Ched Evans Wins Appeal But Faces Retrial

[Rob1742]

I personally think it was a miscarriage of justice, based on what I have seen.

I read about the case at the time, and I wouldn't have found him guilty based on her clearly being able to walk into the hotel and evidence from the porter that she was fine.

I looked into it at the time, then evidence that you can find now makes this case very very iffy.

I wouldn't normally make a rash opinion, but it just seems wrong on many counts.

Yesterday I read his website for the first time. Now I know this is his website, so it can be biased without question, but there is key evidence in there that really has reinforced my opinion.

Outside of the above information, this case was at a time when the police were actively looking to prosecute footballers for rape and certain women were looking to gain financially from these situations.

Please do not question the above statement, this happens. A solicitor friend of mine said that timing of these cases is a massive consideration. At the moment you have more chance of being convicted of sexual assault if you are famous than you were 5 years ago. The pressure is on the police to prosecute and get a conviction in these cases at the moment, and they will try every angle to nail you.

In the CE case as an example, on police notes, another footballers name (who had previously been arrested by another force and was not linked in any way) was written down by them, so they were clearly briefed to focus in this area should sonething arise.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but do have knowledge from both the police and a solicitor how these things work.

It gets even worse these days as there are pay days for the "victims", so clear incentives for them to go through with things and get convictions.

At the time there were several cases, and several footballers implicated. You will be aware that most were false claims, but there were bound to be one that got through.

Also, then when it gets to trial, the media will have played a massive part in how the jury make their decision. Weeks of hysteria about footballers spit roasting birds in hotels are fresh in their minds and this media frenzy will play a part in their decision making. The media as you know make much less noise about it when the guys were not convicted.

This is a very iffy case and I think at some point the guy will get found not guilty at an appeal.

I think most people are making an opinion on CE without looking at the case themselves and taking in timing etc.

On another point, I am not sure where I would stand on his return to Sheff U if I thought he had done it. It is a difficult decision as to whether he should rejoin them or not.

But what I can see here, it's a miscarriage of justice and I think it will get overturned at some point

[Captain...]

You're more of a "dog with a bone" than I am myself! My answer was implied last time, but I'll state it, if you want.

 

No, I don't think he went there intending to rape her, as in aggressively force himself upon her. I find the scenario of him turning up, with 2 others, to take the piss out of his mate "on the job" quite believable. Maybe he also hoped to get in on the act. Maybe it was a bit of both. Quite likely he felt that, as the most famous footballer there, he had a right to have sex with any girl that his hierarchically inferior mate had brought back provided she or he didn't actively refuse....but only the 2 footballers know that. Worth noting that neither of the other 2 blokes got actively involved, though. One thing that's not been explained is what happened to the other friend who was supposedly going to stay with McDonald at the hotel booked by Evans. Did he exist or was it always going to be McDonald and Evans, preferably with a bit of meat? Did McDonald text Evans that he was "with a bird" to invite him over, as planned, or was he just letting him know out of consideration despite the fact that Evans was staying with his family?

 

No, it's possible that one of them did ask for permission for Evans to join in shagging this paralytic girl he'd never knowingly met, having entered the bedroom uninvited. It's also possible that nobody asked the girl if he could join in (the fact that the 2 of them disagreed as to who had asked encourages this view) - he just felt he had the right to shag her because he was Ched Evans (he may or may not have noticed that she was paralytic). So he shagged her, she didn't resist, he scarpered down the fire escape and she lay there and pissed the bed in her sleep. "Gut-churning and sordid" doesn't do justice to it. "Crime" and "serious sexual abuse" maybe does, or "statutory rape" (I take the point that a terminological distinction might be required vis-à-vis the violent rape of a woman capable of giving/refusing consent).

 

He has no place in football, certainly unless he very genuinely and very publicly recognises how he has wronged her (even if he really thought at the time that she had consented). If he did, he could have an important role, talking to young people about how NOT to behave towards women. Some Leicestershire lad does that for drink driving - he visits schools with the mother of his mate, who died as a passenger in the car that he (first lad) was driving drunk. Truly admirable.

 

If Sheff Utd or anyone else sign him up now and play Leicester, I couldn't face attending but would want to join any reasonable organised protest.

 

I just find this case fascinating, and I do appreciate all the different view points.

