It seems to me that the appeal court was hell-bent on justifying why they invoked Section 41
Any Court of Appeal judgement justifies why they arrived at the decision they did. That's what judgements do. It does not mean they were hell-bent on allowing the defence to use the new evidence regardless of all other considerations. Indeed, the history of the Court of Appeal suggests their preference is to find reasons to reject new evidence.
the new detail bears all the hallmarks of witnesses being fed information
There is the possibility that the witnesses may be more partial than they cared to admit
These were arguments made by the prosecution, NOT comments by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal considered these points and said the "cross examination did nothing to undermine [the witnesses] integrity".
As to whether the evidence is credible - we must put that to one side
Let's try the correct quote, shall we? "For the purpose of deciding whether or not the evidence is capable of belief, we consider we must put to one side the material that has emerged as to the extent to which the detail of the appellant's account has been made public". That is normal jurisprudence. Once the Court was made aware of the extent to which CE's account was in the public domain they gave both sides the chance to make submissions on the point. Neither side did so. It was open to the prosecution to invite the Court to draw a conclusion based on the new information but they chose not to do so. That means the Court has to ignore that information.
Remember that the Court of Appeal was NOT determining whether or not the evidence given by the witnesses was true, merely whether it was sufficiently credible and relevant to allow a jury to hear it. It was up to the jury to decide how much weight to give this evidence.
How did the appeal judges not say this is absurd
That was not the similarity being adduced. It is easy to take one or two points of similarity and say it is not enough. The Court of Appeal itself makes the point that none of the points of similarity is enough on its own. It is the cumulative effect. And no, the conviction was absolutely not quashed because the victim had a history of going with strangers and having sex. It was quashed because the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
but the circumstances of their statements - timing, links to family -and friends were completely coincidental
The Court of Appeal considered the timing. As they point out, at each stage the witnesses answered the questions they were asked. As for the links to family and friends, in a town the size of Rhyl almost everyone will either know Evans or know someone who knows him. Similarly they will either know the victim or know someone who knows her. Indeed, we see that with Tristin Owens - he has a friend who knows Evans and his mother is a close friend of the victim's mother. The Court of Appeal considered all of this and decided that the witnesses were sufficiently credible under examination on the witness stand to suggest that their evidence was capable of belief.
I don't know whether the bar has been lowered or whether it was never really there in the first place
There is a bar. Looking at the previous judgements cited by the Court of Appeal I do not believe it has been lowered although I understand the concern of those who think it has been.
For what it is worth, I believe this case happened because Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, wants to change the law on rape when the alleged victim is intoxicated. She has instructed the CPS that a man must be charged with rape unless he can prove that the woman consented and that she was not too drunk to consent - a stance that goes well beyond the law and which is likely to result in more failed prosecutions. Whilst that instruction was not in place at the time of the initial prosecution in this case I suspect her attitude towards such matters may have informed the prosecution.
The leading case on consent whilst intoxicated is R v Bree which went to the Court of Appeal in 2007. In that case the accused had gone out drinking with a number of others, including the victim. A large amount of alcohol was consumed. The victim's recollection of subsequent events is patchy. She does not remember returning to her flat with the accused but accepts that she did so voluntarily. She remembers vomiting. She also remembers having sex with the accused but does not remember whether or not she consented at any point. The prosecution in this case initially argued that the victim was unconscious during sex but withdrew that allegation as there was no evidence to support it and the victim's own evidence tended to undermine that position. The jury convicted the accused. However, on appeal the judge's summing up was criticised on a number of points, not least of which was failing to make it clear to the jury that drunken consent is still consent. The Court of Appeal considered the evidence held that the victim in the Bree case was not too drunk to consent and upheld the appeal.
The descriptions of the Bree case suggest that the victim in that case was at least as drunk as the victim in this case, possibly more so. It was, therefore, always a stretch for the prosecution to argue that she was too drunk to consent. Indeed, the Court of Appeal when Evans initially appealed was of the view that the jury had convicted on different grounds, not least because it was difficult to justify acquitting McDonald if the victim was too drunk to consent.
It was also a problem for the prosecution that, to quote the Court of Appeal, the victim "did not allege she had been raped; to this day she has not alleged that she was raped or that she was incapable of consenting to intercourse".
So we have a victim who does not say that she was incapable of consent, who does not know whether or not she consented and does not say she was raped.
I am not saying Evans is innocent. I don't know what really happened in that hotel room. However, the question is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Evans does not have to prove his innocence (although some posters on here clearly think he should). The prosecution have to prove his guilt.