Can a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, reach the same conclusion as the trial judge?

At trial the crown provided a detailed account of the crimes, largely through the testimony of the victim. The appellant testified at trial and denied the allegations. Therefore, to a large extent, the outcome of the trial turned on credibility. In considering whether a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could have reached the same conclusion, an appellate court is to show great deference to the findings of credibility made by the trial judge given the advantage of the trial judge in assessing matters of credibility: R v. W.(R.), 1992 CanLII 56 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122 at 131.