Ched Evans

[andymcnish]

yup
.......and its a dodgy case, I'll await input from the appeals court and subsequent additional evidence being seen. Currently though, the man is a convicted rapist in the eyes of the law

It's not at all 'dodgy'. 12 jury members and 5 judges have looked at it already and not one of them had any issue with him being guilty.
Just because you don't understand the law of rape or of criminal convictions and have got most of your 'evidence' from his girlfriend's website doesn't make it 'dodgy'.

The motto is quite simple - if you are going to have sex with a girl who is very pissed, try to act in a way that doesn't make you look like a lying (to get access to the key) predatory (turning up in response to the text) cowardly (sneaking off via the window and fire escape) scumbag (leaving a girl to wake up and piss herself alone in a hotel room) to a jury or they might actually convict you.

The night porter saw the girl when she arrived to go into the room - he said she was extremely intoxicated. Then McDonald comes out just before they leave to ask the porter to keep an eye on her as 'she is sick'.

But the Defence is trying to make out she wasn't very intoxicated and you believe them? Why?

 

[pillars of hercules]

What gets me is that Mcdonald has took the girl back then invited Evans to come round to shag her. At the time Evans arrived and should have realised she couldn't consent Mcdonald left her in a position to be taken advantage of (deliberately). Why is Mcdonald not guilty of being an accomplice?

 

[Le Chuck]

What gets me is that Mcdonald has took the girl back then invited Evans to come round to shag her. At the time Evans arrived and should have realised she couldn't consent Mcdonald left her in a position to be taken advantage of (deliberately). Why is Mcdonald not guilty of being an accomplice?

really?

This is one of the main grey areas that's open to debate

 

[pillars of hercules]

really?

This is one of the main grey areas that's open to debate

That's what I mean. If Evans realised she wasn't consenting, Mcdonald must have realised, making him an accomplice to rape. If Evans thought she was consenting then it's no more rape than in McDonald's case.

 

[Medulla]

That's what I mean. If Evans realised she wasn't consenting, Mcdonald must have realised, making him an accomplice to rape. If Evans thought she was consenting then it's no more rape than in McDonald's case.

They both came about her at different times and in different ways. When it came to each of their reasonable beliefs as to her consent, which is the critical point, the jury clearly thought that this was significant. I'm not sure MacDonald, believing what he does, then has a basis for judging what Evans should perceive about her state of mind.

 

[pillars of hercules]

They both came about her at different times and in different ways. When it came to each of their reasonable beliefs as to her consent, which is the critical point, the jury clearly thought that this was significant. I'm not sure MacDonald, believing what he does, then has a basis for judging what Evans should perceive about her state of mind.

I'm not disputing that Mcdonald is innocent of rape, I'm saying that if Evans is guilty, then Mcdonald must be an accomplice to rape, seeing as he left her in the same condition Evans found her and he invited Evans over to shag her.

I believe Evans has been convicted on the basis of being low life scum.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

That's what I mean. If Evans realised she wasn't consenting, Mcdonald must have realised, making him an accomplice to rape. If Evans thought she was consenting then it's no more rape than in McDonald's case.

The issue is each defendant is entitled to a fair trial with the burden of proof on the prosecution. The jury may just not have been sure about McDonald, but were sure about Evans.

 

[Medulla]

I'm not disputing that Mcdonald is innocent of rape, I'm saying that if Evans is guilty, then Mcdonald must be an accomplice to rape, seeing as he left her in the same condition Evans found her and he invited Evans over to shag her.

Yeah but he wasnt charged with that.

 

[pillars of hercules]

The issue is each defendant is entitled to a fair trial with the burden of proof on the prosecution. The jury may just not have been sure about McDonald, but were sure about Evans.

Like I said there's no argument from me about Mcdonald being not guilty of rape. Also I know Mcdonald couldn't be convicted of being an accomplice, because he was never accused of it. It doesn't mean that it's not obvious. "Here Ched I've brought a drunken slapper for you to have sloppy seconds on" Its no different other than Mcdonald was a bit less of a **** towards her.

Yeah but he wasnt charged with that.