 

I find the sordid details do cloud the case, what happens before or after the incident, as sordid as they may be, should not be taken into account when considering consent. He scarpered down the fire escape because he was a famous person who had just cheated on his girlfriend. The fact she pissed the bed is an indication of her level of intoxication, and shouldn't be ignored, but whether she pissed the bed or not doesn't change anything when judging Evans, and not her level of intoxication, it happened after the event, so should not be considered when assessing his thought process.

 

I think it would  be great for him to use his experience to educate people and hopefully this case will make people think twice before going home with a drunk girl, but before he can do that he has to be convicted of something that he can accept he did. I can understand why he will not confess to being a rapist, because in his mind he is clear that she consented and that it was valid. As good as it would be for this case to highlight the dangers of getting drunk, and taking advantage of someone drunk, I don't feel like that justifies a young man's life being ruined.

 

I do believe in this case his life has been unjustly ruined, if she was judged capable of giving consent to McDonald, then she was also capable of giving consent to Evans, whether she did or not only Evans and McDonald know. I understand the difference between her interaction with the 2 defendants, but her capacity to consent was equally impaired by alcohol. If they judged she didn't give it then that would be one thing, but they didn't, they judged that any consent given to Ched wasn't valid. Which I don't believe the evidence given and the understanding of the effects of alcohol is sufficient to be beyond reasonable doubt that the consent given was invalid and should have been interpreted as invalid by Evans.

 

My reaction to this case on appeal would be to create a new crime, be it statutory rape, or taking advantage of an intoxicated person, or something else that carries a lower minimum sentence/non custodial sentence, but can still carry the same maximum sentence as rape. That clarifies the rules and limits on intoxication and defines a suitable way to judge how intoxicated the victim was and what constitutes implied consent, as given to McDonald when drunk. It also allows the judge the flexibility to assess the intent of the defendant, as well as the intoxication of the victim and sentence accordingly.

 

From the case details I have read Ched was in no way a danger to society and there was no benefit in locking him up, but the judges hands were tied, I accept that some people see a crime has been committed, and if McDonald had been sentenced as well, then I probably wouldn't be half as interested in this case. I really don't see there is enough evidence to ruin a man's life.

[David Guiza]

I get the feeling this subject is a bit of a minefield, so I opted to stay clear after trying to put this point into words, but you've pretty much summed up exactly how I feel about the aftermath of this case. To me, the word 'rapist' carries much more serious connotations - i.e. absolutely no doubt about the lack of consent, someone who has forced themselves upon someone else, perhaps violently so - as I'm sure it does to the majority of the general public, given the reaction to his release and possible reemployment. Despite the severity of his crime, I wouldn't find it too dissimilar if Luke McCormick was labelled a 'murderer'.

That's exactly the reason as to why people are missing the point. Rape isn't necessarily Person A physically forcing themselves upon Person B, it's simply sex without consent, or without valid consent in the eyes of the law anyway - our view on rape in this country is slow moving however, marital rape was only outlawed in around 1991 for example!

I agree that to put him alongside somebody who has committed a far more serious sex offence isn't ideal, but he was found guilty of rape, therefore the term rapist is justified in that sense. This happens in other areas of law also, in terms of definition alone, the elederly man who smothers his terminally ill wife is a murderer - but nobody would be comfortable putting him alongside the likes of Huntley, Shipman etc. That's why sentencing is key, the fact he only got a few years when the the sentencing structure allows for life imprisonment says a lot.  

However, as Alf and others have said, we could argue this point all day long and probably not convince the other to come around to their way of thinking. I understand most points that others have raised, but I still completley disagree. I do think somebody will take a gamble on him somewhere, although I'd be surpised if it was Sheff Utd after the public outcry, resignations and Jessica Ennis now also refusing to be a part of it. As C-Man said it could be somewhere like Saudi Arabia, I'm sure his girlfriend will enjoy their views on women out there.

[Alf Bentley]

I read about the case at the time, and I wouldn't have found him guilty based on her clearly being able to walk into the hotel and evidence from the porter that she was fine.

