Ched Evans

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cockney Mackem said:
Part of this is down to what the CPS thinks they've got a good chance of convicting on if they take it to trial. If they felt there was enough detail on the alleged conspiracy such as the texts making it clear they had planned to trap a woman like this, they'd have gone for it. If not, they risk going into court with charges that the defence can cast doubt on and potentially reflect doubt on the rest of their case. I'd guess that the prosecution didn't think they had enough cast iron evidence of a conspiracy or accomplice charge.

This decision process can be a bugbear for victims of crime but the CPS conviction rate on rape cases is around 60% and compares favourably to rates for other serious offences.
Click to expand...
I understand that, my point is if you can't prove conspiracy then you can't prove rape.
 


Lewberry pie said:
I understand that, my point is if you can't prove conspiracy then you can't prove rape.
Click to expand...

If you read the version of Ched Evans' website, the text he sent to Evans just said he was with a girl and they made out that Evans made his own mind up to go over and ask if he could join in. In that case they've obviously saying McDonald having sex with the girl and Evans turning up can be tried as individual events.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
If you read the version of Ched Evans' website, the text he sent to Evans just said he was with a girl and they made out that Evans made his own mind up to go over and ask if he could join in. In that case they've obviously saying McDonald having sex with the girl and Evans turning up can be tried as individual events.
Click to expand...
Mcdonald is still complicit as he was there for at least part of it.
 
HellsBells said:
My dictionary?
Click to expand...
I don't know what to say to that. :lol:

I'm not just being a prat BTW (well not intentionally anyway). I'm wondering if there is an argument that a pre-arranged, consensual threesome was occurring, despite one participant bailing (no pun intended) early.
 
Roger Senseless said:
I don't know what to say to that. :lol:

I'm not just being a prat BTW (well not intentionally anyway). I'm wondering if there is an argument that a pre-arranged, consensual threesome was occurring, despite one participant bailing (no pun intended) early.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think that there's no evidence for a threesome, given she entered with only one of them, and he then texted Evans to come and have a go.

But I'm only going on the evidence I've heard; I'm sure the jury heard more ;)
 
HellsBells said:
Personally, I think that there's no evidence for a threesome, given she entered with only one of them, and he then texted Evans to come and have a go.

But I'm only going on the evidence I've heard; I'm sure the jury heard more ;)
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a requirement of a threesome that everyone comes at once. Hell I can't even manage that in a twosome.
 
Lewberry pie said:
If he did leave he's still left an unconscious woman with his horny mate
Click to expand...
This is what gets my goat more than anything else. He gets off scot free for orchestrating a sex act worth 2 years porridge to the one with the cock in.

But if he'd been the getaway driver in a robbery...
 
McDonald was very lucky. His text didn't specifically invite Evans to come and help himself.
He just about has enough background with the lass to raise doubt in their minds if the jury as to whether he reasonably believed she consented to having sex with him.
And he finishes up before Evans starts so is involved in a different sex act.

Plus he walked in with her, and walked out the front door asking the porter to look after her, which is so kuch less shady looking than Evans' actions.
 
Aye it wasn't at all shady to invite an arsehole over to fill his boots from an unconscious slapper, was it.

Joke of a law, joke of a system, joke of an outcome.
 
Roger Senseless said:
Aye it wasn't at all shady to invite an arsehole over to fill his boots from an unconscious slapper, was it.

Joke of a law, joke of a system, joke of an outcome.
Click to expand...

The text simply said 'I've got a girl!'. If I got that from a mate on a night out after we got split up I wouldn't automatically assume it's only reasonable meaning was an invite to come over for a threesome. It could easily just be a 'get in' brag or a way of saying 'don't bother trying to find me, I'm sorted for the night'.

It may well have meant 'come over' and that is certainly how Evans read it, but the prosecution couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that that is what McDonald meant, so they didn't charge him with procurement or conspiracy.

Contrary to what you seem to think, this is an entirely exemplary case from the point of view of the justice system working as it should. A judge and jury paid close attention to a complex case and a situation that obviously confuses a lot of people, and came to a legally impeccable result, as the four appeal court judges have already made very clear.

