How about some facts of the assault, or maybe an indication of what this guys sentence was.
I couldn't get to the link, so if there was any info there, I missed it. What did I miss?
From the accuser’s POV, the accused slipped her a Mickey and then raped her.
From the accused’s POV, she consented to having sex and that, while she had a couple of drinks, she was not too drunk to give that consent.
This article was initially posted here in “religion” because somebody wanted to make a big stink that the local parish priest gave a character reference for the accused, believed a miscarriage of justice was done, and shook his hand after the accused was sentenced. In other words a cheap smear job.
The forensic evidence is not conclusive: there was no primary clinical evidence that she was raped (the bruises and abrasions around the genitalia that are consistent and unique to nonconsensual sex), but there is CCTV footage that they were together and there were marks on her to indicate that they had sex outside on the ground (i.e., she had scratches on her back and legs from the ground)
No kidding! I kept thinking, okay, why would these people act this way; what’s the other side of the story? Lousy reporting.