Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 574 comments are related to the topic:
Ridiculous Statement from Ministry of Justice on Ched Evans
Ridiculous Statement from Ministry of Justice on Ched Evans
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 574
|
By:
The rape where a man leaps on a woman in a lonely lane say, is quite clearer, you get the DNA, find the man easy.
What evidence would there be though? She might just have been a drunken slapper walking down a lane and said yes to sex with the man? |
|
By:
What evidence would there be though? She might just have been a drunken slapper walking down a lane and said yes to sex with the man?
 Well, that is possible. Unlikely, though, since what really would be in it for the woman? If she really just wanted sex in a country lane, she'd hardly be the type to call rape the day after. (It is much easier to see how a drunken night out ends up with a meeting in a hotel room which the woman later comes to regret.) I guess your sort of Bridget-Gregory-type woman has existed though. And has probably got away with it in most cases. |
|
By:
In most rape cases, there's a clear case of the woman saying 'I kept saying no', and the man saying 'she never said no - if she had, I would have stopped' or something like that. In such a situation, it's a clear case of one person's word against another's. The jury has to decide who they believe.
The Evans case, though, isn't like that, since the woman isn't saying that she never consented. Only that she can't remember what happened. Nobody can actually refute the Evans/McDonald story, or, indeed, is really trying to. That's partly why the verdict has split opinion so much on here. |
|
By:
Keys and Gray acted like a pair of w*nkers for a long time, was only a matter of time before someone stitched them on youtube. ('Banter', Keys thought he was indispensable to Sky, what a cóck).
Ebul - some day you will realise that this case turned primarily on whether she had capacity to consent, not whether she said yes or not. It seems like Evans lawyers were complete mugs and that might have been enough to swing the case against him. That is a factor also, there wasn't much room for F ups. I don't know exactly what the proofs were of the number of drinks she had but you are completely ignoring this EVIDENCE of incapacity to consent. Likewise what the Porter said, which came AFTER the video. 'She was capable of making a decision with McDonald but incapable with Evans.' How many times? Point out to me where that is stated in the Court Summary please. Surely you have a link for this? If this was the issue in the case then surely it should be clearly stated in the judgment or summary. Link me up. I know you completely reject that she was incapacitated. Why didn't Evans 2 expert intoxication witnesses, a doctor and a professor, come to this conclusion seeing as they were his witnesses and he paid them? What are your qualifications in this field, not that you have seen the evidence they did? How can you be sure about this when they couldn't be? Please answer these questions. |
|
By:
That is the crux of this case ,it's "borderline".And on this "borderline" case,many want the guy's future wrecked.As said before ,if it was a straightforward case of a brutal rape,then everything would have been different,and setting foot in a football stadium would be a no go,and he would have had to face up to the seriousness of his behaviour.
The way people want to criminalise him,like sponsors threatening to pull out etc.,is pretty bad,and appears that they are just concerned with the word "rape",and not the merits of the case.They want blood,is an understatement. I think this and other posts by unbiased are spot on. Whilst Evans' behaviour may through strict legal technicality amount to rape, a great number of heterosexual males might have to admit: there but for the grace of God go I. I understand Lurka's well-explained legal points, but had I been on that jury I'd have been leaning towards Evans having the same belief as McDonald that he was entitled to assume consent was given by the young woman. Imprisonment for 2.5 years of a 5-year sentence seems harsh in the extreme in the circumstances of this case taken with the further threat to Evans' ability to make his living in the future. |
|
By:
The jury has to decide who they believe
The Evans case, though, isn't like that, since the woman isn't saying that she never consented. Only that she can't remember what happened. Nobody can actually refute the Evans/McDonald story, or, indeed, is really trying to. That's partly why the verdict has split opinion so much on here. It's the exactly the same in this case. The jury had to decide whether to believe Evans and McDonalds conflicting version of events. (i.e McDonald saying Evans came in and asked if he could join in and she said yes and Evans saying he came in and McDonald asked her if Ched could join in) or the girl and the porters version supported by other pieces of evidence that she was extremely drunk. Unlikely, though, since what really would be in it for the woman? If she really just wanted sex in a country lane, she'd hardly be the type to call rape the day after. That could equally apply to the complainer in this case. |
|
By:
Oldham are going to sign him. PFA got onto them because they signed Lee Hughes
|
|
By:
But Lurka, that still doesn't explain why it has to be the case that Evans couldn't get consent, whereas his friend could.
McDonald was with her for quite a long period, and took her back to the hotel room that he and Evans had taken out jointly. This extended 'interaction' was supposedly enough for him to draw the conclusion that she was consenting to have sex with him. However, why would this really make any difference? If she was as gone as some have claimed, McDonald must have known that. He must have known he was effectively dragging a barely-conscious body around with him. So why should he assume that somebody who could barely think could choose whether or not to have sex with him? What the jury have concluded is illogical. If she was in no state to make any decisions about sex, then both McDonald and Evans should have been guilty. And if it really does come down not to whether she could consent or not, but to what McDonald and Evans might reasonably have concluded (which is the only way in which McDonald can be considered innocent), then it's certainly not unthinkable that Evans entered the hotel-room, and the girl, when asked, said yes to him joining. It sounded quite a carefully-planned scheme, and I'm willing to bet McDonald and Evans had done similar things in the past. I'm also willing to wager that the girl would generally have been happy with the situation. The jury seems to have decided that the girl's mental state was the crucial factor in the case of Evans, and that Evans' own opinion was largely irrelevant. But in the case of McDonald, the mental state of the girl became much less important (God knows why - surely she either is or isn't capable of giving consent), and McDonald's own personal opinion (which itself doesn't make a lot of sense if she really was barely functioning) became key to making him innocent. What the jury has concluded is illogical, with contradictions abound no matter how you look at it. |
|
By:
Honky if a person is too drunk to consent then it's rape If a person doesn't have reasonable grounds to believe they were consenting.
If you strike up a conversation with a woman in a takeaway she agrees to come back to your hotel. You get a taxi and then walk in to the hotel room arm in arm and she comes up to the hotel room with you and you begin having sex then it's reasonable to believe she was consenting. If you get a taxi across town, to a hotel if think your friend is with a bird, persuade the night porter to give you a key, walk in to the room and then start having sex with a woman who is lying on the floor naked who you only set eyes on a few minutes before it's not reasonable to believe she is consenting to you. Thats what the jury held. |
|
By:
Tried and convicted, 12 jurors must have had reason for the verdict, end of. I'm more disappointed that he only done half his sentence. 5 yrs should mean 5 yrs. As for Oldham, Lee Hughes should have had a life sentence, a life for a life. I'm suprised they aint tried to sign Marlon King, he likes hitting women.
|
|
By:
Honky, Shrewd has set it out. He wasn't dragging a barely conscious body around, it would have been both guilty then. She was functioning to some extent, that's why it wasn't clear cut.
The mental state of the girl was the same for both men, just as relevant to both cases - she couldn't give consent to either man. Her mental state was exactly the same for both men(the jury found). The evidence of incapacity all arose before she entered the room and there was little or no evidence (other than the word of the accused corroborated by a co-accused, which is generally not considered as reliable legally btw in the absence of some other evidence to corroborate, and the judge would normally warn the jury against relying on it) of her state after that. She may not have been incapacitated, but the jury found that she was. 'it's certainly not unthinkable that Evans entered the hotel-room, and the girl, when asked, said yes to him joining'. I agree with this but with the finding of earlier incapacity the effect of a yes may have been somewhat irrelevant to the jurors and they may have felt it not necessary to deal with. 'not unthinkable' is not enough in court. Evans put that version of events to the jury in court so they actually considered it. Ebul mentioned that there might be a video somewhere. Evans bother/mate are the only people who may have had video footage of part of what went on in the room. I'm not sure if they did but if they did they must have deleted it. If it absolved Evans they wouldn't have (if they had it). That would have corroborated their story. Once incapacity was accepted by the jury, then it wasn't about what their actual opinion of her mental state was. That was the old law position. It was about whether they had reasonable grounds for that opinion. She might have been in no fit state, and McDonald may have known that well but once he didn't admit that and said the opposite the jury were correct to acquit imo based on what they were told in court. I definitely think that McD had reasonable grounds on the evidence and that Evans didn't. Evans and those who think he shouldn't have been convicted should be focusing entirely on the jury's finding of incapacity, which is what won and lost the case. Once that had gone against Evans he was goosed imo and that is the most questionable aspect of the case. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I only speak for justice not the law. The LAW is wrong in my opinion. In fact the law is biased in favour of women
as more and more of our laws are. What people believe has nothing to do with reality, only what happens in the real world. Still most people speaking against Evans are narrow minded bigots anyway. I do not see this as RAPE ever will, the women was responsible for own condition, she was responsible for what happened to her, nobody else was. If women demand to behave in a disgusting manner as this woman did, then they must take responsible for their own actions Men are no longer responsible for her, she is responsible for herself. If she offers herself for sex men have a legitimate right to take advantage. If a women says yes, how on earth are men supposed to know that she is suddenly no longer responsible for own decisions? That is women's problem not men's. I apologise for not knowing how biased our justice system is in favour of women. |
|
By:
Is it possible she consented to Evans?