 

 

Here is an account of her state (including the porter's testimony) from a specialist site for lawyers (https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans):

 The CCTV footage showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet, at one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very drunk. [...] The taxi driver thought that her upper clothing was somewhat dishevelled. [...] During the taxi journey McDonald sent a text message to the applicant telling him that he had "got a bird" or words to that effect. The prosecution case was that the applicant had booked the room at the hotel with the main or sole purpose of procuring a girl or girls later that night. The complainant had no recollection of anything which took place after 3am. That extended to the fact that she and McDonald entered the hotel at 4.15am. The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". That reinforced the Crown's case based on the evidence of witnesses and the CCTV footage before she had arrived at the hotel. While en route to the room the porter heard her say to McDonald "You're not going to leave me, are you?" The complainant said that her next memory was waking up in the hotel room at about 11.30am. She realised that she was alone. She was naked and had urinated in the bed. She had a headache and was confused. She reported the matter to the police".

 

I do believe in this case his life has been unjustly ruined, if she was judged capable of giving consent to McDonald, then she was also capable of giving consent to Evans, whether she did or not only Evans and McDonald know. I understand the difference between her interaction with the 2 defendants, but her capacity to consent was equally impaired by alcohol. If they judged she didn't give it then that would be one thing, but they didn't, they judged that any consent given to Ched wasn't valid. Which I don't believe the evidence given and the understanding of the effects of alcohol is sufficient to be beyond reasonable doubt that the consent given was invalid and should have been interpreted as invalid by Evans.

 

[...]

 

From the case details I have read Ched was in no way a danger to society and there was no benefit in locking him up, but the judges hands were tied, I accept that some people see a crime has been committed, and if McDonald had been sentenced as well, then I probably wouldn't be half as interested in this case. I really don't see there is enough evidence to ruin a man's life.

 

I've already made this important point at least twice (see posts 209 & 218), but will try one last time:

- The jury probably decided that she was incapable of consenting to either man, but that McDonald (but not Evans) may have reasonably believed he had consent

We don't know how the jury took their decision, but the judge clearly encouraged them to consider this analysis (see below). It seems very likely that is why they gave 2 different verdicts. At the very least, it is an analysis that is rational and can be justified. You obviously disagree with it. If I had access to all the evidence, maybe I'd disagree with it. Maybe new evidence will change things. But based on the evidence publicly available now, I'd take the same view as the jury, who DID have access to all the evidence. Evans may never be a danger to society again, but it seems clear to me that he was a massive danger to this girl.

 

Here's the specialist legal site again (https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans):

In grounds of appeal the first issue was the suggestion that the verdicts reached by the jury were inconsistent. [...] The court 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 [Evans] knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him. 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.

[ADK]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30040257

 

Another rape case.

 

Interesting the sentence was no longer.

[Captain...]

Here is an account of her state (including the porter's testimony) from a specialist site for lawyers (https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans):

 The CCTV footage showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet, at one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very drunk. [...] The taxi driver thought that her upper clothing was somewhat dishevelled. [...] During the taxi journey McDonald sent a text message to the applicant telling him that he had "got a bird" or words to that effect. The prosecution case was that the applicant had booked the room at the hotel with the main or sole purpose of procuring a girl or girls later that night. The complainant had no recollection of anything which took place after 3am. That extended to the fact that she and McDonald entered the hotel at 4.15am. The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". That reinforced the Crown's case based on the evidence of witnesses and the CCTV footage before she had arrived at the hotel. While en route to the room the porter heard her say to McDonald "You're not going to leave me, are you?" The complainant said that her next memory was waking up in the hotel room at about 11.30am. She realised that she was alone. She was naked and had urinated in the bed. She had a headache and was confused. She reported the matter to the police".

 

I've already made this important point at least twice (see posts 209 & 218), but will try one last time:

- The jury probably decided that she was incapable of consenting to either man, but that McDonald (but not Evans) may have reasonably believed he had consent

We don't know how the jury took their decision, but the judge clearly encouraged them to consider this analysis (see below). It seems very likely that is why they gave 2 different verdicts. At the very least, it is an analysis that is rational and can be justified. You obviously disagree with it. If I had access to all the evidence, maybe I'd disagree with it. Maybe new evidence will change things. But based on the evidence publicly available now, I'd take the same view as the jury, who DID have access to all the evidence. Evans may never be a danger to society again, but it seems clear to me that he was a massive danger to this girl.

