UKC

Not seen much about this on the forums but having a skim through the trial have to say the conviction looks rather dodgy. Now there appears to be a campaign to ruin his life after he's served his sentence.
Thoughts?

In reply to Indy:
Well he has served his time so he should be able to get on with his life and that's with Sheffield United however.......

High profile job and the influence he will have on impressionable minds?

His appeal against conviction appears to be being fast-tracked.

The on-line hatchet committee saying he should never play football for SU or football per se again......150,000 signatures??

The alleged lack of 'force' used in this assault.

I'm sure there will be others who will add to this list.

For me, he has served his crime and whether he protests his innocence or not or even if he loses/wins is appeal, he should play for the Blades again.

BB

In reply to bluebealach:

there are many jobs where a conviction for a sexual offence would mean you could never work in that field again. any profession regulated by a professional body, for example. I cant see the General Medical Council or General Teaching Council et al continuing to grant a licence to practice to a convicted rapist.

there are many others where even though there would be no legal barrier to returning, no one is going to employ you ever again. politics, and showbusiness for example. do you think any of the men convicted following operation yewtree are going to get jobs back at the bbc? how many MPs would be reselected after serving time for rape?

in fact, any job involving a CRB check- currently 4 million of these done annually, and they are valid for 3 years,- is likely to be closed to a rapist.

so the 'done his time, so can get on with his life' argument doesn't really hold. there are very many jobs indeed where his actions would have ended his career. professional football, self evidently, should be one of them. if he gets signed, there will be club replica shirts with his name on them sold in the club store, and kids will run around wearing a rapist's name on their back. that would be a repulsive situation.

only a club devoid of morals or decency would do this. no matter how desperate they are, the Blades' reputation is surely worth more than that. if it was my club, i would never support them again.

best wishes
gregor

In reply to Indy:

So a 'quick skim' of the trial makes you more of an expert than the panel of judges who refused his first application for permission to appeal? Right...

And if we're talking about people campaigning to ruin the lives of others, maybe you could spare a thought for his victim, who had to be given a new identity after his friends, family and supporters hounded and harassed her?

In reply to bluebealach:

P.S....



this appears to be irrelevant to the chance of leave to appeal being granted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29679563

The spokesman added: "The decision to prioritise the case simply brings forward the starting point of the investigations to decide whether or not there may be grounds for us to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

"It does not in any way represent a judgment by the commission as to the merits of the case or its chances of being referred."



not sure what you're trying to suggest here- but it would be useful if you could elaborate,

best wishes

gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


So what if he wins his appeal and it was a miscarriage of justice?

Throw enough mud and some will inevitably stick??

In reply to Indy:
He also hasn't 'served his time'. He is simply serving the second half of his sentence in the community. He's been released on licence and could be recalled if he breaks the terms of that licence. He won't have 'served his time' until 2017.

(Edited to change 2016 to 2017)

In reply to bluebealach:

He hasn't even been granted leave to appeal yet, so it's a bit premature to be even considering it.

The CCRC will decide whether to refer the case to the appeal court.

In reply to bluebealach:

and what if this attempt to appeal is thrown out, just like the last one?

re the 'mud sticks'- what a bizarre comment. he is a convicted rapist. a jury sat through weeks of evidence, and despite the conviction rate for rape being less than 10% because of the difficulty of proving the case in these offences, they thought he was guilty of the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

to repeat: the idea of kids running around wearing the shirt of a rapist- and just to be clear again, thats what a court of law has said he is- is repulsive. he has no place on a professional football field, if the game has any morals at all

best wishes
gregor

In reply to Indy:

Blades have a bit of form after employing Marlon King, currently back in jail for dangerous driving.

Rather than getting their information from a rapist's support website, people who are interested might find it instructive to read the report of the panel of judges who refused leave to appeal the first time he applied for it:

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

In reply to DalesClimber:

Looking at the video from the hotel the 'victim' was able to walk reasonably well despite her very high heels. She then rememberd she'd left her pizza outside so returned alone to get it all in those high heels never once falling. Hardly the actions of somebody who was incoherent or are you suggesting she drank 15 pints between the lobby and the hotel room? CCTV from around town shows her perfectly able to function even paying for the pizza with the correct money, squatting down on her high heels to piss in a shop doorway (classy gal!) and yet never once falling over.

Then you have the rather odd fact that 2 people admit having sex with her yet only 1 of those people was convicted!!! Ehhh???

The 'victim' claimed her drink had been spiked but oddly the only drug found in her system was cocaine which she admitted she'd taken herself. Will she be prosecuted for drugs offences?

The 'victim' tweeted friends some rather odd things about winning it big and taking them on holiday and getting a pair of matching pink mini coopers. She then went to great lengths to delete those tweets. Wonder what she ment about 'winning it big'

There is in my mind serious doubt as to the validity of the conviction.
Time will tell.

In reply to DalesClimber:

But I'm reporting undisputed FACTS. Getting drunk and consenting to sex isn't rape being incoherent or out for the count is but as the CCTV footage shows that wasn't the case.

In reply to Indy:




but there wasn't in the minds of the only people that actually matter in this situation, the jury



indeed it will.

if the second attempt to appeal fails as the last one did (and if you read the link Maria provided, you will find many of your points were addressed by the panel, who declined the appeal on all counts advanced), will you accept the fact that he is a sex offender who has been properly convicted by due process?

best wishes
gregor

In reply to Indy:

Well, not wanting to get into this particular debate as I've not been following the story closely, it might be useful to point out the difference between consent and informed consent.

Simplistically, consent is 'yes'. Informed consent is also 'yes', but only where it's clear that the person is capable of making a rational decision.

Acquiescence to sex (including the lack of overt resistance) whilst drunk or drugged - even if self-induced - is not necessarily informed consent and this would be taken into account. Was the footballer in a similar state? Was there an inequality in the power base between the two people?

Martin

In reply to Indy:
No you're not, you're just reciting the contents of a rapist's supporters' website. A number of your points (including the "never once falling over" claim - yes she did fall on cctv) are addressed in the report above. Which is by the panel of judges who reviewed the case.

I'm not going to comment on this any more, but I couldn't let such rubbish be presented as fact.

In reply to bluebealach:

His contract with Sheff Utd ended in 2012 so he has no club. Whether Sheff Utd want to employ him again is another matter.

In reply to Indy:

Yay! Go victim blaming! Who cares if we only repeat the selective facts that make good ol' Ched guilty of nothing more than disgusting behaviour.

Lets get this unrepentant, unremorseful rapist onto a half million pound contract as soon as we can, lest people think that there is something wrong with going "two's up" on a drunk girl and getting your mates to film it. Our kids NEED a role model...

In reply to off-duty:

If this guy has done his time, and he's got the form for the game, well that's how it is, football isn't a paragon of virtue on the best of days, this situation will take the terrace vitriol up a few notches, that is for sure.

In reply to Indy:

Let me make my position clear. He's a convicted rapist, I don't want him playing football for my team.

I didn't decide he was a rapist, a jury of his peers did, after hearing and seeing the eveidence presented. He is therefore a convicted rapist. If doing the crime and doing the time is ok with you in rape/sex assault cases, then fine, but why the hell do we have DBS checks (the old CRB) if sexual assault considered spent by serving half of the alloted time behind bars?

There was a thread that covered this at the time of his trial, read through that if you wish to know the views of some UKC brethren. http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=502764

In reply to off-duty:

Am I to deduce from that that you think that juries are infallible? Would mentioning oh I don't know say the Guilford 4 be below the belt?

I think it completely fair and proper to ask the question why it was that this woman was able to give consent to sex at 02:30 yet 2 hours later with the effect of alcohol having less of an effect she was unable to consent at 04:30? CCTV clearly shows her able to remember she'd forgotten her pizza on the pavement outside and walk back unaided in high heels without falling or with even so much as a wobble to collect it.

The Polices own methodology for convicting drunk drivers after the fact was used to profile the effects of the alcohol she'd drunk. An independent expert witness could find no reason for her loss of memory due to the level of alcohol consumed although it conveniently provided an excuse to answer any tricky questions with "I can't remember"

In reply to Indy:

Not so much below the belt as utterly irrelevant.


