I do understand Max, as you say yourself, it is difficult to judge, you reached a different decision both times and your opinion would be different depending on whether it was your son or your daughter.
Some good could come out of all this if it means the message hits home that if a person is out of it you just don't have sex with them, even if you thought he/she was up for it at some point.
Who the heck would want to in those circumstances anyway?
Scream - they had not verbally agreed that they would have sex and in that sense she did not change her mind. When they got back to the hotel she was deemed to be in no state to consent, however the jury determined that it was reasonable that the man, who was also drunk, had sufficient grounds to have applied consent - events earlier in evening, she didn't object, etc. To get a conviction for rape there are number of factors that must be answered but mainly was victim in a fit state to consent (in both cases this was no) and did the accused have sufficient grounds to assume consent (first player was Yes and Evans was a No).
You can withdraw consent, In this case the girl was so out of either she didn't withdraw consent or have the facility to say stop!
In that case, then, the argument is between implied and actual consent and which carries the most weight with the jury. Opinion is probably going to differ with every jury and it's understandable.
Having said that, given that she was legally unable to consent at the time (something which is beyond question) surely that should carry the most weight and be the only basis on which to convict or acquit.
I would say he is free to choose whatever career he wants now. I think he will struggle to find a club, but he will find one, and will be further down the football ladder than he was when he went inside. If he scores goals he will do well and a bigger club will sign him, that is how football (and most businesses) work.
It will be interesting to see how his appeal goes. I have read the trial transcript a few times and each time I have come to a different decision.
When both players went on trial the jury found that the girl was in no fit state to give consent (on the evidence this won't change I am sure). For the other player the court found it was reasonable that he believed he had consent (based on events earlier in the evening when she wasn't drunk) but that for Evans it was unreasonable for him to believe he had consent. On balance of the evidence my own view if on the jury would have agreed with that decision but I would say it would have been a tough decision. In many ways it was an unusual case and regardless of the vileness of the collective players behaviour (including those that watched/filmed it) it did through up questions of implied/reasonable consent.
Only role models I had ever had were my Dad and teachers, not footballers!
The trickiest question for me is that the victim accused both players. If the other player was acquitted because of events earlier in the evening then did she, at some point, change her mind (which she is entitled to do)?
The law says that if she was drunk she could not give consent at the time but does the acquittal imply that she couldn't withdraw it either? It is a bit concerning.