Thankfully in our legal system, more evidence is required than 'who do I believe more.' The issue with boiling something down to 'who do I believe more' is that it's influenced by all of our inherent biases. Facts and proof, not belief. Imagine how many more innocent people would have been imprisoned if the litmus test was 'who do I believe more.'
In general, I don't believe one person over another to the point where I'd be comfortable enough to imprison a person based on it. Allegations need to be proven. It's not up to the defendant to prove they are innocent.
Higgins was very drunk. You are trying to apply logic as to why she was undressed. Very drunk people often don't act logically, agree? It's entirely possible that the defendant had nothing to do with Higgins being undressed, but here you are asking him to explain the situation. If he left whilst she was still dressed, how is he supposed to explain why she was undressed?
