The writing is terrible, and I couldn’t tell much from what they did mention, but I’d like to know what the third party claims to have seen and done before giving the rape claim any credibility. Either this report is so heavily edited that there is nothing convincing left, or there was never anything there, and I can’t tell which without better information.
It was a team mate, who supposedly also recorded some of it on his phone. The phone is now missing... or at least no longer in the team mates possession.
Which kinda supports the accuser’s lawyers claim that the investigation was deliberately flubbed.