Im_Spartacus wrote:It was a very very strange case, all the moreso given Clayton's outcome. In reality, there is a considerable doubt on just how drunk she actually was (including CCTV evidence that refutes the suggestion she could hardly stand up)
It's not unusual at all to have rape trials where several men (or women for that matter) are accused and even have had sex with the woman but only one gets convicted. It can be related to a lot of things. In Sweden at least there has to be the intent of rape for a person to be sentenced for rape (with certain exceptions of course, under age girls one of them) and if it cannot be proven that the others were aware of taking part of a rape, it's not rape. Etc. Not uncommon and does not say anything about whether they were guilty as well or not, just that it cannot be proven. I'm guessing it's the same in the UK but if I'm wrong I'd very much like to be enlightened.
Secondly, I don't think she's claimed that she was that drunk and that was actually part of her argument. I.E. something like "I didn't drink that much so I must've been drugged. Found this, it says so here at least linking to a daily mail article though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Evans.
And I'm not posting this to claim that Evans is guilty or that he's not guilty. I haven't read the verdict and it's clearly been overturned. Just trying to clear out a couple of things. I Have a sore spot for this type of stuff.