 

Here's the specialist legal site again (https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans):

In grounds of appeal the first issue was the suggestion that the verdicts reached by the jury were inconsistent. [...] The court 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 [Evans] knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him. 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.

 

That is the very bit that I have a problem with. The victim was just as drunk when she consented to McDonald, but the difference is people can believe that McDonald had reasonable reason to believe that he had consent despite the fact she was so intoxicated she did all the sordid things such as piss the bed that have been previously mentioned. So why is it impossible for Ched to believe he had consent? This is my point about his actions after the event, and why I defend him, because I believe he believed he had consent. If McDonald is innocent because he believed he had consent, and witnesses to back him up, just shows that the burden of proof in this case is all messed up.

 

Evans is guilty because he couldn't prove he believed he had consent, but there is nothing to prove he didn't.

 

Do you believe he believed he had consent?

[MPH]

That is the very bit that I have a problem with. The victim was just as drunk when she consented to McDonald, but the difference is people can believe that McDonald had reasonable reason to believe that he had consent despite the fact she was so intoxicated she did all the sordid things such as piss the bed that have been previously mentioned. So why is it impossible for Ched to believe he had consent? This is my point about his actions after the event, and why I defend him, because I believe he believed he had consent. If McDonald is innocent because he believed he had consent, and witnesses to back him up, just shows that the burden of proof in this case is all messed up.

 

Evans is guilty because he couldn't prove he believed he had consent, but there is nothing to prove he didn't.

 

Do you believe he believed he had consent?

 

 

 

Is it not possible that she verbally consented to The first guy and didnt to the 2nd?

 

 

 

 

It doesnt help either that both men have contradicted each other either. That hints that one of them isnt being 100% truthful

[Captain...]

Is it not possible that she verbally consented to The first guy and didnt to the 2nd?

It doesnt help either that both men have contradicted each other either. That hints that one of them isnt being 100% truthful

Anything is possible, but based on the facts I don't see any evidence that he didn't believe that consent wasn't given and that the given consent was valid.

[Alf Bentley]

That is the very bit that I have a problem with. The victim was just as drunk when she consented to McDonald, but the difference is people can believe that McDonald had reasonable reason to believe that he had consent despite the fact she was so intoxicated she did all the sordid things such as piss the bed that have been previously mentioned. So why is it impossible for Ched to believe he had consent? This is my point about his actions after the event, and why I defend him, because I believe he believed he had consent. If McDonald is innocent because he believed he had consent, and witnesses to back him up, just shows that the burden of proof in this case is all messed up.

 

Evans is guilty because he couldn't prove he believed he had consent, but there is nothing to prove he didn't.

 

Do you believe he believed he had consent?

 

If the jury decided that the woman was incapable of consenting to either man, I find that entirely reasonable, based on the information in the public domain.

 

If the jury decided that McDonald may have reasonably believed that he had capable consent, based on her talking to him before witnesses in the street and in the taxi, inviting herself into the taxi and walking into the hotel with him, I find that entirely reasonable.

 

If the jury decided that there was no convincing evidence that Evans reasonably believed that he had capable consent, I find that entirely reasonable. The only evidence was Evans' own testimony and the semi-conflicting testimony of his friend (not a neutral witness - and, even then, someone who gave a different story as to who asked for consent).

 

In reality, I imagine that both men knew she was legless but saw nothing wrong with taking advantage of a legless woman (while sober themselves). However, the law says that is wrong - and I strongly approve of that. It is also no excuse to be ignorant of the law. It just so happens that there was enough evidence from before the incident to allow the jury to think that McDonald might have reasonably believed he had consent. There was none for Evans.

 

If that means that the law deems it illegal to take sexual advantage of a drunkenly incapable woman unless you can demonstrate a reasonable belief that she consented, I thoroughly approve. If it's assumed to be repulsive behaviour unless proven otherwise, I approve. If I beat a bloke up, with no credible witnesses, he loses his memory as a result and I claim that he is a masochist who asked me to do it, I'd expect to be found guilty of GBH unless there was good evidence to support my story.

