|
By:
And it was open to the jury to have found that even if she said yes it meant nothing as once she was in the state of incapacity a yes from her was as legally effective as a yes from a minor.
They didn't confirm this as they weren't asked to. Some of them may have believed Evans but also believed that she was incapacitated and therefore the yes meant nothing. Others may have simply disbelieved him completely. We'll never know |
|
By:
Honky, do you mean that if McDonald had interactions with her he was much better placed to assess her capacity to consent than Evans was when he burst in? That's one argument, I'm not sure if Evans even made it at the trial.
|
|
By:
But the fact is that the jury assessed McDonald's grounds and found them to be reasonable. They could have said 'you must have known' but they didn't.
Evans had no grounds. In fact, Evans did encounter the girl once before he burst into the room. He had to step over her as he entered the kebab shop to have a quick word with McDonald, because she had collapsed on the floor just before he opened the door. |
|
By:
I apologise for being a little OTT, it is not so much women which are winding up, as the gormless males who cannot
see past the word rapist.... There is a story here. What sort of women are we dealing with here. Clearly a women whom trouble always follows closely. A looker, as someone posted, and she knows it. So she demands attention from males, they do not ignore her. She will stir them up until they do notice her....she would have men fighting to the death over her, if she could. She goes out looking for action. She strikes gold a footballer, attractive, rich....the whole episode plays out sex, McDonald, Evans, no rape here. Then she wakes up in the morning, the footballers have gone, she was just another sexual opportunity. But this women is a looker, nobody ignores her, even footballers...so revenge, the rape claim She may not remember all the night, but she knows herself it was consensual. She has moved three times since, I bet she was at her old games, she must have attention, in fact she has got the whole countries attention, As I said, nobody ignore this one Unfortunately she destroyed Ched Evans career, amoral he may have been, he does not deserve this. The Judiciary really need to squash this rape conviction, we need sanity here. ps Your logic is complete rubbish Lurka, it is all based on assumption not fact I may be guessing but I am a lot nearer than you. |
|
By:
'Evans first interactions with her were while she was in bed with another man, naked & drunk after he burst in without invitation. He had no such grounds and his case was dealt with differently.'
Well what both Evans and McDonald said was that Evans came into the room, and McDonald said to the girl 'This is my friend - he's a Championship footballer. Do you want him to join us?'. The girl's eyes then lit up, and she said 'ooh yes', and so Evans joined in. Now, is that really beyond the realms of possibility? Given that all manner of footballers participate in threesomes, foursomes, roastings etc. is a scenario of consent in such circumstances really that outlandish? There are, in fact, no witnesses who can say that she didn't say yes. Only three people were in that room, and the only one who disagrees with the story also claims she has no memory of what happened. In effect, then, she offers no alternative to their story, and apparently can't say whether she consented or not. I'm not absolving Evans of all responsibility, but she didn't exactly shower herself in glory. And there seems to be no evidence (firm or otherwise) to say that all three people didn't enter into consensual sex at the time. I suspect that's why so many of the accounts have gone big on the 'too drunk to give consent' angle. Because if you take that out, it's actually rather difficult to say whether she said yes or not. |
|
By:
There are, in fact, no witnesses who can say that she didn't say yes. Only three people were in that room, and the only one who disagrees with the story also claims she has no memory of what happened. In effect, then, she offers no alternative to their story, and apparently can't say whether she consented or not.
There are four witnesses who speak to her state in the period she was at the hotel with the 2 accused. One said she was extremely drunk. One asked the night porter to look after her because she was sick and one said she was too drunk too remember anything. The person who was convicted of rape said she was sober enough to consent to him when he walked in to the room and his mate said to her can the guy who has just came in through the door join in. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
"Unfortunately she destroyed Ched Evans career"
you're a sick fook ebel...he raped a 19 year old girl in a hotel and you say she destroyed his career. I hope he never plays football again because if it was my football club I wouldn't let him within 500 miles of it. |
|
By:
Ebul, we're never going to agree on this. If the conviction is overturned I don't think I'd have a problem with that unless there are no solid legal grounds for it. Likewise, if they acquitted Evans I think that was a decision that was open to them too. It wasn't a clear case either way, which is why there's so much discussion of the verdict.
