Ched Evans

Status
Not open for further replies.
everstar

everstar

Striker
Finally got round to watching the clip of the girl he "raped" walking into the hotel. How did a jury convict him saying she couldn't consent in that state? ....

She's coherent enough to remember she has forgot pizza..but isn't coherent enough to consent to sex?
 


Morse said:
Can of worms, mate.
Click to expand...

maybe so...but I don't get it. The only evidence of what happened in the hotel room comes from Ched and his friend. She says "fuck me harder" and "lick me out" sounds consenting to me.

I wonder what the papers would call him if his appeal goes well and the conviction is overturned, what would they use instead of rapist footballer Ched Evans?
 
everstar said:
maybe so...but I don't get it. The only evidence of what happened in the hotel room comes from Ched and his friend. She says "fuck me harder" and "lick me out" sounds consenting to me.

I wonder what the papers would call him if his appeal goes well and the conviction is overturned, what would they use instead of rapist footballer Ched Evans?
Click to expand...
Ched ?
 
aybe so...but I don't get it. The only evidence of what happened in the hotel room comes from Ched and his friend.

Read more: http://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/ched-evans.983337/#ixzz3H0sZsHud

Or maybe read why 4 appeal court judges turned down his appeal rather than going for your 'unbiased' view to a site run by his mates?

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans


Including the fact that the night porter says she was extremely drunk when she went into the room and Ched's mate said she was 'sick' and needed looking after when he left?
 
everstar said:
maybe so...but I don't get it. The only evidence of what happened in the hotel room comes from Ched and his friend. She says "fuck me harder" and "lick me out" sounds consenting to me.

I wonder what the papers would call him if his appeal goes well and the conviction is overturned, what would they use instead of rapist footballer Ched Evans?
Click to expand...

The things she said, is that their testimony or captured on the video they took?
 
"A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."

if she can consent to one, then she can consent to the other. No way should there have been different verdicts. She never said that he raped her. He says she consented, verbally.

Cockney Mackem said:
The things she said, is that their testimony or captured on the video they took?
Click to expand...

mustn't have been. Why wouldn't we believe him though? There's no one saying he is lying.
 
She cannot be fit to consent to McDonald and then 3 minutes later not be fit to consent to Evans. McDonald speaking to her and taking her back to his hotel room doesn't constitute consent because she was completely unable to give it according to the jury...
 
Because it's a two stage test and the second part depends on whether the man honestly believed she had consented?

If you meet a girl in a kebab shop, come back to your hotel, she says 'you won't leave me will you?', you spend a hour or two with her and have drunken sex and then ask the porter to make sure she is OK on the way out maybe, just maybe, the jury give you the benefit of the doubt.

But on the other hand if you turn up in response to a text for sex with a total stranger, bring your cronies to watch/video it, lie to the porter to get access to the room, find a pissed girl in the room having sex with your mate, have sex with that pissed girl you only met moments before and then slink off via the fire exit, the jury don't give you the benefit of the doubt.

Or maybe on the witness stand your mate came across as more genuine in his belief she gave proper consent and you came across as a lying predatory rapist toerag?

He won't get off now unless he has genuine fresh evidence that exonerates him - and I don't see mention of that anywhere..
 
So she wasn't in a fit state to consent to sex at that time...but it was okay for the first guy to assume because they had hung out for a bit beforehand?

"honestly believed" ...well it sounds like Ched Evans believed she consented.

In his evidence he said: "Throughout all the activities with him she was enthusiastic, wide awake and she consented to everything that happened."

Her evidence: "Cant remember." Add that to the fact that she never accused him of rape. Just because she can't remember consenting doesn't mean she didn't consent.

There just isn't the evidence to show that he raped her, no idea how he got convicted based on that full transcript of the case above.

I also find it a bit scary that the appeal judges didn't view the videos of her in town and in the hotel mind, just taking a description of the video. How hard would it have been for them to watch two short videos?
 
andymcnish said:
Because it's a two stage test and the second part depends on whether the man honestly believed she had consented?