Was just posting that

 

[Medulla]

Was just posting that

Yeah. I mean a lot of this misses the point. People are so caught up with legal issues that they forget that this is a moral issue. A lad, possibly sober, comes in and shags a lass so drunk she pisses the bed.

If someone wandered into an upstairs bedroom at a party and did that under those circumstances you'd think they were f***ing scum. Well I would certainly.

 

[daveydavey]

Think a lot of people on here would have dramatically different views if they woke up in the morning to find they'd had a group of lads fuck them up the arse when they were too pissed to put a sentence together lying in bed.

I've personally been in the situation, and you can laugh but this is a serious discussion, where I've been getting the buck going with a bird after a night out, were both in bed naked doing this & that, and I've went to move it on but asked..are you ok with this. Most of the time it's fine, but two girls have said no and I've stopped straight away but in both of those cases I had no reason to think they wouldn't be.

You've got to get consent IMO and it's not like it's a trip around the block to get it.

Non of this is judging Mr Evans btw - but I do feel a bit uneasy with the "she knew what she was doing" craic prevalent around this case.

 

[pillars of hercules]

Yeah. I mean a lot of this misses the point. People are so caught up with legal issues that they forget that this is a moral issue. A lad, possibly sober, comes in and shags a lass so drunk she pisses the bed.

If someone wandered into an upstairs bedroom at a party and did that under those circumstances you'd think they were f***ing scum. Well I would certainly.

It just highlights the football culture of using girls, but then again look at all the young girls that will go to any lengths to bag themselves a footballer. If Ched Evans had brought her coffee in the morning I don't think she would be accusing him of rape. People use people in life. Only some people go about it in a nicer way than others.

 

[Medulla]

It just highlights the football culture of using girls, but then again look at all the young girls that will go to any lengths to bag themselves a footballer. If Ched Evans had brought her coffee in the morning I don't think she would be accusing him of rape. People use people in life. Only some people go about it in a nicer way than others.

Yeah but she didn't just accuse him, she accused him and a jury plus several judges agreed he rapid her under the law. The notion that it was the lack of a nice morning kiss that did for him is daft.

 

[Roger Senseless]

True, but you're not going to go to a night porter in a hotel at 4 am and ask him to look after a girl because she is 'depraved' are you?
Or do you think he was mentioning it to the night porter in case he wanted to take advantage as well? Surely facilitating one rape would be enough?

Why not? She might have been getting completely out of control. Maybe mental. If it did mean physically sick then where was the puke? Why didn't the porter call an ambulance? Why was the porter giving out keys to people not on his list of occupants in the first place?

I don't think the rest of that does you muchly credit tbh.

It's not at all 'dodgy'. 12 jury members and 5 judges have looked at it already and not one of them had any issue with him being guilty.
Just because you don't understand the law of rape or of criminal convictions and have got most of your 'evidence' from his girlfriend's website doesn't make it 'dodgy'.

The motto is quite simple - if you are going to have sex with a girl who is very pissed, try to act in a way that doesn't make you look like a lying (to get access to the key) predatory (turning up in response to the text) cowardly (sneaking off via the window and fire escape) scumbag (leaving a girl to wake up and piss herself alone in a hotel room) to a jury or they might actually convict you.

The night porter saw the girl when she arrived to go into the room - he said she was extremely intoxicated. Then McDonald comes out just before they leave to ask the porter to keep an eye on her as 'she is sick'.

But the Defence is trying to make out she wasn't very intoxicated and you believe them? Why?

She was 2.5 times over the driving limit. I was 2 x over recently and still had full use of my faculties and no memory loss the.next day. Didn't feel that drunk at all.

And I still don't understand why his behaving like a twat generally makes him guilty of a rape that he wouldn't have been guilty of if he hadn't behaved like a twat generally, as proven by the acquittal of his mate. He was being tried for rape not twattery. If there was an offence of twattery then half the football clubs in England wouldn't be able to put a team out on Saturday.

Yeah but she didn't just accuse him, she accused him and a jury plus several judges agreed he rapid her under the law. The notion that it was the lack of a nice morning kiss that did for him is daft.

So where did he hide the canoe?

 

[pillars of hercules]

Yeah but she didn't just accuse him, she accused him and a jury plus several judges agreed he rapid her under the law. The notion that it was the lack of a nice morning kiss that did for him is daft.