I am just trying to explain the decision the court came to and why. There are a lot of people saying things like 'how could she consent to McDonald and not Evans, makes no sense'. That is a complete misunderstanding of the case and the current law in the UK. I am not saying the Court got the facts exactly right. How the hell do I know? I'm not making any guesses, I'm dealing with findings of fact by the court (whether they were right or wrong is another issue). 'Your logic is complete rubbish Lurka, it is all based on assumption not fact'. It is not my logic though is it? It's the Court's logic. IT'S THE LAW for the umpteenth time. You have a problem with the law and you don't seem to realise it. Lobby to have it changed if you care that much. Lobby to have the admissibility rules for prior rugby player evidence deemed admissible in all cases. You might be right about your suspicions of this girl's motives. Evans wanted to discredit her by adducing evidence of previous dealings with rugby players. The jury wouldn't have heard the legal arguments on that evidence but it's probative value has to be weighed up against the damage to the victim. She was not on trial remember. Evans lawyers couldn't satisfy the judge on this argument so it was inadmissible. It was probably very flimsy evidence, hearsay and the like. Did he call either of the rugby players as witnesses for this argument? I don't know, but more than likely not. Perhaps Evans has applied to Facebook to have those deleted messages from the day after recovered? Or perhaps he has got a Court order to get them. Same re the tweets after the trial? You'd have to ask why he hasn't gone about this if he hasn't, not that that proves anything. It seems that he needs new evidence to have it overturned, unless there has been some groundbreaking rape decision in the meantime that casts the original verdict into doubt. Honky: 'There are, in fact, no witnesses who can say that she didn't say yes'. Again, once the court found that she was incapacitated due to drink she could have said yes to both men 10 times and it wouldn't have constituted consent (although it probably would have given Evans reasonable grounds for belief). The finding of incapacity is the crux of the case really, that is what prevented consent being found, not whether she said yes or not. 'Given that all manner of footballers participate in threesomes, foursomes, roastings etc. is a scenario of consent in such circumstances really that outlandish?' Unbelievable. It is not the footballers who had to consent FFS. The jury had a tough decision to make, and perhaps deciding that she was incapacitated was the easier decision for them as then they didn't have to call anyone Evans and McDonald both liars in effect. But it was a decision open to them on the evidence. |
|
By:
I know longer care whether he's guilty or not, nor whether he finds employment, after reading this gem...
homefortea 06 Jan 15 20:07 Oh dear oh dear not sure that some of you posters should be on here.. You do realise that everything that you say or do can be traced back to you.. Those of us with a brain use devices that cannot be traced.... |
|
By:
themover 07 Jan 15 03:49
"Unfortunately she destroyed Ched Evans career" you're a sick fook ebel...he raped a 19 year old girl in a hotel and you say she destroyed his career. I hope he never plays football again because if it was my football club I wouldn't let him within 500 miles of it. He shagged a drunken slapper, you mean? |
|
By:
btw i think if Evans had better lawyers he might have got off. One of their appeal arguments adduced new evidence from a third party that the girl had a history of not remembering things when she had drank a lot. They may as well have been acting for the prosecution in bringing this to the table.
|
|
By:
he has new laywers for the CCRC application but they won't be heard unless the CCRC orders a full appeal. They have had over 17,000 completed applications. 543 given appeals, 374 of those have had convictions quashed
|
|
By:
I wouldn't have convicted him, lurka, but he isn't getting any full appeal.
|
|
By:
I wasn't a juror, didn't hear all the evidence they heard, but I might have acquitted too. It wasn't any easy decision. Don't think he'll get a retrial either.
But hypothetically, let's say he does and gets a full rehearing in front of another jury. He could have another trial with exactly the same evidence and another jury might acquit. |
|
By:
I agree with lurka about about his previous lawyers, especially the appeal argument on her memory. How did they think that would give them grounds for appeal?
I wonder if the jury placed too much emphasis on her lack of memory, assuming that if she couldn't remember anything that meant she was unable to give consent, which is ridiculous. |
|
By:
We know she wasn't raped in the traditional sense as in being forced against her will.
So if she wasn't comatose then she wasn't raped IMO. It may have been a decision she regreted when sober but if she was drunk and said yes then that's consensual as far as I'm concerned. If she had no memory on this then even she doesn't deny this could have been what happened so we should take the word of the other two people in the room who tell us what happened. This is a woman who was prepared to have sex with a man she had just met in a kebab shop less than an hour before. Her willingness to have a threesome doesn't take much of a leap of faith. I just think the legal system has made too many assumptions to convict a man of rape and he should have been given the benefit of the doubt. |
|
By:
The jury had a tough decision to make, and perhaps deciding that she was incapacitated was the easier decision for them as then they didn't have to call anyone Evans and McDonald both liars in effect. But it was a decision open to them on the evidence.