 

Now, I really am going to withdraw from this thread as this endless, sordid debate is making my skin crawl, and all arguments have been aired, unless important new evidence materialises. One last thing, though, Captain: I haven't noticed you show any concern for the girl (I apologise if you have, and I've missed it). I really think that you should imagine yourself in her position more, even if she's a messed-up kid who behaved recklessly. Sorry if this seems below the belt or sanctimonious (particularly as I've been no angel myself in the past), but I find it quite upsetting to think of what she went through and genuinely stomach-churning to think of the behaviour of Evans (& McDonald, to a lesser extent). I respect your right to a different opinion, but this isn't just some abstract issue of personal freedom (important though that is); it also involves real people, the responsibility to behave decently towards others - and the horrible defilement of that responsibility.

 

See you amicably in a different thread! 

[Rob1742]

She could order a pizza and decide what toppings she wanted on it.

She could decide after that to go back to a hotel and have consensual sex.

Then somewhere after that she hasn't consented.

In the video on her entering the building she looks fine to me. This for me was a key situation as I could see this myself and make my own assessment

[Col city fan]

The problem is, every person is different.

I have black outs from drinking all the time, that's usually when I've had a fair amount but no more than any of my friends. When we talk about the nights events I usually have no memory at all other than the odd flash from about the 5th pint onwards. That doesn't mean I'm out of it at the time though, in fact I'm usually told that I didn't seem 'drunk' and was still the most sensible of the bunch by my mates and the mrs says the same when I get home. None of them understand how I can seem to sober and not remember.

Not being able to remember certainly doesn't mean you weren't in the state at the time to give a reasoned answer.

Babs..if your mates say that your 'the most sensible of the bunch', I think they're just being kind buddy?

[Stadt]

I think there needs to be a new term coined for this, there's varying degrees of rape and under it's current definition is a bit of an umbrella term.

The same can be said of racism.

[Dan LCFC]

Evans is guilty because he couldn't prove he believed he had consent, but there is nothing to prove he didn't.

 

Rape cases to a tee. Utterly impossible to reach a proper verdict unless you had the entire thing on camera.

[Tuna]

The media hysteria over the Ched Evans case is ridiculous.

[Sir Fynwy]

The fact that the victim has had to change her identity 3 times because of threats and harassment from Cheds supporters speaks volumes.

[fleckneymike]

Drinking too much.

Being on her own.

Going back with a man she didn't know to a place she didn't know.

 

I would disagree on all counts then.

 

 

To be irresponsible one would need to do something which is in itself reckless. None of the examples you have listed above are irresponsible.

 

We do seem to live in a culture which seeks to apportion blame where non exists. Ched Evans was sober, what Ched Evans did was irresponsible and showed a reckless disregard for another human being. Like Alf (who has expressed himself most eloquently) I cannot see what I can add to this debate which will move either side closer together so like Alf I shall stop posting in this thread.

[Unabomber]

The fact that the victim has had to change her identity 3 times because of threats and harassment from Cheds supporters speaks volumes.

Says it all.

[Samilktray]

3 times in 1 year

[Unabomber]

3 times in 1 year

3 men in 1 night.

 

Edit: was it 3? I dunno.

[Captain...]

If the jury decided that the woman was incapable of consenting to either man, I find that entirely reasonable, based on the information in the public domain.

 

If the jury decided that McDonald may have reasonably believed that he had capable consent, based on her talking to him before witnesses in the street and in the taxi, inviting herself into the taxi and walking into the hotel with him, I find that entirely reasonable.

 

If the jury decided that there was no convincing evidence that Evans reasonably believed that he had capable consent, I find that entirely reasonable. The only evidence was Evans' own testimony and the semi-conflicting testimony of his friend (not a neutral witness - and, even then, someone who gave a different story as to who asked for consent).

 

In reality, I imagine that both men knew she was legless but saw nothing wrong with taking advantage of a legless woman (while sober themselves). However, the law says that is wrong - and I strongly approve of that. It is also no excuse to be ignorant of the law. It just so happens that there was enough evidence from before the incident to allow the jury to think that McDonald might have reasonably believed he had consent. There was none for Evans.

 

If that means that the law deems it illegal to take sexual advantage of a drunkenly incapable woman unless you can demonstrate a reasonable belief that she consented, I thoroughly approve. If it's assumed to be repulsive behaviour unless proven otherwise, I approve. If I beat a bloke up, with no credible witnesses, he loses his memory as a result and I claim that he is a masochist who asked me to do it, I'd expect to be found guilty of GBH unless there was good evidence to support my story.

