As I understand it, the whole prosecution case was based upon the premise that the lady was too drunk to give consent at the time the rape occurred. It matters not whether she agreed to go back to the hotel room. Her evidence was that she couldn't remember having sex with either footballer, because she was too drunk. What is puzling in this case is how the jury concluded (if they did) that she wasn't too drunk to give consent in respect of the first footballer but was too drunk in respect of the second, albeit it is not clear what findings the jury made as to the two footballers own states of mind. NB and for the avoidance of doubt - this is only my opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs!