Based on probabilities rather than hard evidence. Not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the fact that someone can be labelled a rapist via a civil court rather than a criminal court is contentious at best. If you bother reading the details of the case you would find that Goodwillie, Robertson and the woman were in each others company and drinking together for many hours in the lead up to the incident. It’s not like he was sober and preying on some vulnerable person. They were all hammered and there was nothing to suggest what happened wasn’t consensual, until the next day at least. It’s a controversial case, with a lot of grey areas and by the letter of the law with the woman being inebriated you can see why on balance of probability the civil court made its decision (rightly or wrongly). I also see people slamming Goodwillie for showing no remorse but he has appealed the decision and clearly believes (again rightly or wrongly) that he is innocent. Why would he then admit remorse?