But that hypothetical isn't the same, beating someone up is an illegal act, which could be negated by consent, whereas sex, a threesome, sleeping with someone you've just met, as unpleasant and sordid as it may be it isn't an illegal act it is the absence of consent which makes it illegal, your hypothetical is the opposite.

Which is why I have asked does me giving you money when I'm drunk and not remembering make you a thief?

 

Now, I really am going to withdraw from this thread as this endless, sordid debate is making my skin crawl, and all arguments have been aired, unless important new evidence materialises. One last thing, though, Captain: I haven't noticed you show any concern for the girl (I apologise if you have, and I've missed it). I really think that you should imagine yourself in her position more, even if she's a messed-up kid who behaved recklessly. Sorry if this seems below the belt or sanctimonious (particularly as I've been no angel myself in the past), but I find it quite upsetting to think of what she went through and genuinely stomach-churning to think of the behaviour of Evans (& McDonald, to a lesser extent). I respect your right to a different opinion, but this isn't just some abstract issue of personal freedom (important though that is); it also involves real people, the responsibility to behave decently towards others - and the horrible defilement of that responsibility.

 

See you amicably in a different thread! 

My concern for the victim is mainly for what has happened since then, the hounding and high profile nature of this case has probably ruined her life a lot more than something that she couldn't even remember happening. If the police hadn't followed this up she would be none the wiser. I have never once criticised her actions nor moralised over her getting drunk and sleeping around. I do think she has to accept some of the responsibility for getting that drunk, as there was no evidence of her drink being spiked, and whilst I don't think that means she deserves anything that happens to her whilst drunk, I also don't think that her not remembering and pissing the bed completely exonerates her from all responsibility. Really in this case 2 people's lives have been ruined and for what? What have we gained from all of this? We have created a rapist and rape victim over what could have been, at the time, a consensual act.

[Alf Bentley]

But that hypothetical isn't the same, beating someone up is an illegal act, which could be negated by consent, whereas sex, a threesome, sleeping with someone you've just met, as unpleasant and sordid as it may be it isn't an illegal act it is the absence of consent which makes it illegal, your hypothetical is the opposite.

Which is why I have asked does me giving you money when I'm drunk and not remembering make you a thief?

 

My concern for the victim is mainly for what has happened since then, the hounding and high profile nature of this case has probably ruined her life a lot more than something that she couldn't even remember happening. If the police hadn't followed this up she would be none the wiser. I have never once criticised her actions nor moralised over her getting drunk and sleeping around. I do think she has to accept some of the responsibility for getting that drunk, as there was no evidence of her drink being spiked, and whilst I don't think that means she deserves anything that happens to her whilst drunk, I also don't think that her not remembering and pissing the bed completely exonerates her from all responsibility. Really in this case 2 people's lives have been ruined and for what? What have we gained from all of this? We have created a rapist and rape victim over what could have been, at the time, a consensual act.

 

I don't see "sex, a threesome, sleeping with someone you've just met" as "unpleasant and sordid"; likewise for 2 drunken people having a shag. It might or might not lead to embarrassment or regrets. What is sordid is abusing vulnerable people.

 

- It's illegal to beat someone up

- It was illegal for Gary Glitter to have sex with under-age girls, as they're deemed incapable of consent - rightly so

- It was illegal for Ched Evans to have sex with a paralytic woman, as she was deemed incapable of consent - rightly so (you obviously disagree; the jury didn't)

My "beating up" hypothesis was a poor one. It seems to be technically illegal even to engage in consenting sado-masochism that causes bodily harm. It just very rarely comes to court as it is done in private and nobody objects. The same presumably applies to drunken shags, otherwise the courts and press would be full of cases where women claimed that men had taken advantage of their drunkenness while men counter-claimed that it was the other way round!

 

Applying your "thief" hypothesis: If I con a key to your house, enter uninvited, make off with your wallet and then claim afterwards that you gave it to me, but you don't remember and there is CCTV footage and witnesses confirming that you'd been staggering around the street off your head, then that would constitute theft morally (DK re. legally).

