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.