As pixie points out, there is I vitally important distinction between 'innocent' and 'not guilty'.
Our legal system requires that the jury is satisfied 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and they were not in all but two charges.
That does not mean that the accused is 'innocent', although he may well be so, it does mean the jury were not sufficiently convinced by the evidence, to convict.
Without hearing what the jury heard, anything we say is our opinion and nothing more.
But the circumstances appear to point once again to a rich footballer who lives in a culture where normal adult behaviour and responsibilities are not uppermost in the minds of the people he mixes with, and that includes some of the female company that his money and lifestyle attract.
He comes across as an overpriveliged immoral individual, but that does not make him a rapist, and he should not be labelled as such, pending the outcome of his next trial in June.