Actor John Jarratt has been found not guilty of raping his housemate more than 40 years ago.
The 66-year-old Wolf Creek star had testified before the NSW District Court jury he was seduced into having consensual sex with the woman in 1976 at the Sydney house they shared with his wife, Rosa Miano, and at least one other person.
The woman told the court she was woken about 3am by Jarratt ripping off her bed covers and underwear before he pinned her down, covered her mouth with his hand and raped her.
But the jury took less than two hours to return the unanimous verdict on Friday afternoon.
As the verdict was announced, Jarratt lifted his arms in elation and his family burst into tears.
“Thank you,” he said as he left the dock.
The actor maintained his innocence from the moment he was charged in August 2018.
“No man should have to go through what I have gone through,” Jarratt told reporters outside court as he hugged his wife.
The former housemate, who can’t be named for legal reasons, went to police in late 2017.
She told the jury she didn’t report the rape to authorities earlier because she feared she wouldn’t be believed.
A New Development In The Case Of Missing Mum Samantha Murphy
The Quicky
Top Comments
This is such a difficult one because "we weren't there".
We don't know how the relationship was conducted before the incident......both very young people, plus - to say it was "a different time" sounds like an excuse.
I applaud anyone who does have the guts to come forward in a case like this after they feel they've been wronged..............the "Me Too" movement has my support.
The other thing though is - How can we be sure that Jarratt wasn't a victim of his performance history ?
He happens to play on-screen one of the scariest, most heinous serial-killers ever.
This character couldn't be further from John's real personality.
So...........I dunno..................and of course - "we weren't there ".
Yeah we know. An accused is presumed innocent and if found not guilty after a trial is considered innocent. His accusers identity and reputation is protected, his is tarnished. To say after a trial that finds the guy innocent that we don’t know, it may be true is pretty low. Jury found him not guilty, what more is he required to do?
Why was was the accuser allowed to have their identity suppressed? Shouldn't this apply to both parties?
I’m not sure in this case as to the reasons for suppression. She is certainly an adult, so that rules out being a minor. Again, will just have to go with the courts decision on this in the absence of being there ourselves and hearing the whole case as the jury did.