If you don't understand the offence don't comment on the case.
s1 Sexual Offences Act 2003
Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Though I don't know the juries deliberation , this gives an entirely plausible reason why they may have felt that the case against McDonald, who previously knew the victim and took her to the hotel room, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, whilst the case against Evans, who turned up late, sneaked in and sneaked out, was.

(Leaving aside any comments about the CCTV which are contradicted by the appeal judges :- 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. )



Independent as in "defence expert witness". As opposed to the defence expert witness called for the appeal who said that though she might not have been able to remember, that didn't mean she didn't consent at the time. Two bites at the cherry there....

Regardless, as with all trials - this was a decision for the jury on the credibility of the witness, having had the opportunity to see her video interviews and hear her cross examination.

In reply to Indy:

What has an entirely different case with an entirely different judge, jury, and charge got to do with this case?

In reply to Indy:

Let the ****er burn, he should be lucky to get a job cleaning toilets at Bramall Lane.

In reply to Indy:


did you really just equate a miscarriage of justice which occurred because of corrupt policing during the worst terrorist campaign the UK has ever known with this case, where a privileged young man couldn't satisfy his desires without preying on drunk teenagers?

because that is taking this thread to a whole new level of absurdity. if you *are* drawing a parallel, it would mean that you believe that the police, under pressure to increase the clear-up rate for sexual offences, have taken to fitting up footballers with entirely fabricated evidence. is that what you think?

if so, that would be utterly bonkers.

but if not, why on earth mention the 'guilford 4' (sic)?

if you just strongly believe the jury came to the 'wrong answer', enough to start a thread about it on the internet, then that really says more about you than it does the case. The points you raise, presumably from this convicted sex offenders support website, are directly addressed in the appeals' panel adjudication that fiona linked to upthread.

the fact you've been directed to this several times, but choose not to look at it, but instead repeatedly make inaccurate claims taken from a pro-rapist source, does raise questions about your motivation here.

there should be no place in football for convicted sex offenders. sheffield united and wales have already damaged their reputations by giving the message that it doesnt matter if you are a bit rape-y, if you can kick a ball well, we've got a place for you. if they actually go ahead and employ/select him, their reputations will take a long time to recover,

best wishes

gregor

In reply to DalesClimber:



Ugh, that was unpleasant reading, made me feel a slow skin crawling revulsion.

FWIW, I believe that had Evans accepted that he had transgressed the young woman in question and in a most serious and repugnant way and shown genuine remorse It would not be entirely inappropriate for him to return to football; though he might not seek to do so in such a dramatic way if he was indeed remorseful.

However, the refusal to accept his crime, victim blaming, and the concerning implication that he clearly believes that his behaviour was legitimate and what that suggests about his attitude to women in general... All points toward someone who should be kept well out of any position where they might reasonably influence the public.

I will be very disappointed in the Blades if they drag the name of Sheffield through the mud by signing such a sorry excuse for a man.

In reply to Indy:

Is he a mate of yours or something? I can' think of any other reason why you're desperately trying to excuse the behaviour of this raping shitbag.

In reply to bluebealach:

I would like to bring up here the case of Dirty Den aka Leslie Grantham, who was convicted of murder and is now happily being a minor star on TV. I was so disgusted that I refused to work on an ITV programme with him in it. There was no doubt that Grantham was guilty and my belief was that every time he was shown on TV it was rubbing the victims family's face in the crime.. Ched Evans is different, for a start it's a crime that is without certain proof as rape often is, he has served his time and needs to rebuild his life, guilty or not, He is a footballer, credit to Sheff U for considering giving him another chance.

In reply to Al Evans:

It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I don't know what is wrong with you. You have daughters I believe?!

In reply to Al Evans:

He hasn't served his crime yet - he's out on licence. He's shown no remorse and is still denying the charges he's been found GUILTY of by a JURY of his peers.

So what if he's a bloody footballer. he should not be given any preferential treatment because of his profession.

