Ched Evans Wins Appeal But Faces Retrial

[johnny the fox]

Think marlon king is back inside again?  cov were back in for him.. he dodge a bullet there then..

[Bert]

The problem is that he refuses to accept that he did anything wrong in the first place and keeps trying to appeal, all of his attempts to appeal have been rejected since there aren't reasonable grounds.

For restitutional justice to work the guilty party has to admit, accept and move forward, Evans is still in denial and therefore shouldn't be back in society as normal.

Fair point, but if Evans wasn't a footballer we wouldn't be talking about this and no-one would really care about it (apart from those involved, of course).

[MrSpaM]

Can you actually imagine the reaction he'd get from opposing fans if they did sign him? I can't imagine him lasting very long if he did start playing again. I've got a mate who's a shelf utd fan and by the sounds of it the vast majority don't want him back, they don't want that negativity in their club.

[Sir Fynwy]

I don't understand why he was convicted and his mate wasn't.

If her consent is invalid due to her drunkenness then both are guilty.

Nothing to understand, a jury was presented with evidence by both prosecution and defence and decided that in their analysis it was beyond a reasonable doubt that Evans committed rape and his mate didn't, that's the way the jury system works.

[Sir Fynwy]

Fair point, but if Evans wasn't a footballer we wouldn't be talking about this and no-one would really care about it (apart from those involved, of course).

If Evans wasn't a footballer with money for lawyers he'd have given up on the futile appeals long ago, a convicted rapist wouldn't usually be walking straight back into a high profile and lucrative career, because of this he has to expect more scrutiny of his post punishment career.

I'm pretty sure he will end up playing somewhere when he is available but it would be nice if he'd accept his guilty verdict.

[Manwell Pablo]

If Evans wasn't a footballer with money for lawyers he'd have given up on the futile appeals long ago, a convicted rapist wouldn't usually be walking straight back into a high profile and lucrative career, because of this he has to expect more scrutiny of his post punishment career.

I'm pretty sure he will end up playing somewhere when he is available but it would be nice if he'd accept his guilty verdict.

 

What even if he's been incorrectly found guilty?

[Sir Fynwy]

What even if he's been incorrectly found guilty?

The legal system obviously isn't 100% but it finds far more guilty people innocent than innocent people guilty, after a point you have to give up and get on with what life you have left. He's had several appeal attempts turned down so on the basis of beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty.

[Alf Bentley]

Ched is clearly a bit of a tit, but the details of the case seem very inconsistent, if she was classed as too drunk to give valid to consent to Ched, why was she not too drunk to give valid consent to McDonald?

 

 

Only the jury could explain why they found one guilty and the other not. However, I can easily see why they might have done. Forgive any errors in my memory, as I don't feel like reading about this sordid event again, but as I recall:

 

- The woman herself approached McDonald in the street outside a nightclub and asked him if she could get into his taxi and go back to his hotel room with him. Witnesses confirmed this and the taxi driver confirmed that the couple were talking amicably in the cab. CCTV footage then showed them walking into the hotel together. The jury might have felt that he had made a reasonable assumption that she'd consented - or, at the very least, there was reasonable doubt.

 

- Evans had no previous contact with the woman apart from stepping over her as she lay drunk on the floor in a cafe. He was due to share a room with McDonald, who texted him to say that he'd "taken a bird back" and Evans thought he'd get in on the act. He went back to the room uninvited, came in via a fire escape and watched the action through a door, while someone else watched through a window. Evans then got McDonald to ask the woman, who was still lying on the bed, if he could shag her, too. According to their testimony she said "Yes" or words to that effect (she claimed to have no memory of the event as she was completely paralytic - a claim confirmed by witnesses who had met her earlier).

 

On the face of it, it seems illogical that one could have been guilty and the other not. However, as the law states that it is still rape if someone is too drunk to give consent, I find it easy to see how the jury concluded that the two situations were not identical - and they'd have had access to a lot more evidence than any of us.

 

 

Secondly I feel very uncomfortable with the a law that states a woman's consent may not be valid, because she is drunk. Being drunk is not an exact measurable and it is difficult to know what is too drunk to give valid consent especially if the man is drunk as well.

 

Reading the facts of the case she chose to get drunk, she wasn't plied with drinks by anyone, and then she consented to sex. I don't see how that is a crime.

 

http://chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself

 

Look at the video, she is clearly not paralytic, and walking around steadily.

