When i found out the guilty verdict for Evans, i thought the evidence must have been really strong for him to go down.. Then i read that basically the defence based it on the assumption that the girl was too drunk to have given consent. Hardly a water tight defence. I dunno wether the girl was raped or not, but there dosen't seem to have been enough strong evidence for Evans to be found guilty. Just speculation. And how come he was found guilty but not his mate?
Just don't have sex with a drunk girl, thus eliminating the risk of being accused of rape.
EDIT: inb4 she sells her story to the papers and appears on tv