The court case is real. I checked with various papers. I looked up the court it was tried in. They primarily try fraud cases.
Now, the rest is assumption and speculation on my part:
In fraud, it’s not so much “Did this person do such and so?”, it’s “Is the accuser accurate or could they be making fraudulent claims?”
This is my opinion. I don’t have evidence to back up my assertion.
It’s also my opinion that his version of events was less critical to the case than a very poor job done by prosecutors to prove their client’s claims.
So, I don’t believe the court decided, “he slipped and fall and…” all those things happened.
Rather, the court decided, “Prosecutor’s version of events was not proven beyond doubt.”
I’m not justifying it. I’m just trying to explain to the best of my limited understanding of these things.