Comparing two different crimes does not make sense so I wish people would stop doing it.

He is a rapist, pure and simple and should be treated like any other rapist, regardless of the circumstances of the crime.

In reply to Al Evans:

eh??? your post makes no sense, Al.


Are you saying there is doubt that Ched Evans is guilty?

>and my belief was that every time he was shown on TV it was rubbing the victims family's face in the crime..

possibly, although you could say the same about Ched Evans playing football. At least in the case of Dirty Den his victim's family lived in Germany and so weren't likely to be watching Eastenders.


seems an odd line of argument - he was found guilty just as Leslie Grantham was.

So did Leslie Grantham who, as well as serving 10 years in prison, was dishonorably discharged from the army - his employer at the time of the murder.

So did Leslie Grantham....

And Leslie Grantham was a soldier - the British Army didn't give him another chance. should they have done?

In reply to DalesClimber:



I have read the stuff on the ched evans website and I'm still convinced he is guilty of rape. He seemed to have a plan with his 'mate' to find a women for a threesome by any means necessary. I guess the other guy's acquittal comes down to the fact that the girl was witnessed consenting to guy with him, even if she was drunk, but there is no evidence that she consented further. He was lucky not to have been charged with complicity.

Evans should be allowed to get on with his life, but there are certain career paths now closed to him. Sorry, but I think football should be one of them. The money, the conceit, the sense of entitlement - there does appear to be a link between his behaviour and his profession.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

No, the other guy was cleared because the judge said it was a reasonable of him to assume she wanted sex as she went back to his room.. but she did not know Evans was coming round.

No one, other than those 3, knows what happened once that door shut. That's why I am surprised he was convicted. I knew some people close to the case (an ex-mp) and they were convinced the case would be dismissed. But that's not new in rape cases, especially one as complicated as this where there is alcohol, drugs and other people involved. Drunken consent isn't consent but its hard to prove how inebriated a person is hours later when the police were investigating.

I think he should be allowed to play again. He's served his sentence, he's out so needs to earn a living. He'll certainly have abuse. But employing people post prison is nothing new.

He does think he's innocent so I don't expect him to show remorse for rape, he's shown remorse for his behaviour, cheating on his missus and the threesome but he doesn't think it was rape. It's possible he is, but the jury didn't believe that and neither did the first stage of the appeal process.

This exposing her again and again is disgusting. She's been outed again I saw today.

TBH if he wants to play again he would probably be best advised to drop the appeal and let her get on with her life as well.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I doubt he has another career path.. I know other professions would shut the door but that would be more due to risks involved and the trust required.

Putting everything else aside, I find it a bit odd that neither of the men ejaculated.............

In reply to IainRUK:


Such as working with vulnerable, easily manipulated people of limited intellect...

Footballers are now paid ludicrous sums, it's not unreasonable to expect that such salaries come with restrictions - they are role models, there should be some "fit and proper" test applies.

He's served half his sentence, but has shown no remorse. OK he still maintains his innocence, and still is perusing an appeal, so an apology would undermine this. That's his prerogative, but without a sincere apology there is no way he can return. We really don't want 25,000 people cheering a unrepentant rapist week in week out.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I know, but others have played post convictions, tyson boxed post rape, he's now a TV star.. the greatest boxer in the world beat his wife up and is still getting huge deals..

It's possible this was a miscarriage of justice, not probable, but possible. But he's served his time and seems to be going through the appeals process sensibly. I hope the outing of this girl a second time was not his team's doing as that was totally out of order.

I think this was a case that if you tried it 10 times it would be 50-50, 40-60, 60-40 either way.. there was almost no evidence. They said the sex occurred, she didn't actually know as I understood, there was no DNA evidence either, its just purely if she was too drunk to consent. There seems almost no suggestion she was passed out (sounds from the room according to the night porter) and was alleged (again the night porter) making sounds suggesting she was having a good time.

I think the main question was about how drunk she was and if her consent was reliable, with the other footballer getting off as she'd made it quite obvious during the hours previously she was coming back to his hotel.

