What was the time in between the two guys having sex with her?
If she was in no fit state - surely the first guy raped her as well?
I'm not arguing with the law, or defending him, or saying he should not have been convicted of rape - just curious as to what made the first one different?
I haven't seen the full transcript (nor do I wish to read through it) but I'm guessing what made the difference was that the first guy met her in the street, they had a chat, got into a taxi, got to the hotel, then had sex. So the jury might have thought that the first guy may have had reasonable grounds to believe that she wasn't so pissed that she had no idea what she was doing. Or at least they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he couldn't have thought that.
But our Ched just turned up in the room, asked if he could shag her as well, then ploughed in straight away.
P.s.: Just to clarify, the facts aren't my guesswork, just the bit about what might have swung the jury one way for one and another for the other.