Ched Evans

Status
Not open for further replies.
andymcnish said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ooo more rudeness.

Typical solicitor. Two hundred times more words than necessary. I look forward to the bill thuddling through my letterbox first thing.

How many times have you accused me of reading other, partisan websites now? Truth is, I haven't visited one. I'd have thought you'd have had some training on the pitfalls of making wild allegations without evidence (only joking).

So you are saying that a lass can consent to sex non verbally by her actions earlier in the evening? Even if she's so bladdered that she can't confirm (or retract) that consent later, in an entirely different set of circumstances?

If that is the case then the law definitely is an ass.

It remains my opinion that all 3 of them are subhuman, that either both or neither of the lads should have been punished, and that Evans has been solely punished mainly because he's a horrible twat.
 


Er I wrote three lines - the long paragraphs are from the case report, not my words.

I'll keep it short then.

A rape requires (a) lack of actual consent AND (b) the man involved not reasonably believing he has been given consent.

So (as the three CA judges said above) there is no inconsistency in one being convicted here but not the other. No injections of alcohol into her head required.
 
andymcnish said:
Er I wrote three lines - the long paragraphs are from the case report, not my words.

I'll keep it short then.

A rape requires (a) lack of actual consent AND (b) the man involved not reasonably believing he has been given consent.

So (as the three CA judges said above) there is no inconsistency in one being convicted here but not the other. No injections of alcohol into her head required.
Click to expand...
And I need say nothing further to what I just did (especially surrounding the word "ass").
 
andymcnish said:
Er I wrote three lines - the long paragraphs are from the case report, not my words.

I'll keep it short then.

A rape requires (a) lack of actual consent AND (b) the man involved not reasonably believing he has been given consent.

So (as the three CA judges said above) there is no inconsistency in one being convicted here but not the other. No injections of alcohol into her head required.
Click to expand...

hang on though, those judges didn't make a decision on his guilt, they decided if there were grounds for an appeal, two very different things. the point lots of folk have made is that they may not have come to the same decision as the jury, which given the nature of the case is fair enough.

even after reading everything on here, the court notes and how the jury was directed i'm still not certain that i would have convicted him, both of them or neither of them... it would be interesting to hear from the jury on how their deliberations went.

probably one other thing learned from this verdict is that rape must surely occur on a regular and consistent basis every weekend and i'm wondering if more cases have been reported since this verdict on what is notoriously a difficult charge to prove.
hopefully if there is one lesson then maybe some lads/lasses have adjusted their behaviour based on this case.
 
elder said:
hang on though, those judges didn't make a decision on his guilt, they decided if there were grounds for an appeal, two very different things. the point lots of folk have made is that they may not have come to the same decision as the jury, which given the nature of the case is fair enough.

even after reading everything on here, the court notes and how the jury was directed i'm still not certain that i would have convicted him, both of them or neither of them... it would be interesting to hear from the jury on how their deliberations went.

probably one other thing learned from this verdict is that rape must surely occur on a regular and consistent basis every weekend and i'm wondering if more cases have been reported since this verdict on what is notoriously a difficult charge to prove.
hopefully if there is one lesson then maybe some lads/lasses have adjusted their behaviour based on this case.
Click to expand...
Something wrong with your shift key mate? Let's not forget that English hasn't given its consent for you to fuck it.




;)
 
elder said:
hang on though, those judges didn't make a decision on his guilt, they decided if there were grounds for an appeal, two very different things. the point lots of folk have made is that they may not have come to the same decision as the jury, which given the nature of the case is fair enough.

even after reading everything on here, the court notes and how the jury was directed i'm still not certain that i would have convicted him, both of them or neither of them... it would be interesting to hear from the jury on how their deliberations went.

probably one other thing learned from this verdict is that rape must surely occur on a regular and consistent basis every weekend and i'm wondering if more cases have been reported since this verdict on what is notoriously a difficult charge to prove.
hopefully if there is one lesson then maybe some lads/lasses have adjusted their behaviour based on this case.
Click to expand...
But surely reason everything in here is exactly the same as being in the jury and hearing ALL of the evidence??

I go back to my earlier point. I am amazed that people think that because they have read about part of the evidence and stuff that has appeared in papers they think they are better informed than the jury.

This is astounding.
 
HellsBells said:
But surely reason everything in here is exactly the same as being in the jury and hearing ALL of the evidence??

I go back to my earlier point. I am amazed that people think that because they have read about part of the evidence and stuff that has appeared in papers they think they are better informed than the jury.

This is astounding.
Click to expand...
You always have a lot of strong political views for someone who obviously hasn't been directly involved in it much. ;)
 
HellsBells said:
But surely reason everything in here is exactly the same as being in the jury and hearing ALL of the evidence??

I go back to my earlier point. I am amazed that people think that because they have read about part of the evidence and stuff that has appeared in papers they think they are better informed than the jury.

This is astounding.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to be sarcastic but this is just a board for opinion , so that's what your going to get ;).
I don't think the opinions of the case on here vary that much.

