Conflicting notes on the case for sure. There were reports form before that she was unconscious. Still (and frankly, I personally find it sad this a point of debate - I understand you are speaking strictly legally Scara and are not 'validating' anything which happened by the way) this nugget from the link you posted offers some compelling evidence...
However the circumstances in which the two men met X are vastly different. McDonald met X, engaged her in conversation and took her to the hotel. Evans simply arrived once McDonald and X were having sex and, putting it starkly, joined in without saying a word. Thus the jury could have concluded that, while X was too drunk to consent, she may have given McDonald a reasonable belief that she was consenting, whereas Evans, not having the benefit of having spoken to X, had not established “reasonable belief” in consent before engaging in intercourse.
I mean, please. I think we should start debating how bright the light was in the room, was there, at any time, a garment on her head, did she know whether it was the fudgewit she invited back or the predator who slipped in the door and started poking her without 'words' being spoken, how do we know she ever saw him, I mean, let's face the potential facts, if her back was to the hotel door she might never have ever seen him!!!!! Does the fact she was quite possibly too drunk to determine what was going where constitute 'implied consent'? FFS. Sorry. He is a clam. And frankly, I am disappointed none of the questions I have raised in a few minutes were asked, given the hair-splitting, divisive lawyerly hogwash which obviously went down in this case...as for the use of her past sexual history, disgraceful! Based on what? The fact Ched Evans heard her say 'fudge me harder'? Please. Again, if her back was to the door he snuck his low-life arse through for a quick poke, then it is possible she had no clue whatsoever what was going on, given that he was not an invitee.