 

They also clearly didn't think they did anything wrong, as they both admitted to having sex with her, I know ignorance of the law is no defence, but they obviously didn't feel like they had taken advantage of her.

 

The whole thing just feels wrong when I read the facts, and makes me wonder how many young lads could have their lives ruined by having consensual sex after a few drinks.

 

I agree that there are grey areas in assessing drunkenness / ability to give consent. I suppose that it is just down to the individual to take responsibility for judging that - and to err on the side of caution (difficult in the heat of the moment, admittedly). Then, if consent is disputed, it is down to the jury to make a judgment. Being drunk yourself does not excuse you from having committed a crime. Indeed....

 

A personal story from my own sordid youth to disprove your "clearly not paralytic" claim (in bold). In my 20s, I often drank myself into oblivion and had "black-outs" (i.e. periods of time when I was doing things but had no memory of them, even though I carried on functioning - often erratically - as far as others were concerned). One night, I'd been boozing heavily at a mate's house in Notting Hill. I got up to leave. The next thing I knew was waking up in a police cell with no recollection of how I'd got there. I found out that I was charged with Breach of the Peace, but still had no idea what had happened. They took me straight into court and the arresting officer got up and said that at 1am he'd been called to the house of a local West Indian family, as a bloke (me) was stood on their doorstep and kept knocking on their door, claiming that I lived there and wanted to come in and sleep. He had asked me to move on, but I had refused, repeating that I lived there and wanted to go to bed, so he'd arrested me. The magistrate specifically asked him if I had seemed drunk, and he replied that I had not. I piped up to confirm that I'd been paralytic and to apologise for the disturbance - even though I had no memory of any of it.

 

What if 2 blokes (or, indeed, 2 women) had come across me in that paralytic state, one had asked if the other could fvck me, I'd (allegedly) grunted "Yes" and he'd gone ahead? Could he have justified his (or her) actions afterwards by claiming that I had consented? Certainly, if I found out about it afterwards, I'd have felt that I'd acted like a complete idiot, but would I also have felt that I'd been raped? Of course, I fvcking would! This is directly relevant to the Evans case as there's no suggestion he was very drunk, while witnesses confirmed that the woman was - and, indeed, that she was a very heavy drinker, generally - and he'd previously seen that she was drunk.

 

Would I be happy if Evans turned up at Leicester? No way! At least, not given his apparent lack of remorse. Even if he assumed that a woman he'd seen lying drunk on the floor and had found in his mate's bed wanted to have sex with him, he should surely be remorseful about the fact that she said that wasn't the case? Surely he should feel, with hindsight, that he acted disgracefully, taking advantage of someone in a vulnerable state? Instead, he's only interested in claiming his innocence and getting back in the public eye playing football. I wouldn't want to be in the public eye ever again if I'd behaved like that (and like most of us, I've done some very stupid things over the years, so I'm not talking from a high moral standpoint).

[ADK]

To be honest I think you should take responsibility for your own actions.

 

She wasn't raped if she said yes, shouldn't matter if she was drunk, unless he got her drunk against her will.

 

She shouldn't have drunk to excess or gone back with a stranger.

 

He shouldn't have had sex with someone who was drunk or cheated on his girlfriend.

[Finnegan]

To be honest I think you should take responsibility for your own actions.

She wasn't raped if she said yes, shouldn't matter if she was drunk, unless he got her drunk against her will.

She shouldn't have drunk to excess or gone back with a stranger.

He shouldn't have had sex with someone who was drunk or cheated on his girlfriend.

... Just... Ugh.

[Sir Fynwy]

To be honest I think you should take responsibility for your own actions.

She wasn't raped if she said yes, shouldn't matter if she was drunk, unless he got her drunk against her will.

She shouldn't have drunk to excess or gone back with a stranger.

He shouldn't have had sex with someone who was drunk or cheated on his girlfriend.

Have you actually read any of the court transcripts? Don't answer that since it's obvious that you haven't.

[Captain...]

Have you actually read any of the court transcripts? Don't answer that since it's obvious that you haven't.

 

Have you? She couldn't remember anything, Evans and McDonald's stories were very close and both said that she had consented, this information was given freely as at the time they didn't think they had done anything wrong, and I doubt they had time to plan their stories.

 

The case was not based on her not giving consent, it is generally accepted that in her drunk state she consented to sex with both men, the case and conviction was based on that consent not being valid because she was drunk. This makes me very uneasy. If I commit a crime when drunk, then I am held responsible for my actions. Even if I am too drunk to remember, surely this works the same way?

[Captain...]

Only the jury could explain why they found one guilty and the other not. However, I can easily see why they might have done. Forgive any errors in my memory, as I don't feel like reading about this sordid event again, but as I recall:

 

- The woman herself approached McDonald in the street outside a nightclub and asked him if she could get into his taxi and go back to his hotel room with him. Witnesses confirmed this and the taxi driver confirmed that the couple were talking amicably in the cab. CCTV footage then showed them walking into the hotel together. The jury might have felt that he had made a reasonable assumption that she'd consented - or, at the very least, there was reasonable doubt.

 

- Evans had no previous contact with the woman apart from stepping over her as she lay drunk on the floor in a cafe. He was due to share a room with McDonald, who texted him to say that he'd "taken a bird back" and Evans thought he'd get in on the act. He went back to the room uninvited, came in via a fire escape and watched the action through a door, while someone else watched through a window. Evans then got McDonald to ask the woman, who was still lying on the bed, if he could shag her, too. According to their testimony she said "Yes" or words to that effect (she claimed to have no memory of the event as she was completely paralytic - a claim confirmed by witnesses who had met her earlier).

 

On the face of it, it seems illogical that one could have been guilty and the other not. However, as the law states that it is still rape if someone is too drunk to give consent, I find it easy to see how the jury concluded that the two situations were not identical - and they'd have had access to a lot more evidence than any of us.

 

The implication there is that if a woman comes back to your room, then that is implied consent which also makes me feel very uncomfortable. A drunk girl agreeing to come to your room doesn't mean you can fvck her.

 

I agree that there are grey areas in assessing drunkenness / ability to give consent. I suppose that it is just down to the individual to take responsibility for judging that - and to err on the side of caution (difficult in the heat of the moment, admittedly). Then, if consent is disputed, it is down to the jury to make a judgment. Being drunk yourself does not excuse you from having committed a crime. Indeed....

 

A personal story from my own sordid youth to disprove your "clearly not paralytic" claim (in bold). In my 20s, I often drank myself into oblivion and had "black-outs" (i.e. periods of time when I was doing things but had no memory of them, even though I carried on functioning - often erratically - as far as others were concerned). One night, I'd been boozing heavily at a mate's house in Notting Hill. I got up to leave. The next thing I knew was waking up in a police cell with no recollection of how I'd got there. I found out that I was charged with Breach of the Peace, but still had no idea what had happened. They took me straight into court and the arresting officer got up and said that at 1am he'd been called to the house of a local West Indian family, as a bloke (me) was stood on their doorstep and kept knocking on their door, claiming that I lived there and wanted to come in and sleep. He had asked me to move on, but I had refused, repeating that I lived there and wanted to go to bed, so he'd arrested me. The magistrate specifically asked him if I had seemed drunk, and he replied that I had not. I piped up to confirm that I'd been paralytic and to apologise for the disturbance - even though I had no memory of any of it.

So you made a poor decision while drunk and had to accept the consequences? Why does that not apply to the woman in this case? Unless you believe they forced themselves on her unconscious body, in which case they are scum, but that is not the facts of the case.

Further to this they did not think you were drunk, and they were sober, proving that it is difficult to judge someone else's drunkenness. Effectively Evans is being punished for being unable to accurately judge the level of drunkenness, which we have established as difficult, especially considering he had also been drinking so his judgement was further impaired.

 

What if 2 blokes (or, indeed, 2 women) had come across me in that paralytic state, one had asked if the other could fvck me, I'd (allegedly) grunted "Yes" and he'd gone ahead? Could he have justified his (or her) actions afterwards by claiming that I had consented? Certainly, if I found out about it afterwards, I'd have felt that I'd acted like a complete idiot, but would I also have felt that I'd been raped? Of course, I fvcking would! This is directly relevant to the Evans case as there's no suggestion he was very drunk, while witnesses confirmed that the woman was - and, indeed, that she was a very heavy drinker, generally - and he'd previously seen that she was drunk.

 

That is a very different scenario, firstly it is not alleged and she didn't grunt yes, it is accepted that she clearly agreed to Evans getting involved, secondly you are using 2 blokes with the added implication of forced homosexuality, which again didn't happen, so he didn't just walk up to a drunk girl and say can I fvck you. The scenario is you are drunk you have pulled a girl in a very forward manner and after going back to her hotel her friend comes into the room and asks to join in, you say yes. You wake up in the morning and can't remember it. Do you feel like you have been violated? OR are you just pissed off you have forgotten your first and probably last threesome?

Before you reply I know it is different for women, although I'm not entirely sure it should be. Would Evans have had a defence if he could prove that he was more drunk than she was? Could he have turned the tables and said he was too drunk to give consent and have her convicted of rape? Of course not, it just sounds stupid the other way round.

Would I be happy if Evans turned up at Leicester? No way! At least, not given his apparent lack of remorse. Even if he assumed that a woman he'd seen lying drunk on the floor and had found in his mate's bed wanted to have sex with him, he should surely be remorseful about the fact that she said that wasn't the case? Surely he should feel, with hindsight, that he acted disgracefully, taking advantage of someone in a vulnerable state? Instead, he's only interested in claiming his innocence and getting back in the public eye playing football. I wouldn't want to be in the public eye ever again if I'd behaved like that (and like most of us, I've done some very stupid things over the years, so I'm not talking from a high moral standpoint).

Why should he be remorseful, when he doesn't think he has done anything wrong?

As I mentioned in the original thread when I was younger I had a few drunken one night stands, normally when I was plastered, including times when I didn't actually remember it, it terrifies me to think that if one of these women had gone to the police saying she couldn't remember sleeping with me, and even if I remembered it and know that she was clearly consenting and enjoying it and didn't seem, in my judgement, to be too drunk (as you proved earlier it is not always clear to tell). I could have been convicted of rape with no defence. It is madness and I would fight to prove my innocence rather than act all remorseful to get an easier ride.

[David Guiza]

 

Why should he be remorseful, when he doesn't think he has done anything wrong?

As I mentioned in the original thread when I was younger I had a few drunken one night stands, normally when I was plastered, including times when I didn't actually remember it, it terrifies me to think that if one of these women had gone to the police saying she couldn't remember sleeping with me, and even if I remembered it and know that she was clearly consenting and enjoying it and didn't seem, in my judgement, to be too drunk (as you proved earlier it is not always clear to tell). I could have been convicted of rape with no defence. It is madness and I would fight to prove my innocence rather than act all remorseful to get an easier ride.

 

Because of jury of his peers and the English legal system clearly found that he had?

As would anyone, but that doesn't take anything away from the fact that what he did was illegal. Just because somebody disagrees with the law or has moral objections to it doesn't change that.

[Captain...]

Because of jury of his peers and the English legal system clearly found that he had?

As would anyone, but that doesn't take anything away from the fact that what he did was illegal. Just because somebody disagrees with the law or has moral objections to it doesn't change that.

No but a successful appeal would, and if I was in his shoes I would be fighting to clear my name.

He has effectively had his life ruined by someone else's drunkenness, and I am not blaming the woman involved, she didn't go to the police and accuse them of rape, she was just looking for her bag. She didn't think she had been raped. The only proof they have that any sexual encounter took place was that they told the police what happened. The whole situation doesn't sit right with me.

[Sir Fynwy]

Have you? She couldn't remember anything, Evans and McDonald's stories were very close and both said that she had consented, this information was given freely as at the time they didn't think they had done anything wrong, and I doubt they had time to plan their stories.

The case was not based on her not giving consent, it is generally accepted that in her drunk state she consented to sex with both men, the case and conviction was based on that consent not being valid because she was drunk. This makes me very uneasy. If I commit a crime when drunk, then I am held responsible for my actions. Even if I am too drunk to remember, surely this works the same way?

I see you are selecting the bits of the case that fit your view, there is far more background to this and I can see very good reasons for a jury to think one defendant has consent but the other didn't.

[Jordan]

If I commit a crime when drunk, then I am held responsible for my actions. Even if I am too drunk to remember, surely this works the same way?

In your hypothetical situation, you committed a crime. The woman in the Ched Evans case did not commit any crime, so your analogy is useless.

Guys, this is a thread about the Ched Evans case--it's neither a Ph.D program in philosophy nor a U.S. Supreme Court decision, and the jury's decision here shouldn't be that difficult to accept.

[David Guiza]

No but a successful appeal would, and if I was in his shoes I would be fighting to clear my name.

He has effectively had his life ruined by someone else's drunkenness, and I am not blaming the woman involved, she didn't go to the police and accuse them of rape, she was just looking for her bag. She didn't think she had been raped. The only proof they have that any sexual encounter took place was that they told the police what happened. The whole situation doesn't sit right with me.