I appreciate it was a tough decision to make, but the decision that was made was inconsistent. What you appear to be saying is: McDonald - She couldn't have given her consent since she was too drunk. But since she had been with him and spoken to him for some time before the sex, it was reasonable for him to assume she was consenting. Evans - Again, she couldn't have given her consent since she was too drunk. But, in contrast, Evans had no reasonable grounds for thinking that she was consenting, even if she had said yes. Now, I think that's very dodgy logic. Are we really saying that if a girl says yes on the night, that can then be assumed to be a 'no', on the basis that she was drunk? Followed through, that's going to lead to a lot of people being branded as rapists, when in many cases it was just a case of two (or more!) people with loose morals finding ways of enjoying themselves. In my opinion, the whole thing about her being too drunk to consent is a smokescreen. If McDonald can be acquitted on the grounds of what he thought, the same should apply to Evans. If jurors think Evans is lying, then that's fair enough. But then, that should be the reasoning behind the judgement, rather than having the jurors using the 'too drunk' defense. To say that he had no reasonable grounds for assuming consent, even if she said yes to him (as many women at nightclubs will do, when offered with sex with a footballer at a known club), is rather, erm, illogical logic. |
|
By:
After reading ALL the responses on this thread,it is obvious that there are quite clearly very different views on this case,and if some of the posters that see the case in another light,like myself,were on the jury,wouldn't have found the guy guilty.To try to deny that there are doubts about the guy's guilt,would mean the case hasn't been looked at in full,from every angle,which in a matter as important as this one,is a requirement.
Add to that I think a warrant could be issued to all my crowd regarding goings on from years ago with girls.The general comment afterwards was something like "don't go telling all your mates",or "don't let on what happened","don't spread it around the pub". Girls often had regrets afterwards,but at the time had no complaints.That is the way of the World. |
|
By:
Honky, it is not my logic, not logic at all. IT IS THE LAW.
Formerly all a man had to show was that he thought/believed the woman consented, regardless of how reasonable that belief was. It was nigh on impossible to convict and it saw genuine rapists get off and victims destroyed. Evans would have strolled out of court under the old law. They changed the requirement to 'reasonable grounds' in 2003 Act. It's been the law for 10+ years now. A lot of men don't realise that I'd say. 'Are we really saying that if a girl says yes on the night, that can then be assumed to be a 'no', on the basis that she was drunk?' NO. A yes would never be assumed to be a No. But it can be deemed to be of no effect if she is not merely drunk but if she is shown to have been too drunk to consent at the time she said Yes. Not in every case that she is drunk per se. And remember her saying 'Yes' to Evans is not a given. She may not have said anything to him. It was not established as a fact that she said anything to him. 'In my opinion, the whole thing about her being too drunk to consent is a smokescreen. If McDonald can be acquitted on the grounds of what he thought, the same should apply to Evans.' That would have been the case under the old law. The law has changed. Why couldn't the jurors 'use' incapacity where there was sufficient evidence for them to make that finding? Of course they could, it wasn't a baseless finding. If the judge thought there wasn't enough evidence here he would have directed them to acquit. Why do you call it a 'defence'? The girl was not on trial FFS. Reading that whole paragraph (your second last para) ^^ says to me that you have a problem with the law more than the jury's decision. Can you not see that? You are not too far away from wanting the old law back in saying that. Unbiased, I agree a different jury may well have found him not guilty. But the system is that you are tried in front of a jury of peers and that's what happened here. It is not a perfect system, no system is. It can produce perverse results and this is a very borderline case. In all borderline cases that would be true. |
|
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. |
|
By:
exactly. I don't agree that he shouldn't be allowed to work when there is no legal restriction on it. I am not saying he should be allowed to work, only that there should be a law preventing it. I suggested that all licenced criminals could have a minimum wage cap condition on their licence (or a certain jobs only condition) until their sentence fully ends or else you have to bring in a law that bars convicted rapists from working in high paid jobs ever again.
I certainly don't think he should be barred for life but I see some merit in it until his licence has finished. That is something the authorities could spell out if they wanted. Football clubs should only be listening to their registered fans too. |
|
By:
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.