What he did was clearly wrong which he admitted but the question was if that crossed the line to rape. He thinks no. The jury thought yes. I suspect if he was to apologise, he won't apologise until the appeal process is finalised. I can see him offering a limited apology as he seems to believe his behaviour was out of order, just disagrees that it was rape.

I think he should be allowed back into society and to play football. But I believe we have a legal process that is about rehabilitating and putting people back into society post sentencing. Obviously in cases like teachers abusing students they cannot be trusted in that roll but this case wasn't to do with his football (I don't know if she knew who he was or if that was a factor in going back to the other guys hotel).

I think Sheff United should offer him a limited pay as you play deal and see how he behaves and if it works out a longer contract. As I understand it they still hold his registration.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Have to say that its going to be pretty damn hard to have a threesome with a woman if you don't plan it with a mate. Its also perfectly legal and fun to have a threesome despite what the Daily Mail says.

Could you point to the evidence where this witness consented to having sex with either of the men as from everything I 've read she claims to have no recollection of anything that happened that night. The rape case happend because the 2 men incriminated themselves in police interviews. There was no other evidence that sex had taken place.

Also want to point out that she might have consented at the time but the odd case of amnesia means she can't remember. Under such circumstances the case Law says he should have been acquitted.

In reply to IainRUK:


Your kidding me right?????

Are you of the opinion that "wanna come in for a coffee?" actually means "You've scored!!! Let's have sex!"

Apart from that pretty good.

In reply to Indy:
Well that was what the judge said.. that was why he was cleared and Evans wasn't.

Its quite a strange case, it was basically a threesome, one of which was cleared and judged to have had consensual sex one of which wasn't..

In reply to Indy:


Usually best if the woman agrees as well.


The rape case happened because the two men went with the defence that they had had consensual sex with the girl. They could have claimed that they had not had sex with the girl, but clearly they had.
I'm not sure exactly how "telling the truth" becomes twisted into "incriminating themselves", however I suppose they could have denied having sex and the jury could have been left to figure out exactly what happened in the room they were all in, overheard by the night porter and filmed by Evans' 2 little friends.



"Odd" as in you don't believe it. The law suggests that just because she couldn't remember what happened doesn't necessarily mean she did not consent at the time. IT does NOT state that failing to remember means she should be acquitted.
Luckily the jury were told all this at the time of the trial, and drew their own conclusions on the credibility of the victim and defendants.

In reply to off-duty:

I agree.. but its still strange that a woman can consent to one and not the other..

In reply to IainRUK:


Not sure what you mean there Iain, if she consents to sex with one bloke all his mates should be allowed a go?

In reply to IainRUK:


As I posted previously that is not the only part of the offence of rape.
The second "leg" of the offence is that the suspect does not reasonably believe that the victim consents.

The jury may have felt that McDonald did have this "reasonable belief", whilst also quite plausibly the jury could have felt that Evans did not have this "reasonable belief".

In reply to off-duty:

i agree. seems pretty self evident to me

bloke #1- girl meets him on street, agrees to go back to hotel room with him and then gets into a state of undress, does not apparently object to intercourse- reasonable belief that victim consents

bloke #2- girl first meets him while already having sex, after he enters what she has been led to believe is bloke #1's hotel room. first contact is when he initiates intercourse, after he has been informed that she is very drunk: no reasonable belief that victim consents

not sure what's so hard to work out about this. jury's decision seems entirely understandable to me,

cheers
gregor

In reply to off-duty:




There was NO physical evidence that sex had taken place. The woman had gone to the police the next evening after work as she'd woken up in a hotel room and claimed she didn't know how she got there. Police looked into the incident and found that the room had been books by one of the men. When interviewed they both admit to having had consensual sex with her. She claimed she was drunk and didn't remember consenting to either male. On THAT basis the 2 males were charged with rape. The woman was examined and there was no physical evidence of sex as neither had ejaculated there was no force used (consistent with consent) so the only evidence sex had ocured was from the men's statement. The testing also included a test to see if her drink had been spiked which it hadn't but did confirm that the woman was a user of canabis and Class A drug Cocaine which has an up to 7 year term in prison and unlimited fine for possession.