On the face of it she is a bit of a slapper who binge drinks and takes drugs. She contributes to the outcome by her behaviour, but doesn't deserve to be raped.

Evans was a sexual predator with no morals who went to the hotel to deliberately take advantage of a young girl who wasn't likely to put up much resistance. He used her in a despicable manner then sneaked away into the night, leaving her in a state.

Mcdonald took a girl back knowing he was going to contact Evans to come round. When he left her, he must have known she was not in a fit state to consent. The two lads watching through the windows must also have known she was not consenting. Being not guilty of a crime isn't the same as being innocent.
 
HellsBells said:
But surely reason everything in here is exactly the same as being in the jury and hearing ALL of the evidence??

I go back to my earlier point. I am amazed that people think that because they have read about part of the evidence and stuff that has appeared in papers they think they are better informed than the jury.

This is astounding.
Click to expand...

that makes no sense, sorry...

all i'm doing is questioning the decision they came to based on what they were given, which according to the court notes that are in the public domain, at the least the most salient and pertinent points are. i'm saying according to those i'm not sure if as an individual i could beyond a reasonable doubt convict him or both of them, or not. that's not an unreasonable thing to say.

again as i mentioned before i'd love to know what the jury thought throughout the trial. how they interacted and debated the case. @Kevin Arnott's right boot wrote and excellent post on this topic on the previous thread.

the assertion that juries get it right every time, for me is astounding. but we've done this dance a few times now and aren't going to agree, so i'm happy to leave it there.
 
You have to understand this conviction was unanimous by all the jury members as was the refusal to hear the appeal by 4 separate appeal court judges.
Not only were there no grounds for appeal, the defence arguments were so weak they couldn't even get a hearing in front of the appeal court.

There are plenty of dodgy convictions every year, but this isn't one of them. There wasn't a shred of surprise on the legal circuit about this one.

All this shows is that a huge number of blokes don't have a clue what amounts to rape under English law. You don't need to threaten violence or keep going while she shouts 'no' to be guilty.

Obviously young men don't want to have to think twice before they have sex with a drunk stranger on a night out ... but this is a useful warning shot to remind them of the risks they might be running if they do so...especially if their behaviour is particularly predatory or generally twattish...
 
andymcnish said:
You have to understand this conviction was unanimous by all the jury members as was the refusal to hear the appeal by 4 separate appeal court judges.
Not only were there no grounds for appeal, the defence arguments were so weak they couldn't even get a hearing in front of the appeal court.

There are plenty of dodgy convictions every year, but this isn't one of them. There wasn't a shred of surprise on the legal circuit about this one.

All this shows is that a huge number of blokes don't have a clue what amounts to rape under English law. You don't need to threaten violence or keep going while she shouts 'no' to be guilty.

Obviously young men don't want to have to think twice before they have sex with a drunk stranger on a night out ... but this is a useful warning shot to remind them of the risks they might be running if they do so...especially if their behaviour is particularly predatory or generally twattish...
Click to expand...
Some good contributions to the thread mate. The bit in bold is obviously very true, and possibly a big problem for some people who think they might be doing nothing wrong. I think there should be more education for people, especially young uns, on exactly how the law works in these situations.

Out of interest, would it have made any difference if Evans had been just as pissed as the lass was?
 
HellsBells said:
But surely reason everything in here is exactly the same as being in the jury and hearing ALL of the evidence??

I go back to my earlier point. I am amazed that people think that because they have read about part of the evidence and stuff that has appeared in papers they think they are better informed than the jury.

This is astounding.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure people are saying they know better, just that what we have heard sounds suspect and Evans himself is adamant he's innocent, I've asked this question before but how do you have a threesome in which one is rape and one is not, if one is rape then the other lad is complicit in the rape, under American law and possibly English if you're in a group of people who kick someone to death you are deemed to be complicit, now I'm not saying I agree with that but I don't see how you can't either find them both guilty or innocent together.

The point of view I don't really understand is that rather than talk about what we do know people just want to presume the law is bomb proof and beyond reproach.
 
elder said:
probably one other thing learned from this verdict is that rape must surely occur on a regular and consistent basis every weekend and i'm wondering if more cases have been reported since this verdict on what is notoriously a difficult charge to prove.
hopefully if there is one lesson then maybe some lads/lasses have adjusted their behaviour based on this case.
Click to expand...
Aye, bit in bold especially. If I had a teenage lad, I'd be sitting him down and making him take in this case. Understanding what is and isn't consent is probably one of the best lessons they could learn, and not as straightforward as 'doing what you want unless she says no'.
 
Medulla said:
Aye, bit in bold especially. If I had a teenage lad, I'd be sitting him down and making him take in this case. Understanding what is and isn't consent is probably one of the best lessons they could learn, and not as straightforward as 'doing what you want unless she says no'.
Click to expand...
Getting wrecked and bucking about isn't good regardless, even if Ched Evans was found innocent, him and his mates still went hunting for a lass to have sex with like animals, as far as lasses go, going back to hotels with strangers is a risk I wouldn't want them to take aside from my views on shagging about full stop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top