enfermot!!:

Why was he convicted, then?

There was an eyewitness who saw nothing and was obviously unsure of her ID based on voice, there was hearsay by a party who had motive to lie, and there was a fingerprint with a plausible alternate reason for being there, and the defendant's previous crimes. Which piece of insufficient evidence do we blame for his conviction?

By themselves they are insufficient, but combined they weighed more than the alternative. he couldn't prove he wasn't there. So robing someone first disqualifies you from raping them later? Sure we wish there was more evidence, but there isn't.

lesson learned - don't go around robing people.