to say no. Her condition makes it an absolute red flag!!
Finally, I had no sympathy for Goodwillie at the time. I had less when he used the “Tommy Sheridan” defence and declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying the award.