Yes, clearly this is a possibility. How can this simple fact not constitute reasonable doubt? Like it or not drunken consent still constitutes consent . The fact she was able to; compose a coherent and correctly spelled text to a friend at 02.54 . The fact that she was able to order and pay for food. The fact she was able to enter the hotel steadily and of her own volition. These are not the actions of a person who in any reasonable sense of the word is "incapacitated" and /or incapable of giving consent. |
|
By:
The way some go on you'd think they didn't have a fcuking trial already
 |
|
By:
Lurka...back to the law here
you say the jury established incapacity then surely this must apply to both McDonald and Evans. There is no reasonable grounds for McDonald as you put because it is physically impossible for her to be in a position of one minute being able to make a decision and the next not Does her ability to make decisions switch on and off like a light bulb depending on which man she encounters? Once you establish she was capable of making a decision with McDonald then this also applies to Evans. There is another point here timing. Whether she was capable of making a decision must surely only apply at the time of the alleged offences not a lot a lot proving whether she was capable or incapable 4 weeks earlier, or in this case earlier in the evening. Video evidence in the hotel foyer suggested she was capable of making decisions Both McDonald and Evans must either be guilty or innocence. The contradictory verdicts endanger justice itself I feel our judges should see this and act. Unless they under political orders, which would not surprise me. |
|
By:
Captain Christy • January 7, 2015 9:17 PM GMT
The way some go on you'd think they didn't have a fcuking trial alreadyCry Neither would you think that he has served his punishment either. As long as we want to continue to punish this man, by depriving of his livelihood and freedom of movement than we must go back to the trial. His innocence must be established. If we are supposed to let bygones be bygones then I afraid we must stop punishing him. |
|
By:
Lurka...back to the law here
you say the jury established incapacity then surely this must apply to both McDonald and Evans. There is no reasonable grounds for McDonald as you put because it is physically impossible for her to be in a position of one minute being able to make a decision and the next not Does her ability to make decisions switch on and off like a light bulb depending on which man she encounters? Once you establish she was capable of making a decision with McDonald then this also applies to Evans. There is another point here timing. Whether she was capable of making a decision must surely only apply at the time of the alleged offences not a lot a lot proving whether she was capable or incapable 4 weeks earlier, or in this case earlier in the evening. Video evidence in the hotel foyer suggested she was capable of making decisions Both McDonald and Evans must either be guilty or innocence. The contradictory verdicts endanger justice itself I feel our judges should see this and act. Unless they under political orders, which would not surprise me. Jesus wept how thick can one person be? This must have been explained to you about 100 times or more by now. |
|
By:
To me, Shrewd dude sums up the whole case fairly consisely here 07 Jan 15 18:26
|
|
By:
What has?
That is been been shown she had some decision making with McDonald but none with Evans fine The problem with this is that if you are claiming she was capable of making a decision for herself then this must apply to both men on the grounds it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for her to be both capable of making a decision and not making a decision at the same time or within 30 minutes of one another. This would contradict the physical laws of our Universe. and I am not going to believe the entire physical laws of our universe have changed just to suit you...sorry sorry |
|
By:
Also the only thing that matters is state of mind at the time of the alleged offences
You can only use previous evidence to try and show her state of mind when she was in that room that is all But it must apply to both men and only at the time of the alleged offence If you argue her state of mind changed while she was in that room.....then you must prove this, using evidence where is it? |
|
By:
yawn
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
If Ebul ever gets called for jury duty it will be the longest sitting jury in world history.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Ebul won't get called for jury duty because he'll be busy giving out hugs to paedos and telling them it's against their human rights that their on the sex offenders register for life.
