Community contribution

My feeling is, when she went to give her statement, she was under the impression that there was no consent because she was intoxicated, therefore rape. But it was thrown out because she was not that intoxicated, especially to start with, so her consent was still valid, then she says she actively snorted ket (voluntary), so the boys could not have known she was not consenting (unless passed out) - this is the key reqyiement for rape. So she got a shallow definition and made the wrong call. Now, however, she is probably an expert on the law, but i dont think she cares about criminal conviction, i think she just wants the money, which is exactly how it will play out