I would find it almost impossible to convict anyone of anything based on the word of a single witness. When I first heard about the IMF guy being accused of rape, I thought to myself, he’s probably a jerk who thinks he can do anything, and I bet he raped that woman, but if I was on the jury, I probably wouldn’t convict him, because it’s his word against hers. In this country, you must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and isn’t there always a reasonable doubt with a single witness? You can, for example, be 95% certain he committed the crime, but 5% uncertain that maybe she lied and it was consensual. In my opinion, 5% or even 1% is a doubt meaning you cannot send the criminal to prison.
The fact that the witness in this case was found to have lied left and right about this, that and the other thing, including the events immediately after the IMF guy supposedly raped her really doesn’t change my opinion very much. It’s still his word against hers. Maybe it’s less likely he did it, but there was a possibility that she was lying to start with, so for me, there was reasonable doubt regardless.
I am pretty much a defense lawyer’s dream for just about any case. I constantly feel that prosecutors are just trying to win their case rather than actually stopping to consider justice, guilt and reasonable doubt.
Rape is really, really tough. Hotel maids from what I have read are often subject to mistreatment by hotel guests. Perhaps they could be provided with a recording device? Or in an expensive hotel there could be some kind of sensor that detected if a guest was present in the suite? Of course, then you run into all kinds of privacy concerns, so I guess the latter wouldn’t work. The problem is that no one cares enough about hotel maids to spend time thinking of a solution. They’re more excited about the opportunity to nail a famous person than protecting the maid.