Take a look at this link to the 1 most famous cases regarding alcohol and rape

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/man-was-jailed-then-cleared-in-case-of-stude...

I suggest you ponder the sentence... "However, the defence said her inability to recall whether or not she gave consent made it impossible for Mr Dougal to be found guilty."

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Sorry but your making up scenarios that have no bearing on the case and just serve to back up your theory....

The prosecution says that the woman was 'very drunk' at 3am yet after being found/wandered into at around 4am and taken back to the hotel room the jury and the appeals judge concluded she was fully able to consent to sex with man 1 YET 30 minutes later jury and appeals judge say she's too intoxicated to give consent to sex for man 2.

"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"

WTF!

In reply to IainRUK:




i usually agree with most of what you post, Iain, but i think you're wide of the mark on this one. You work in academia; what are the chances of your institution continuing to employ you after a 5 year sentence for a sexual offense, irrespective of the ongoing risk you posed to students? i work in a profession covered by a regulatory body which has to provide me with a licence to work, or else i cannot do so in the UK. i can say with certainty that if i had been convicted of the offence Evans has been, then i would never work in my current profession again, even though it would have no implication for the group of people i work with

its not just the risk of repeat offending that is taken into account by employers and regulators; it is the potential damage to the reputation of the organisation or the profession. welcoming convicted rapists, and those convicted of other serious crimes, back into medicine, nursing, teaching, politics, academia, et al, is just not going to happen as it will call into question public trust in the leadership and values of the institution.

football is clearly in the same position, if not more so. as i pointed out up thread, if he does play again, we will have the grotesque sight of young men running round wearing the name of a rapist on the back of their replica shirts. if that doesnt bring the game of football into disrepute, i'm not sure what does. it also sends out a powerful message- sexual violence against women isnt really that serious, sit out a couple of seasons and then you can pick up where you left off.

the fact you cite boxing as an example of a sport where a rapist kept going after conviction is telling, as boxing represents the nadir of professional sports as far as ethics are concerned. and even given that, tyson was damaged goods after that and does not enjoy the sort of profile he could reasonably have expected given his achievements in the ring

and as i said to the somewhat obsessive Indy, your opinion of the evidence (and mine) is neither here nor there. the jury heard all of it, and sat in the room with the victim and defendents, and looked them in the eye when they answered cross examination. in a case like this, a considerable deal of the judgement must be on who you decide to be a reliable witness, and whose account you choose to prefer. that cant be captured in pro-rapist websites which some contributors appear to value as the only valid source of information on this (not you), or even in the very informative judges' summary of why the appeal was declined, linked up thread. but is is clearly very important, and massively undermines any of our abilities to comment on why the jury came to the decision it did.

but decide it did. evans is guilty of rape. as long as that is the case, he shouldnt be anywhere near a professional football field. the disgust at football as a whole, and sheffield united in particular, should they reemploy him will be very damaging. this is high profile enough that sponsors are going to get very nervous.

rather than boxing, the current issues with domestic violence in the NFL are perhaps more relevant-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29457176

this was being ignored, as valuable assets were deemed more important to have on the field of play, than sitting on the sidelines pending investigations. then the sponsors got worried about the damage that their reputations were suffering by being seen to be complicit in condoning violence against women. now a number of players are indefinitely suspended.

and thats just (perhaps the wrong word) for physical violence, not rape. football is behind the curve of society on this, it seems, and unless it wakes up to this, there will be damage,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to Indy:

Seems pretty reasonable to me. They claim that it was consensual she says she didn't even know where she was.
Is it reasonable to deduce that she was incapable of consenting?
I've seen a few predatory rapists who prowl the "night time economy" looking for girls who are so drunk they have no idea what they are doing.


The woman was examined and there was no physical evidence of sex as neither had ejaculated there was no force used (consistent with consent) so the only evidence sex had ocured was from the men's statement. The testing also included a test to see if her drink had been spiked which it hadn't but did confirm that the woman was a user of canabis and Class A drug Cocaine which has an up to 7 year term in prison and unlimited fine for possession.