 

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you persist in equating this case to a consensual drunken shag ("sleeping around"). I reject this. The girl was demonstrably paralytic, while Evans was sober. His mate sent him a text saying he'd "got a bird"; she didn't know him and didn't invite him to the room. He conned his way into a room that he wasn't supposed to be staying in (or was he? where was the other bloke who was supposedly due to stay there with McDonald?). He shagged a girl he didn't know, who hadn't invited him and who was demonstrably paralytic - and the only "evidence" for any supposed consent is the word of Evans and of McDonald, hardly an unbiased witness and one whose evidence conflicted with Evans' re. who obtained consent.

 

The hounding of the victim is presumably down to people acting in support of Evans (though without his knowledge, I'm guessing). The high profile nature of the case now is due to Evans' bone-headed insistence on his right to swagger around football pitches seeking applause despite having been convicted of a disgusting crime.

 

Just because you can't remember something doesn't mean that it can't do you damage. Are you really saying that, if you got paralytic one night and found out afterwards that a woman you didn't know had entered your room uninvited and had sex with you, you wouldn't feel that you'd been abused? I fvcking would! The girl was obviously sufficiently concerned about what had happened to her that she went to the police wondering if her drink had been spiked and wanting to know what had happened. The police were duty-bound to investigate a potential crime, even if the crime they ended up identifying was a different one. She acted recklessly but not illegally; in the absence of new evidence, Evans acted illegally - and disgustingly. He was responsible; she wasn't.

 

"We" haven't made Evans a rapist. He made himself a rapist under the law. He has damaged his own life and hers; he hasn't ruined his life as, if he is excluded from football, he can pursue other avenues. I hope that he hasn't ruined her life.

 

Really, can we end this dialogue now, unless there are genuinely new issues, Captain? I've replied today as you raised issues in response to my last post and was in quite a good mood. In general, there's quite a lot of crap going on in my life and this tale of sordid abuse just brings me down even more - so you'll understand if I don't reply to any further posts. 

[Captain...]

I don't see "sex, a threesome, sleeping with someone you've just met" as "unpleasant and sordid"; likewise for 2 drunken people having a shag. It might or might not lead to embarrassment or regrets. What is sordid is abusing vulnerable people.

 

- It's illegal to beat someone up

- It was illegal for Gary Glitter to have sex with under-age girls, as they're deemed incapable of consent - rightly so

- It was illegal for Ched Evans to have sex with a paralytic woman, as she was deemed incapable of consent - rightly so (you obviously disagree; the jury didn't)

My "beating up" hypothesis was a poor one. It seems to be technically illegal even to engage in consenting sado-masochism that causes bodily harm. It just very rarely comes to court as it is done in private and nobody objects. The same presumably applies to drunken shags, otherwise the courts and press would be full of cases where women claimed that men had taken advantage of their drunkenness while men counter-claimed that it was the other way round!

 

Applying your "thief" hypothesis: If I con a key to your house, enter uninvited, make off with your wallet and then claim afterwards that you gave it to me, but you don't remember and there is CCTV footage and witnesses confirming that you'd been staggering around the street off your head, then that would constitute theft morally (DK re. legally).

 

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you persist in equating this case to a consensual drunken shag ("sleeping around"). I reject this. The girl was demonstrably paralytic, while Evans was sober. His mate sent him a text saying he'd "got a bird"; she didn't know him and didn't invite him to the room. He conned his way into a room that he wasn't supposed to be staying in (or was he? where was the other bloke who was supposedly due to stay there with McDonald?). He shagged a girl he didn't know, who hadn't invited him and who was demonstrably paralytic - and the only "evidence" for any supposed consent is the word of Evans and of McDonald, hardly an unbiased witness and one whose evidence conflicted with Evans' re. who obtained consent.

 

The hounding of the victim is presumably down to people acting in support of Evans (though without his knowledge, I'm guessing). The high profile nature of the case now is due to Evans' bone-headed insistence on his right to swagger around football pitches seeking applause despite having been convicted of a disgusting crime.

 

Just because you can't remember something doesn't mean that it can't do you damage. Are you really saying that, if you got paralytic one night and found out afterwards that a woman you didn't know had entered your room uninvited and had sex with you, you wouldn't feel that you'd been abused? I fvcking would! The girl was obviously sufficiently concerned about what had happened to her that she went to the police wondering if her drink had been spiked and wanting to know what had happened. The police were duty-bound to investigate a potential crime, even if the crime they ended up identifying was a different one. She acted recklessly but not illegally; in the absence of new evidence, Evans acted illegally - and disgustingly. He was responsible; she wasn't.