If you meet a girl in a kebab shop, come back to your hotel, she says 'you won't leave me will you?', you spend a hour or two with her and have drunken sex and then ask the porter to make sure she is OK on the way out maybe, just maybe, the jury give you the benefit of the doubt.

But on the other hand if you turn up in response to a text for sex with a total stranger, bring your cronies to watch/video it, lie to the porter to get access to the room, find a pissed girl in the room having sex with your mate, have sex with that pissed girl you only met moments before and then slink off via the fire exit, the jury don't give you the benefit of the doubt.

Or maybe on the witness stand your mate came across as more genuine in his belief she gave proper consent and you came across as a lying predatory rapist toerag?

He won't get off now unless he has genuine fresh evidence that exonerates him - and I don't see mention of that anywhere..
Click to expand...
Your argument is mainly that he's a twat, not that he's a rapist.

If she was compos mentis enough to consent to sex with party A, as the jury accepts, then she was also able to do so with party B 3 minutes later.

Given that she was able to make a choice, the question then reduces to whether she consented or not.

As I understand it, there is no direct evidence either way. But her behavior makes it hard for me to imagine she wasn't well up for it. He noshed her before shagging her, she had plenty of time to say no.

So it still seems a harsh conviction to me.

Also, 2.5 x legal driving alcohol limit doesn't sound that drunk to me. Certainly not drunk enough to piss the bed. There's a rabbit off there somewhere.

All in all, if I were her I'd probably have gone home, considered my own behaviour, and acted less like an utter slapper in the future.
 
The judge at the end of the original case actually said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to
consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

....meaning both men are rapists in his eyes. One was convicted and the other wasn't .....so the jury was surely an unsafe one?
 
everstar said:
Finally got round to watching the clip of the girl he "raped" walking into the hotel. How did a jury convict him saying she couldn't consent in that state? ....

She's coherent enough to remember she has forgot pizza..but isn't coherent enough to consent to sex?
Click to expand...

Where have you been for the past week, Mars?
 
What's sickened me is the pussyfooting around some obvious aspects of this case that everyone knows, by politicians and legal people I've heard on the radio, who are too scared to stick their necks out.

Namely that there's a degree of "you asked for it" involved on ALL sides, including the girl's, and (as Ken Clarke was crucified for correctly pointing out) there are degrees of seriousness of rape and this one (even if it actually was rape) wasn't at the extreme end.

Overall I've got sympathy for the bloke, notwithstanding that I'd have all of them publicly horsewhipped for their behaviour in general.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Senseless said:
What's sickened me is the pussyfooting around some obvious aspects of this case that everyone knows, by politicians and legal people I've heard on the radio, who are too scared to stick their necks out.

Namely that there's a degree of "you asked for it" involved on ALL sides, including the girl's, and (as Ken Clarke was crucified for correctly pointing out) there are degrees of seriousness of rape and this one (even if it actually was rape) wasn't at the extreme end.

Overall I've got sympathy for the bloke, notwithstanding that I'd have all of them publicly horsewhipped for their behaviour in general.
Click to expand...
Some fair points made. There was no shrinking violets involved here. All parties had been down similar paths before, doing dodgy acts in drink as have most of us in our formative years. It's not easy for anyone to disect these actions soberly in the cold light of day.
 
Keith S30S said:
Some fair points made. There was no shrinking violets involved here. All parties had been down similar paths before, doing dodgy acts in drink as have most of us in our formative years. It's not easy for anyone to disect these actions soberly in the cold light of day.
Click to expand...

The audience on Loose Women were probably ready to cut his balls off and let him bleed to death without knowing the circumstances of the case.
 
everstar said:
maybe so...but I don't get it. The only evidence of what happened in the hotel room comes from Ched and his friend. She says "fuck me harder" and "lick me out" sounds consenting to me.

I wonder what the papers would call him if his appeal goes well and the conviction is overturned, what would they use instead of rapist footballer Ched Evans?
Click to expand...

where can i see this video where she is saying "fuck me harder" etc or is this hear say?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top