R
Roger Senseless
Guest
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.
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.