The whole thing is a fucked up wye o' deein' ad naebody comes out of this looking good.
Ched Evans is a loathsome, self-entitled, morally bankrupt snake.
Whether or not he is also a rapist, as was said higher up, only 2, well, maybe 3, people know.
And to be honest it sounds like even they might not have the clearest recollection.
In Scotland, due to different rules on evidence, I'm pretty sure this case would never have got anywhere near a court.
I'm nae saying I agree or disagree with that, but I reckon it's the factual position.
One of the main points of contention seems to be the use of the lassie's previous sexual history.
Now, that's a highly vexed issue.
On one hand, rape is rape, whether the victim is historically promiscuous or not.
On the other hand, if a girl has previous for consenting then regretting, then crying rape....
Look at it this way, if one Saturday night some guy tried to brain you with a bottle in front of nae witnesses.
You defend yourself, using reasonable force, in the course of which the first guy is injured.
You get charged with assault and need to defend yourself.
Transpires you find many other witnesses that say this guy attacked them with a bottle on previous occasions.
Is that relevant to the present case?
I'm nae expressing an opinion here, one way or t'other, I just think this is a really, really gray area legally.