I don't know if there were inconsistencies, the person I heard from didn't mention any inconsistencies when justifying the guilty verdict. If there were indeed inconsistencies in his story, I would definitely side with the jury's verdict. Maybe there is information that I'm not seeing, but based off of what I can see, I don't think it is possible to confirm his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Does that mean I think he's innocent? No, regardless of whether or not there were inconsistencies, I believe he most likely committed the crime. However, without evidence that I am not currently aware of, I still think there is a reasonable doubt.
I wish I had a better way to say this Whale, but give it a bit of a rest. You are very quick to judge without knowing the whole story. You say that if the defendant had inconsistencies in his story you would change your opinion and side with the guilty verdict? Really? Let me tell you, very few witnesses in any trial, for either side, cant be cross examined in a way which expose inconsistencies. Its hard to remember everything perfectly which happened the day before, let alone a year ago. For a good experienced lawyer, impeaching a witness with prior inconsistent statements becomes an art form. Witnesses on both side are raked on this, and yet the truth still exists someplace. The difference is though that the prosecution has the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Benefit of any doubt goes to the defendant.
I am going to cut and paste a little of what i replied to questions you had for me earlier today, rather than rewriting something new:
By your standard, unless there is good quality video of a crime being committed, and in this case with audio of everything being said, a defendant shouldn't ever be convicted. All relevant, material and admissible evidence would be offered and admitted at the trial. Both sides are provided ample opportunity to make their case or defense.
The standard of proof is not to establish guilt "definitively", as you state. It is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the prosecution hasn't done that the jury is REQUIRED to find the defendant "NOT GUILTY". In this case the jury found the defendant "guilty", meaning "definitively" that they were convinced, based on the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Earlier today you asked me questions about whether I think mistakes happen with juries; and my response is that of course a jury could make a mistake, and of course it has happened before. I have been a defense lawyer for six years, then a prosecuting attorney for twelve years, and now have been a judge for eight years. I have prosecuted, defended, and presided over far more jury trials than I could count or remember, from first degree murder cases to drunk drivings, and many felony criminal sexual contact cases. So far I can not point to a single trial where the jury wrongfully convicted someone who I felt might possible be innocent. The process isn't perfect, but it works at an outstanding rate. More mistakes have happened, in my experience, with a jury finding someone "not guilty" when he/she should have been convicted. But that is probably how it should be with the "mistakes".
There have been several "rape" cases I have been involved with where the alleged victim's story was quite questionable. Their versions were identified, challenged, and exposed. Some times the prosecutor dismissed before trial, sometimes the judge dismissed, and sometimes it was left to the jury to render a not guilty verdict. Point being, there are a number of checks within the system, and all there to protect the rights of the accused.
You were not on this jury, so lets not pretend you "know" the facts better than the jury did. You don't, and never will. The case is over, other than appeals. The defendant is now a convicted and sentenced felon. Bad situation; just as all cases like this are. All due respect; leave it alone.