I have thought about this a lot, so I hope this doesn't get flamed.
Uncomfortable though it may be, it is perfectly possible that another jury that listened to the same evidence may have acquitted CE, or at least failed to reach a verdict, and we would not be having this debate on these terms. It was a "difficult case".
Personally, I believe that he was properly convicted and should not have a job in professional football in this country until either his conviction is quashed by the CCRC (which, in my view, seems unlikely) or he admits his guilt, shows remorse and condemns the victim-hounders (you might argue that he should also serve his full sentence first, i.e. no longer be on licence, but this is perhaps the most likely condition to be fulfilled first in any event).
The verdict turned first on whether the victim consented, something that she herself cannot remember (and it is important the memory loss does not of itself imply that she was too drunk to consent).
If she did not consent, then it also turned on whether CE's incorrect belief that she had consented was a reasonable belief. In my view, it is much harder to side with CE on this second point, in light of the fact pattern. This is the point that got the other defendant acquitted. The first question of these two is, in my view and I think most others', the more controversial.
Of course, the jury that did consider the evidence did convict CE. They did find that the victim was too drunk to consent and they did not find that CE's belief that she had consented was reasonable.
However, like it or not, he continues to believe that she did consent and that his belief to this effect is reasonable (either of which would have been good enough to acquit him - from his perspective they are one and the same question).
There is no moral reason why people may not read the fact pattern (as set out in the court reports, not as set out by him) and take a contrary view to that of the jury, i.e. say that if they were one of the twelve, they would have acquitted CE. Taking that view doesn't change the verdict, of course.
It is important to note that this case is VERY unusual in comparison to other rape cases, because taking this view doesn't even necessarily suggest that you don't believe the victim (as you aren't disputing any facts asserted by her - she has no idea whether she consented or not). It certainly doesn't suggest that you blame the victim. The trial judge said that he thought that she was too drunk to consent, but that was merely his view and it was for the jury to decide what their view was. They happened to agree with the judge.
In my mind, I separate the verdict (guilty) from my opinion of what happened (also guilty). I don't disagree with the verdict, but if I did, I think I would still have to respect it and conclude that, as an unrepentant convicted rapist, he should not be allowed to play professional football in this country at this time. To do otherwise makes the verdict meaningless.
I guess what I am saying is that it is perfectly possible for someone to take an informed view of the facts and say that they don't think he should have been convicted. I am not for a moment saying that everyone on this thread has done this, but it is not impossible to think that he should not have been convicted of rape.
What I am not saying is that victim blaming is in any way ok.
This is a very unfortunate case to use to highlight rape injustice in general, because disagreeing with the verdict in this case amounts neither to victim blaming nor disbelieving her. Victim blaming and disbelieving complainants is by far a bigger issue than the unusual questions that determined CE's guilt in this case.