 

"We" haven't made Evans a rapist. He made himself a rapist under the law. He has damaged his own life and hers; he hasn't ruined his life as, if he is excluded from football, he can pursue other avenues. I hope that he hasn't ruined her life.

 

Really, can we end this dialogue now, unless there are genuinely new issues, Captain? I've replied today as you raised issues in response to my last post and was in quite a good mood. In general, there's quite a lot of crap going on in my life and this tale of sordid abuse just brings me down even more - so you'll understand if I don't reply to any further posts. 

 

If you want to end the dialogue you probably shouldn't ask me questions in it.

 

You are misrepresenting the thief question, it is not someone making off with my wallet, it is me giving them money and not remembering, in the same way Evans claims that she gave him consent. Conning his way into the room could be a crime in it's right, which I have no problem with, but however someone gets there doesn't matter if she consents. Being drunk doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions and doesn't mean you are incapable of making a decision and don't have to deal with the consequences.

 

This doesn't mean I think you can take advantage of drunk girls, or boys, you can't and shouldn't and I can believe that what happened in that hotel room could have been rape, I can believe that she was so drunk she didn't know what was going on and perhaps she didn't even realize it was someone else, but I can also believe that she was drunk in the mood and thought fvck it two for the price of one. The truth is nobody knows what her thought process was at the time, not even her, I have not proclaimed Evan's innocence, only that I don't see enough evidence to say he is guilty beyond doubt.

 

The inconsistency of the 2 verdicts and the actions of Ched afterwards, I don't see him arrogantly swanning around believing he has a right to play football and earn millions, I see him fighting to clear his name and get his life back on track. His actions are exactly how I would expect someone who believed they had a valid consent to act. Of course that doesn't mean he did, but I see no concrete evidence that he didn't.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

The guy should be booted out of the game. Bastard!

[Rob1742]

I just don't get this.

Help me out, please answer me this:

You have the ability to go into a kebab shop, you have the ability to decide you want something to eat and you have the ability to order it, pay for it, wait for it and eat it.

You have the ability to decide to have sex with a man she has just met.

Yet suddenly someone else comes in the room and she does not have the ability to decide???

I think if you can decide about food, and someone walks in the room you would be able to decide what you wanted.

Then, and this is the next point. She says she can't remember anything what happened??????

Well if she can't remember, there would be a good chance that she agreed to it as she was capable of deciding what she wanted to eat earlier, so following that pattern, there is a good chance she carried on making decisions.

I just cannot get this around my head. I cannot believe they convicted him based on the fact she can't remember what happened, so she basically does not know whether she consented or not.

Then there is the messages afterwards and her deleting facebook messages.

See my point??

I can see she was drunk and may have made the wrong decision, haven't we all. But she has clearly made decisions and has to take responsibility for them.

Or maybe she could sue the kebab shop for selling her a pizza as she was drunk and made the wrong decision to buy it?

[Banks]

I just don't get this.

Help me out, please answer me this:

You have the ability to go into a kebab shop, you have the ability to decide you want something to eat and you have the ability to order it, pay for it, wait for it and eat it.

You have the ability to decide to have sex with a man she has just met.

Yet suddenly someone else comes in the room and she does not have the ability to decide???

I think if you can decide about food, and someone walks in the room you would be able to decide what you wanted.

Then, and this is the next point. She says she can't remember anything what happened??????

Well if she can't remember, there would be a good chance that she agreed to it as she was capable of deciding what she wanted to eat earlier, so following that pattern, there is a good chance she carried on making decisions.

I just cannot get this around my head. I cannot believe they convicted him based on the fact she can't remember what happened, so she basically does not know whether she consented or not.

Then there is the messages afterwards and her deleting facebook messages.

See my point??

I can see she was drunk and may have made the wrong decision, haven't we all. But she has clearly made decisions and has to take responsibility for them.

Or maybe she could sue the kebab shop for selling her a pizza as she was drunk and made the wrong decision to buy it?

This.