It's a very serious matter and the exact opposite of a 'joke'.
 
Roger Senseless said:
Aye it wasn't at all shady to invite an arsehole over to fill his boots from an unconscious slapper, was it.

Joke of a law, joke of a system, joke of an outcome.
Click to expand...

It's actually very good legislation- to those that understand it.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
What do you think this proves?



I think it would be more believable if he'd been out drinking with her and got a taxi back to a hotel with her, to believe it was just a night out that ended in a shag
Click to expand...

Just that he says she consented, and he believed she consented and he believes there was no rape. The only other person there who can remember the night said she consented and that they both believed she consented and believes there was no rape. She doesn't know if she consented and doesn't believe either way if there was a rape.

He may be an idiot and a twat, but he didn't believe he was going to rape her or that he had raped her. He asked and she said yes according to the two people in the room who can remember what happened. The only evidence of what happened in the room was given by the two men.

This is a woman who remembered she forgot pizza outside of the hotel and walked outside unaided to get it and bring it inside with her. She wasn't a comatose woman on a bed, she was a bit drunk and had drunken consenting sex with one bloke. Then, as is her right, she decided to have sex with his mate who turned up too.

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...

This is true mind. No means no and also yes sometimes means no, so maybe record them while you're having sex to show a jury?
 
everstar said:
Just that he says she consented, and he believed she consented and he believes there was no rape. The only other person there who can remember the night said she consented and that they both believed she consented and believes there was no rape. She doesn't know if she consented and doesn't believe either way if there was a rape.

He may be an idiot and a twat, but he didn't believe he was going to rape her or that he had raped her. He asked and she said yes according to the two people in the room who can remember what happened. The only evidence of what happened in the room was given by the two men.

This is a woman who remembered she forgot pizza outside of the hotel and walked outside unaided to get it and bring it inside with her. She wasn't a comatose woman on a bed, she was a bit drunk and had drunken consenting sex with one bloke. Then, as is her right, she decided to have sex with his mate who turned up too.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that if the defendant said he didn't do it, we should just believe him and let him off?
 
Roger Senseless said:
Aye it wasn't at all shady to invite an arsehole over to fill his boots from an unconscious slapper, was it.

Joke of a law, joke of a system, joke of an outcome.
Click to expand...

was she unconscious? Haven't seen that evidence anywhere. Will take back everything I've said if so.Was that in Evans' or Mcdonald's evidence?

Cockney Mackem said:
So your argument is that if the defendant said he didn't do it, we should just believe him and let him off?
Click to expand...

so he is innocent until proven guilty. He gives the only evidence of what happened in the room. Nobody refutes it... Seems to be just because she couldn't remember the night, that it must be impossible that she consented, there's as much chance she did as she didn't. Even more so, as two people in the room say she did.

If she remembered tomorrow about the night, and was like...oh i did actually consent, whoops. Would the law still say she couldn't? and would the law still state that ched evans couldn't have reasonably believed she did. (even though...she did, she just couldn't remember doing it)
 
Last edited:
everstar said:
This is true mind. No means no and also yes sometimes means no, so maybe record them while you're having sex to show a jury?
Click to expand...
Be a bit difficult to keep the camera focused on them I'd imagine, but I suppose it depends on what position you're doing.

But ten points for a proportionate response to a complex point of law mate.
 
everstar said:
was she unconscious? Haven't seen that evidence anywhere. Will take back everything I've said if so.Was that in Evans' or Mcdonald's evidence?



so he is innocent until proven guilty. He gives the only evidence of what happened in the room. Nobody refutes it... Seems to be just because she couldn't remember the night, that it must be impossible that she consented, there's as much chance she did as she didn't. Even more so, as two people in the room say she did.

If she remembered tomorrow about the night, and was like...oh i did actually consent, whoops. Would the law still say she couldn't? and would the law still state that ched evans couldn't have reasonably believed she did. (even though...she did, she just couldn't remember doing it)
Click to expand...

The jury heard other evidence including the night porter and cctv, so it's rather odd to suggest that no one had anything to go on but the defendant's version of events.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top