Unfortunately most rape prosecutions aren't 'straightforward brutal rapes' thats why rape convictions are so low because more often than not only the people who are parties to the intercourse are the ones in the room at the point when the intercourse happens. If it was straightforward brutal rape we wouldn't be discussing it because he would have got 10 plus years. |
|
By:
i think the judge said it was 4-8 years, with the judge going with 5 because it was at the lower end. in one of his appeals he asked for a reduction to 4 but it was refused
|
|
By:
probably 4 if he'd pleaded guilty
|
|
By:
Unbiased, I agree a different jury may well have found him not guilty. But the system is that you are tried in front of a jury of peers and that's what happened here. It is not a perfect system, no system is. It can produce perverse results and this is a very borderline case. In all borderline cases that would be true.
Well that's really the problem. According to what a jury says, he's either acquitted or else he's an absolute monster who apparently shouldn't be allowed to work again - unless he's applying for some supposedly menial everyday job which, according to the moral judges of our day, it's perfectly okay for him to perform. (I'm not quite sure who appointed these members of the public **** now deciding which jobs are 'rapist-friendly' and which aren't, but that's another matter.) And yes, I do have a problem with a legal system that allows women to cry rape without there being any proof of whether there was consent or not. I certainly don't go as far as Ebul in his neanderthal views, but I do think things have gone a little too far in the wrong direction. Personally, I've known several women who would get very drunk and, the next morning, would have no memory of what they did the previous night. Judging by my experiences with them when they were drunk, I know they were rather looser than they might have been when sober, but still able to exercise judgement regarding who they did and didn't have sex with them - even if their standards might have been lower than they would normally be. Their minds may have largely blacked out by the next morning, but they were still, to some extent, functioning the previous night, even when decidedly drunk. If the law is saying that those women were incapable of making a decision, then I'd say the law shows little knowledge of how many young men and women spend their Friday and Saturday nights! |
|
By:
And yes, I do have a problem with a legal system that allows women to cry rape without there being any proof of whether there was consent or not. I certainly don't go as far as Ebul in his neanderthal views, but I do think things have gone a little too far in the wrong direction.
We don't have that legal system. If anything we have a legal system where by a person can rape a woman and there's no way of the them being prosecuted that is why rape prosecution and convictions are far lower than all other offences. If McDonald had have taken her back to his house (with no night porter being present) and had sex with her if she went to police and said she couldn't remember nothing would have come of it. |
|
By:
Mikael D'Haguenet • January 7, 2015 10:16 AM GMT
themover 07 Jan 15 03:49 "Unfortunately she destroyed Ched Evans career" you're a sick fook ebel...he raped a 19 year old girl in a hotel and you say she destroyed his career. I hope he never plays football again because if it was my football club I wouldn't let him within 500 miles of it. He shagged a drunken slapper, you mean? Well at least you have the last line right Mikael The whole point is, he did not rape did he, she gave her consent, and if you say she was in no state to give consent then how come she was capable of giving consent to McDonald less than 30 mins earlier..this is a clear contradiction I may be a sick fool, but I do not think destroying an innocents man life with a false of rape is right, I never will Also what about rape, as long as it does not involve a child how bad an offence is it, it is less than murder. So I believe our government imprisoning convicted rapists for life in this country for life is a violation of human rights.....as bad as anything as anything N.Korea does, whom we claim violate human rights When they served their punishment they should be free to continue their life as any other person. They have served there due to society for their crime. As for Ched Evans, there has no evidence offered that she was incapable, one of the worst miscarriages of justice I have ever seen. This reminds of The Dreyfus case in France many years ago, though not as bad |
|
By:
Thank goodness he has found a club and can continue his rehabilitation into society.
|
|
By:
Also what about rape, as long as it does not involve a child how bad an offence is it,
This really somes up your warped mind up Ebul. Almost as bad as your kiddy porn is a minor crime and is only looking at inappropriate images. Bet you'd change your tune if you were bum raped. |
|
By:
ebul must be a lot sicker than anyone cane imagine - to come out with a statement such as "how bad an offence is rape really" beggars all belief - bearing in mind victims have sometimes been traumatised for life or worse still have killed themselves then his comments are repulsive
|
|
By:
What happens when lady up for it, man about to ejaculate and she says stop.
