That's in no way the same thing, he accepted there was no force involved, he didn't accept that she said yes whilst knowing what she was saying. That's the entire basis for the conviction. Given she hasn't agreed she said yes ( at least not form the media reports ) the ruling that there was no force involved could equally mean she was flat out unconscious. Not much force needed to fuck an unconscious body is there? Targeting and premeditation have no bearing on anything other than mitigation in terms of sentencing.
This case is all about consent. Enough of the facts have been released to point to this case being balanced on how that consent was established. And enough has been released to indicate the conditions under which that consent was given was the central pillar of the prosecution's case.
Don't need to be a fly on the wall in court to have solid opinion on this...enough details are out to warrant a hell of a lot of justified questions.
No consent = rape
consent for one but not the other = rape
inability to consent (eg through drink or drugs) = rape
No wonder most women don't report sexual offences.
She is a slag without a doubt but slags can also get raped.
Now there is a sentence I've never seen before
Does anyone know who was responsible for naming the girl? Was it a team-mate?
Until it has been proven otherwise, having NOT been in court to hear everything
Dunno why press would not publish all key issues here?
Cases like this are tough as it is basically one persons word against the other.
This is further muddied by the addition of large quantities of alcohol.
If she gave consent to the other guy, then how much more alcohol did she consume between then and when Evans was on the scene? However, it is stated that she has said she has no memory of how she got to them room. If that is the case how can she remember who she gave consent too, and how can it be decided when she said yes to one she was sober enough but too drunk for evans??
It seems the reasoning for the judgement is leaving a hole in it big enough to drive a lorry through it. Released pretty quickly on appeal i think.
This is just a guess, but the fact she was seen happily going back to guys room who was not convicted probably suggests that there was a level of consent
That would be my guess as well - although wasn't there CCTV footage of her being clearly shitfaced and hardly able to walk before going to the hotel? I can see why he was let off and the other bloke who just turned up in the hotel room to shag a half conscious girl was locked up.
If twelve members of the public, having seen all the evidence, believe that it is rape. Then who am I to argue.
Yeah, but in the footage she is does seem to be happily going with the guy and is not fighting him off.
It strikes me as fairly obvious why the second guy was looked up to, but like I said I'm not privy to all the facts.