I'm not a girl but I reckon a few young girls have woke up next to someone unexpectedly and how they were treated the next morning would have an effect on how they reacted.

I don't suppose anyone likes to feel used. The rights and wrongs of a situation don't always correlate to someone's reaction. I don't suppose Evans sneaking out of the fire escape wouldn't have done his defence any good. Maybe him staying around may have given the judges enough doubt to think a conviction unsafe. Just my opinion.

 

[Roger Senseless]

I'm not a girl but I reckon a few young girls have woke up next to someone unexpectedly and how they were treated the next morning would have an effect on how they reacted.

I don't suppose anyone likes to feel used. The rights and wrongs of a situation don't always correlate to someone's reaction. I don't suppose Evans sneaking out of the fire escape wouldn't have done his defence any good. Maybe him staying around may have given the judges enough doubt to think a conviction unsafe. Just my opinion.

Some lasses go far too far when uninhibited by alcohol, feel disgusted with themselves when the loss of inhibition passes, and try to cope with that by transferring blame to the lad(s), thereby creating a rape case out of nowhere. FACT.

 

[everstar]

Yeah but she didn't just accuse him, she accused him and a jury plus several judges agreed he rapid her under the law. The notion that it was the lack of a nice morning kiss that did for him is daft.

she didn't accuse anyone though. She has never once said that she was raped.

 

[andymcnish]

Why not? She might have been getting completely out of control. Maybe mental. If it did mean physically sick then where was the puke? Why didn't the porter call an ambulance? Why was the porter giving out keys to people not on his list of occupants in the first place?

I don't think the rest of that does you muchly credit tbh.



She was 2.5 times over the driving limit. I was 2 x over recently and still had full use of my faculties and no memory loss the.next day. Didn't feel that drunk at all.

And I still don't understand why his behaving like a twat generally makes him guilty of a rape that he wouldn't have been guilty of if he hadn't behaved like a twat generally, as proven by the acquittal of his mate. He was being tried for rape not twattery. If there was an offence of twattery then half the football clubs in England wouldn't be able to put a team out on Saturday.


So where did he hide the canoe?

What are you on man?
Even if the 2.5 figure is right (and really it's the lowest possible estimate the DEFENCE toxicologist could come up with remember) then how it might affect her (and what other drugs might have cleared her system by the time of the test) isn't known. The fact that 3 times the driving limit doesn't cause you memory loss doesn't mean it didn't for her.

'Blackouts are commonly associated with the consumption of large amounts of alcohol; however, surveys of drinkers experiencing blackouts have indicated that they are not directly related to the amount of alcohol consumed. Respondents reported they frequently recalled having "drank as much or more without memory loss," compared to instances of blacking out.[7] Subsequent research has indicated that blackouts are most likely caused by a rapid increase in a person's blood-alcohol concentration. One study, in particular, resulted in subjects being stratified easily into two groups, those who consumed alcohol very quickly, and blacked out, and those who did not black out by drinking alcohol slowly, despite being extremely intoxicated by the end of the study.[10]'

'Research indicates that some users of alcohol, particularly those with a history of blackouts, are predisposed to experience blackouts more frequently than others.[16] One such study indicated a link between prenatalexposure to alcohol and vulnerability towards blackouts, in addition to the oft-cited link between this type of exposure and alcoholism.[17] Alternatively, another study has indicated that there appears to be a genetic predisposition towards blacking out, suggesting that some individuals are made to be susceptible to alcohol-related amnesia.[18]'

I'll bet the above is conveniently ignored on the Ched Evans website.


The defence toxicologist's evidence at the initial trial is attacking her credibility as a witness when she says she couldn't remember - that was left to the jury to decide. The problem is that she was described as 'extremely drunk' and 'sick' at the time and she presumably gave convincing personal testimony as well. The defendants couldn't speak for whether she woke up with a memory of the night before or not (after all they had slunk home long before she woke) - and the jury obviously believed that she did.

