I'm not sure why he was convicted and his associate cleared, where their respective sexual contacts with the woman in question were apparently ~10 minutes apart (according to the testimony of a hotel worker listening at the door or something like that?) and the woman I believe stated that she was too drunk to remember if she consented anyway which does I believe legally makes it rape - if she is too intoxicated it doesn't matter what she says as its not informed consent - but surely in both cases, not just in one. Surely in those circumstances either they're both guilty or both innocent?
The actions of what you might call the "Evans camp" in calling out the woman involved and revealing her identity etc. are abhorrent, but the case does still seem incredibly confused (as these cases often are) and as the man still protests his innocence despite having been convicted and having done some time (when he could shut up and let it all blow over now), I'm inclined to think that there may be more to come from this one, if nothing else because of the big grey areas that seem to remain around the conviction. Either that or he misunderstands the legal definition of rape, and needs further education regarding what is and isn't acceptable behaviour.