The same thing can be said of any drunken fight. 99% of them end in nothing, that 1% ends in a prison sentence. The law is the law, and if you break it - the fact that you're intoxicated is irrelevant. If the battered man goes to the police station to collect a lost/stolen item, the exact same thing would and should happen. I understand it's a completely different set of circumstances, but the point is the same.

If people like Evans in this situation were to be let off, it would open the floodgates and set quite a precedent.

[Captain...]

I see you are selecting the bits of the case that fit your view, there is far more background to this and I can see very good reasons for a jury to think one defendant has consent but the other didn't.

Please enlighten me, as I have read extensive reports from both sides.

What happens before rape is irrelevant and consent can be given or taken away at any point. A woman could be announcing to the world that she was going to fvck me silly and she could have spent all night grinding up against my cock, but if when I got her back to my room she said no, I would have no right to fvck her.

Further to that the verdict against Evans is that a drunken yes is the equivalent of a no.

Her consent to Mcdonald was as drunken as her consent to Evans, so why was one convicted of rape and one not, especially seeing as Mcdonald had spent more time with her so was better positioned to judge her drunkenness and capacity to consent.

If they had both been convicted of rape I would have much less interest in this case and probably little sympathy, fvcking a girl who is paralytic is rightly a crime, but the fact that she was able to give valid consent to Mcdonald and not Evans makes think she wasn't so drunk she couldn't stand and wasn't so drunk she had lost all power of thought and understanding.

[Captain...]

In your hypothetical situation, you committed a crime. The woman in the Ched Evans case did not commit any crime, so your analogy is useless.

Guys, this is a thread about the Ched Evans case--it's neither a Ph.D program in philosophy nor a U.S. Supreme Court decision, and the jury's decision here shouldn't be that difficult to accept.

No it isn't, the conviction came because she was deemed too drunk to be responsible for her actions, she gave consent, and the courts deemed she was not in a fit state to make that decision for herself. So why in this case did the court decide she was not responsible for her actions, but in a similar state they would decide she would be responsible for her actions if she, for example, killed someone?

 

Surely you are either responsible for what you do while drunk or not?

 

They didn't force themselves on an unconscious girl, she was acting (according to the transcripts) as any consenting girl would be in that situation, including asking Evans to "lick her out". I don't see how they can be held responsible for her getting too drunk to remember what she agreed to do.

[Jordan]

No it isn't, the conviction came because she was deemed too drunk to be responsible for her actions, she gave consent, and the courts deemed she was not in a fit state to make that decision for herself. So why in this case did the court decide she was not responsible for her actions, but in a similar state they would decide she would be responsible for her actions if she, for example, killed someone?

Surely you are either responsible for what you do while drunk or not?

They didn't force themselves on an unconscious girl, she was acting (according to the transcripts) as any consenting girl would be in that situation, including asking Evans to "lick her out". I don't see how they can be held responsible for her getting too drunk to remember what she agreed to do.

Do I really have to explain this again?

[Mike Oxlong]

Ched Evans admits to conning a key off the hotel, sneaking in to a room he knew his mate had a drunk girl in, shagging her and leaving her to bunk out the fire escape and people are still eager to blame the girl?

Ugh.

In fact, **** it, I'm not arguing this for the millionth time. Think what you want but a jury of his peers - a lot more informed than all of you - found him guilty.

This was the only means by which Chedwyn could ever hope to get in the Premier.

[Captain...]

Do I really have to explain this again?

 

Are you or are you not responsible for your actions when drunk?

[Sir Fynwy]

Please enlighten me, as I have read extensive reports from both sides.

What happens before rape is irrelevant and consent can be given or taken away at any point. A woman could be announcing to the world that she was going to fvck me silly and she could have spent all night grinding up against my cock, but if when I got her back to my room she said no, I would have no right to fvck her.

Further to that the verdict against Evans is that a drunken yes is the equivalent of a no.

Her consent to Mcdonald was as drunken as her consent to Evans, so why was one convicted of rape and one not, especially seeing as Mcdonald had spent more time with her so was better positioned to judge her drunkenness and capacity to consent.

If they had both been convicted of rape I would have much less interest in this case and probably little sympathy, fvcking a girl who is paralytic is rightly a crime, but the fact that she was able to give valid consent to Mcdonald and not Evans makes think she wasn't so drunk she couldn't stand and wasn't so drunk she had lost all power of thought and understanding.

Read the case not the media reports!

[Captain...]

Read the case not the media reports!

 

Point out where I am wrong, I have read transcripts and the summing up, I have not read everything so if you know more than me tell me where I'm wrong.