I never said no one considered it relevant. I simply said there is no basis for the assertion that their prior sexual contact was the “only” reason for the not guilty verdict. It’s not a matter of whether she consents to sex generally or whether she consented to sex with him before, which I agree is not appropriate. But one person was saying the sex was consensual and the other person was saying it was not. The jury had to determine who was more credible and the only way to do that (since none of them were actually there) is by putting their statements in context with all the other testimony. That’s what juries are asked to do in almost every type of criminal case: robberies, assaults, etc. Saying someone raped you hours before and then having sex with them isn’t dispositive either way, but it’s certainly an odd thing to do and that, along with other testimony indicating she was not unconscious, led to what I think was a very sound not guilty verdict.