Interestingly when that approach failed the defence appealed and tried to bring in two pieces of new evidence to SUPPORT the idea that she had no memory (but that as someone with memory loss can still give valid consent there must be a doubt as to whether she did or not). In other words they tried to bring in a different expert toxicologist and based their appeal on the fact of her memory loss:

The third ground of appeal related to fresh evidence. A civilian witness produced a statement which indicated that from time to time he had heard the complainant say that, having taken a lot of drink, she had no recollection of the previous night. That took the applicant's case no further. It reinforced (if it is to be taken into account at all) that lacking memory after too much drinking was not asserted on this occasion for the first and only time. It was something which happened on other occasions.

The other element of fresh evidence was expert evidence prepared by Professor John Birch, a consultant pharmacologist, a professor of biomedical science. His specialist field is psycho-pharmacology. Towards the end of his report he says:

"From the evidence of [the complainant] she appears to have suffered anterior-grade amnesia as a result of the high dose of alcohol which she consumed, and in particular that she consumed a substantial dose of alcohol during the last hour or so prior to leaving the nightclub. It appears from the evidence that her short-term memory was functioning at the time around the incident, but that the long-term record of that memory has been ablated by the high concentration of alcohol. There is, therefore, no memory record of those events and attempts to jog the memory may lead to confabulation. The fact that she has no memory of events does not mean that she was not able to participate in a meaningful way in events at that time, and I am quite clear that this includes the ability to make informed decisions in relation to consent. Acute alcohol intoxication may lead to substantial disinhibition and that may in itself lead to unwise judgments being made. But the fact that she does no longer remember having made a decision is a failure of the memory process and not of the decision-making process. Evidence of memory loss as a result of anterior-grade amnesia does not in itself prove that she lacked the capacity to consent."

As for 'behaving like a twat' not being a crime - that is of course true. But back in the real world people tend to believe people who aren't obviously twats more than those who are.
Evans admitted he turned up purely to shag a girl his mate had 'got', he brought his cronies to video it, he lied to get the key to the room, he left via the window and fire exit leaving the girl to wake up in her own piss many hours later.

If you shag a really drunk teenager you have never met before by barging in on your mate and seeking to join in without bothering to check how pissed she is then you are taking a risk - often juries give blokes involved in drunken sex probably more leeway than the strict letter of the law allows. But here they weren't prepared to extend that to Ched - as he was a proven liar and predatory twat. It also goes to his state of mind which is critical to his guilt here.

 

[Roger Senseless]

And yet she was deemed able to consent just three minutes earlier.

I don't think I need to say much more.

It must have been some drink, that Evans injected directly into her brain.

 

[andymcnish]

And yet she was deemed able to consent just three minutes earlier.

I don't think I need to say much more.

It must have been some drink, that Evans injected directly into her brain.

You are having a mare here and should probably just quietly exit the thread. At least if you are only prepared to read the girlfriend's website but not the appeal report:

She wasn't deemed able to consent three minutes earlier - McDonald didn't get off because she consented three minutes before - he got off because the jury couldn't be sure that her previous conduct towards him that evening hadn't lead him to have a reasonable belief that she had consented. Evans by contrast met her for about 60 seconds before he got busy on her...

CA extract follows:
In grounds of appeal the first issue was the suggestion that the verdicts reached by the jury were inconsistent. Counsel for the applicant submitted that if the jury acquitted McDonald, there could be no sensible basis on which they could convict the applicant. The court noted in argument that it was not alleged that McDonald was a party to the rape of the complainant by the applicant. The verdict was not related to that count; he was acquitted of raping her himself. The court also noted that in his sentencing remarks the judge was satisfied that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent to sexual activity: “That was simply his view; he would not know how the jury had reached its own decision, but we must respect his analysis. But however it is examined, and assuming that he was wrong about the basis on which the jury reached its conclusion, we find nothing illogical or inconsistent about the verdicts”.

The jury was directed as follows: "When you come back .... you will be asked to return separate verdicts in respect of each of the two defendants. Accordingly, when you retire you must consider the case, that is to say the evidence for and against each of the two defendants separately. Whilst there is a considerable overlap in that evidence, the evidence is not identical, and whilst your verdicts may very well be the same in the case, they might be different. The important thing for you to remember is your approach to the case for and against the defendants must be considered separately."

Given that direction, it was open to the jury to convict both defendants, to acquit both defendants, or to convict one and not the other defendant. That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency.