Jump to content

Ched Evans


For ever htfc.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 335
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Perhaps she agreed to go back to the hotel with the first man and have sex, Didnt he text Ched to tell him to come along?

 

Yes.

 

She went back with the first fella so the jury could safely assume that if she agreed to go back with him her intention was to sleep with him. Ched turned up half way through and joined in. 

 

Two drunk people going home together happens all the time. To turn up sober half way through and sleep with a clearly hammered girl is a different thing entirely. Still not entirely made my mind up as to whether it's 'rape' but it still makes him an absolute bell end in my eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

She went back with the first fella so the jury could safely assume that if she agreed to go back with him her intention was to sleep with him. Ched turned up half way through and joined in. 

 

Two drunk people going home together happens all the time. To turn up sober half way through and sleep with a clearly hammered girl is a different thing entirely. Still not entirely made my mind up as to whether it's 'rape' but it still makes him an absolute bell end in my eyes.

 

Wait, since when did Evans turn up halfway through? Didn't she enter the building with him?

 

And her intentions were not in question, her ability to give consent was. If she was too drunk to give consent to Evans, surely she was too drunk to be able to consider withdrawing the consent already given to the first guy, ergo she was also too drunk for that earlier consent for the second guy to still be valid? Or are you now saying that it doesn't matter how drunk she is at the point of having sex, providing consent was received prior to her being considered too drunk to have given that consent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, since when did Evans turn up halfway through? Didn't she enter the building with him?

And her intentions were not in question, her ability to give consent was. If she was too drunk to give consent to Evans, surely she was too drunk to be able to consider withdrawing the consent already given to the first guy, ergo she was also too drunk for that earlier consent for the second guy to still be valid? Or are you now saying that it doesn't matter how drunk she is at the point of having sex, providing consent was received prior to her being considered too drunk to have given that consent?

Some complex issues in the case like, how many in total were in Evans group, how much interaction they had with the female throughout the evening, who was she already known to, what sort of reputation did she already have .

The basic case presented to the jury would appear to be; McDonald and the female went from a takeaway to the hotel where they proceeded to take part in sexual acts, at some point McDonald sent a text saying "GOT THE GIRL" or something of very similar effect . A group of men, including Evans then arrived at the hotel . The nightporter refused them entry, Evans was able to prove that the room was booked in his name so he was reluctantly allowed to enter . Further sexual acts then took place between the 3 people (McDonald, Evans and the female), some of this was filmed on mobiles (possibly from inside and outside the room) . Evans and McDonald left the hotel, leaving the female alone in the room and informed the nightporter that he should keep a check on the room as she was in a bit of a state .

That, as far as I can make out, is a brief outline of what happened that night and I apologise to anyone involved if I have got some details slightly wrong .

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can she be mentally scarred from the incident if she was allegedly too drunk to remember the episode?

At the risk of repeating myself:

If you woke up in a strange room unable to remember anything, then found out something happened to your body that you hadn't consented to, wouldn't you be traumatised by the 'incident' despite not having a memory of the exact point in time. If someone was attacked in the street and knocked unconscious so couldn't remember the assault would you say they couldn't be traumatised because they couldn't remember it? That 'incident' will haunt her for the rest of her life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of repeating myself:

If you woke up in a strange room unable to remember anything, then found out something happened to your body that you hadn't consented to, wouldn't you be traumatised by the 'incident' despite not having a memory of the exact point in time. If someone was attacked in the street and knocked unconscious so couldn't remember the assault would you say they couldn't be traumatised because they couldn't remember it? That 'incident' will haunt her for the rest of her life.

Is she still entitled to have those haunting feelings of violation if she has boasted at some point earlier in the evening that she'd like to do an whole football team ?

Without knowing the full details of exactly what went on between all parties involved, it is impossible to judge and can you be too drunk to remember some details but have a clear memory of other details ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of heat on this thread but depressingly little light.

 

This link (to the judgment) might help:

 

http://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf

 

Also of interest:

 

Consent in the legal definition of rape has two parts:

 

(1) did the victim consent? The court will look at whether they had the capacity to and were free to make a choice about consent, so intoxication or e.g. mental disability are relevant here; and

 

(2) did the defendant reasonably believe the victim consented? That is subjective in part, i.e. did the defendant actually believe the victim consented and objective in part, i.e. does the jury think that belief was reasonable? If both are the case, the defendant is entitled to be acquitted.

 

In the Evans case, you have two defendants, playing different roles, thinking and saying different things about what happened, and with different factors the jury will have taken into account when deciding if their belief was reasonable. The jury would be asked to decide for each defendant separately what their conclusion is for each of those elements above, so that may help people understand how they reached a different decision for the two men.

 

Those who say Evans, in his attempts to get back into professional football, has become a victim of 'mob rule', might find interesting Henry Winter's take in the Telegraph:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/oldham-athletic/11334487/Ched-Evans-mob-rule-card-is-a-cheap-trick-by-an-unrepentant-rapist.html

 

For me (as Andy Townsend would say), the biggest mystery is why Evans's fiancee, and her family, is standing by him so steadfastly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of contradictory gobbledegook.

 

"A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and
capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree
to sexual intercourse."
 
So McDonald has to be guilty too!
 
But No, there is so much contradictory B.S. in the judgement the verdict could be justified either way. A Judge should not lead a Jury the way he has here.
 
New evidence?
 
No mention of the tweets, the complainant and the Police denying they existed. 
 
If you had to choose evidence from proven liars when someone had a noose around their neck waiting to be hanged on that evidence would you give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant? 
 
Anyway, Evan's is just a working class lad, he is unimportant.
 
When are we going to hear about justice for the 60,000 child rape victims and those 20+ MP's including Ministers who raped and murdered children a stones throw away from Parliament?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is she still entitled to have those haunting feelings of violation if she has boasted at some point earlier in the evening that she'd like to do an whole football team ?

Of course she is. We've all said stupid things we don't mean, drunk or sober. And even off she did mean it, everyone has a right to change their mind at any point and has to be given the chance to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...