|
|
By:
They're
|
|
By:
No I would be giving out hugs, and I was against confining rapists to this country for life
I think that is excessive...and I would consider that a violation of their human rights Now paedos are a little different, so I will dodge that one for now. I think paedos are a whole different ball game much more serious, so I can see some of the logic. But not rapists of adult women it is too much for me. A lot of these rape convictions are not the brutal attack and rape we imagine, but more about people in sexual situations where sex is on the cards, having some misunderstanding. Did she say yes or not? |
|
By:
I am older now...I do not feel I have the time to waste just conforming to conventional views
So I let my mind wander that is all, I just say it as I see it. That is what free speech is about. I admit some of my views are woefully misogynistic and homophobic at times I do not do racism, true racism, but we are not short of people on these forums who fill in for me there. |
|
By:
Your views would be quite similar to those of the Yorkshire ripper, seek help for the good of us all
|
|
By:
The way some go on you'd think they didn't have a fcuking trial already
think we can see it was a shambles of a trial as quite a few people have looked at it and think it doesnt stack up |
|
By:
It wasn't a shambles of a trial. The people that have "had a look at it" don't know their 'arris from their elbow.
He was convicted, quite properly, by a jury of his peers following the law of the land. Endo****gstory. |
|
By:
1 legal team v another legal team.
may the best team win rather than find a proper verdict. she had drink and coke in her system.... she said she cant remember a thing..... those 2 fact create a massive problem to find the FACTS. it was a fkn shambles |
|
By:
The case was a difficult one. The jury did give Macdonald the benefit of the doubt but decided that Evans,having never met the girl before he came across her in a hotel room when she was distinctly drunk ( no dispute about that ),went there with the intention of taking advantage of her.
|
|
By:
ok get the testimonies up and we will see.
problem is hers cant contradict because she couldnt remember.... |
|
By:
salmon spray • January 8, 2015 10:36 AM GMT
The case was a difficult one. The jury did give Macdonald the benefit of the doubt but decided that Evans,having never met the girl before he came across her in a hotel room when she was distinctly drunk ( no dispute about that ),went there with the intention of taking advantage of her. If a women gets herself drunk and voluntary sleeps with two men that is not rape, sorry As for taking advantage of her??..I think you will find men and women do sleep with each other when drunk How is Evans supposed to know how drunk she is? He does not know how much she has drunk How is he supposed to know whether she is capable of giving consent? If she says yes, she says yes, no rape. Modern men are the biggest fools going if they buy this women's story. Also if women demand equality then must take responsibility for their own actions, it is no longer men's job to do it for them How long this woman knew either man is irrelevant. Not all women are raped by complete strangers. The only issue here is was she capable of giving consent, whatever decision she made for McDonald must also apply to Evans, Unless you show evidence that her state changed between having sex with the two men. Until you show this Evans is innocent. |
|
By:
they didn't make that finding Salmon (about Evans intent). They didn't need to once they had established incapacity. Perhaps they took the 'easiest' decision they could.
|
|
By:
They were wrong
|
|
By:
Unluckily for Ched Evans, the judge and jury in this case both had a much better grasp of the law than you do
|
|
By:
Shrewd_dude 07 Jan 15 18:26
Honky if a person is too drunk to consent then it's rape If a person (ie Ched Evans) doesn't have reasonable grounds to believe they were consenting. If you strike up a conversation with a woman in a takeaway she agrees to come back to your hotel. You get a taxi and then walk in to the hotel room arm in arm and she comes up to the hotel room with you and you begin having sex then it's reasonable to believe she was consenting. (This is why McDonald was found not guilty) If you get a taxi across town, to a hotel if think your friend is with a bird, persuade the night porter to give you a key, walk in to the room and then start having sex with a woman who is lying on the floor naked who you only set eyes on a few minutes before it's not reasonable to believe she is consenting to you. (This is why Evans was found guilty) Thats what the jury held. Read this post from Shrewd dude. Until you grasp this concept, you will not make any progress in your understanding of this case. |