It is from wiki, but...
"When the appellant [Ched Evans] was first asked what happened in room 14, he described in graphic detail the sexual behaviour of a woman who, on the prosecution case, would have been incapable of behaving in that way. If the jury rejected his account of her sexual behaviour, he had no defence. Two other men have described specific instances of her behaving in a very similar fashion with them, in the days before the alleged rape and in the days that followed. On each occasion she had been drinking, she is said to have instigated certain sexual activity, directed her sexual partner into certain positions, and used specific words of encouragement."
Details of a complainant's sexual history are not usually admissible, but there is an exception, reiterated (upheld) on appeal in the Law Reports, for evidence which is "so similar [to the defence's account] that the similarity cannot reasonably be explained as a coincidence"
Although I'm sure SOG wasn't influenced by it, the entry does say that The Guardian were not convinced, suggesting the new witnesses were fed information and that there were financial incentives for them. These claims were rejected by the jury.