Legal process can distort evidence though. Look at the fact that new evidence was introduced later whereas I think some evidence was still withheld.
You mean the 'Oh, is there a substantial reward for saying this, I never knew, but yes I shagged her too at another point and she said words lots of people have said at some point, can I have my money now Ched?' evidence?
The main evidence that was withheld at the second trial was the fact his mate McDonald has always said that Evens is lying about McDonald asking her if Evans could have sex with her. (Evans acknowledges that he didn't ask her himself.) As he wasn't on trial the second time, McDonald didn't give evidence and the jury weren't allowed to know what he'd said when interviewed or on oath at the first trial.
If Evans' story is true, why on earth would the defence not call the evidence of the third person in the room at the start of the sex or the two (Evans' brother and another mate) trying to film it all from the window?
But then I have little trust in our legal system.
I don't think the second verdict was one that correctly reflects what happened either...