He does a Chaser and last a few seconds before ejaculation. Is that considered rape? |
|
By:
I probably would, I would be biased,
Also that is far worse than rape of a women, women are used to men banging away at them, it is their evolutionary role. Of course the women should agree. I do accept this a serious offence, and I would lengthy prison sentence is in order But I think imprisoning someone for LIFE to this country is excessive I also think it would a violation of their human rights. Once they have served their punishment that should be it Geordie I think being killed by someone else is far worse than someone killing themselves. Do you think women would rather be raped than murdered, I don't. Only a small minority do this I am also trying to put it into proportion, it is quite obviously a lesser crime than murder |
|
By:
ebul - misunderstanding this case from day 1. Beyond trying to explain to you how she didn't give consent to either man. Ebul knows better than 12 jurors and 4 judges who heard all the evidence. You don't understand the law, you have a problem with the law not the decision and you don't even realise that.
no evidence offered that she was incapable. No evidence? Can you not even be slightly reasonable when making a point? You just come across as a blinkered fool otherwise |
|
By:
Well 12 jurors aren't bound to be 'right', Lurka. Obviously this comes down to opinion and which side of the debate you sit on. (If this jury was typical, the majority of the 12 would have had their views swayed by a couple of loud and opinionated jurors.)
One of the problems is the draconian responses from some members of the public towards an incident that, clearly, can be interpreted several ways according to your views of what morals are, whether a person should be taking steps to protect themselves, exactly how much control people have over their actions when extremely drunk etc. It's a borderline case, but the vitriol towards him doesn't seem to reflect that. |
|
By:
What was the make up of the jury male/female ?
|
|
By:
Westender • January 7, 2015 3:40 PM GMT
What happens when lady up for it, man about to ejaculate and she says stop. He does a Chaser and last a few seconds before ejaculation. Is that considered rape? Most rape cases are probably of this nature or in this area. The women says I said no, the man says she said yes. This is why it is an incredibly difficult crime to deal with. 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. lurka There is only an allegation she did not give consent to either man. The jury made an attempt to construct a reasonable course of events that is all, because the women remembers nothing herself. Using their reconstructed course of events they returned the verdicts McDonald not guilty and Evans guilty , probably on the grounds they must at least have it 1/2 right They has an impossible job, I wont blame them. But this is not evidence She was capable of making a decision with McDonald but incapable with Evans. It is only at these two points rape did or did not take place There is no rape at any other time Evidence Between having sex with McDonald and having sex with Evans, Was she induced to take something like a date rape drug or more alcohol so she would be a no state to make decision to reject Evans Was there a witness we do not know. Who observed the sex between McDonald and the women and between Evans and the women Who can say whether they considered the women was capable of making decisions for herself Is there a lost video recording what happened in that room....which needs to be found Also the woman, has she really lost her memory over this or not...there has bee evidence that this women has got drunk before and lost her memory. But if you follow the video evidence through what is there....she appear to be getting more sober and less drunk...as the events played out Also getting drunk or not remembering does not mean she could not make decisions for herself at the time. It only means she was drunk and has forgotten...although one it may increase the likelihood, but that is all. Alcohol affects different people in different ways. I am just asking for one piece of evidence that is all...just one All we have at the moment is an attempted reconstruction of events, and guessing the woman's capacity to give consent I don't think you can destroy someone's life on that..for that we need evidence which I don't see. Without this Evans will always be innocent with me Just my own opinion |
|
By:
Well as several of the posters here have pointed out, there rarely is any evidence in these particular kinds of rape cases. (This one has only really been brought to court because the hotel video shows at least some of what happened. The porter also acted as a witness of sorts, although I'm not aware that he himself has suggested that it was no-consent rape - he apparently listened outside the door, and doesn't appear to have heard anything like 'unhand me you foul varlet', or something more, erm, modern)
I suppose the question is, do you have tougher laws that result in life-destroying sentences being handed down for borderline cases where the evidence isn't clear? Or do you let many possible cases of rape collapse? If somebody is roaming the streets looking for hideously drunk females that they can then take back to their houses and have sex with, are we prepared to let those people go unpunished in the majority of cases? Of course the women shouldn't be dropping themselves into that position to begin with, but it still doesn't absolve the man of guilt. It's definitely an area that's somewhat fuzzy. |
|
By:
*firm* evidence, I should say, in that first sentence
|
|
By:
since the andy gray ,richard keys affair sky news and sky sports news seem to have empowered the women reporters to take a very vitriolic stance when reviwing the papers etc ,where women,sexist,violence against women may have happened
my advice to any bloke is to give the sky totty a wide berth |