Bugger me. You really do appear to want to return rape prosecutions back to the 70's. Victim blaming?
1)Absence of evidence of force is NOT evidence of consent. It does not necessarily support an allegation of rape but neither does it negate it.
2)I don't know the full extent of her witness statement, or her video interviews. I'm sure that this point could have been raised by the defence in cross examination. The only conclusion you appear to be making is that cocaine /cannabis users are now somehow immune to being raped.




I suggest you re-ponder the statement : -
However, the defence said her inability to recall whether or not she gave consent made it impossible for Mr Dougal to be found guilty.

Oh wow. A defence brief argues in favour of his client. Who'd have thought it.

In reply to Indy:



No they didn't.
AS I have now suggested on numerous occasions the victim could quite reasonably have been incapable of consent for both defendants, however McDonald had a reasonable belief that she consented, whilst Evans didn't.



Not clear what point you are trying to make here.

In reply to Indy:

sorry Indy, there is no point quoting stuff of a rapist's website at me, i'm not interested

the jury sat through all the evidence, all of it, not just the bits that you want to take out of context, distort, and make up (eg the 'she never fell over' bit last night- shown to be a lie in the transcript of the judges' grounds for refusing the appeal that you refuse to ackowledge exists), and they looked evans in they eye when he gave answers under cross examination, and they returned a guilty verdict. that's what we have a criminal justice system for, and its good enough for me

your bizarre flight into conspiracy theory last night, your failure to even acknowledge that your 'facts' are wrong, your failure to engage with Off duty when he points out the law in relation to the offence, all of these convince me that you are an unpleasant apologist for rape that i do not want to have any further engagement with. so best wishes, but i wont be replying to any more of your posts,

gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I'm a bit conflicted here but I think your confidence in a jury being the final arbiter of 'the truth' is a bit ... misplaced. It's an OK system, perhaps the best around, (I'm not convinced), but it isn't infallible. You cannot ignore the possibility that the jury wasn't in fact judging the legality of the case so much as reflecting repugnance at their behaviour and maybe disapproval as well.

There's huge pressure on Evans to apologise, to show remorse and all the rest. I suspect he genuinely doesn't think that what happened was so outrageous - read the Secret Footballer to get some flavour of behaviour that is considered normal in the rarefied world of professional sportsMEN - though abject apologies along the lines of 'misunderstandings' etc like Rennard might go some way to squaring a circle.

In reply to Ridge:


I don't think I said that at all…

She says she consented to neither..

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
No I wouldn't. But I'm a place of trust.. I work one to one with young girls and have power over them with the grading so you are considered in a position of authority over them so such convictions do rightly take you out of contention..

I don't think football is behind the curve. Rapists get other jobs and have in football, the chairman of Blackpool for example.

How can the FA say look its OK for a rapist to own a club, but he can't play the game...

In reply to DalesClimber:

She had to leave her home town I heard. Poor girl.

In reply to Timmd:

I don't know if it was his family.. or even friends..

It's happened twice now though.

In reply to IainRUK:



As I understand it, nowadays Oyston couldn't be a director of Blackpool as "not a fit person" but the rules couldn't be applied retrospectively.

In reply to off-duty:

well theres still players who have killed people, one just got made captain..

theres NFL players who have settled rape cases, Mike tyson has gone to be TV star

So you think Evans should be banned from soccer?

I just don't see what that will achieve apart from taking away and way for him to make a decent living.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The jury system might not be infallible, but what are we left with?

We can't second guess every conviction based on single issue pressure groups. We have a footballer convicted of rape, who freely admits to reprehensible behaviour that he is resolutely unapologetic about.

Is he a fit person to be a role model in a sport that continually bangs on about being at the heart of communities and being committed to equality?

I appreciate that he is a young guy who may have his dreams of professional football dashed, but unfortunately those types of consequence are typical results to people of all sorts of professions who commit "moment of madness" crimes, and this is considerably more than a "moments" transgression.

In reply to IainRUK:

I don't think that the NFL or boxing occupy any sort of moral highground.
Yes, I think Evans should be banned. He's doesn't appear to be a fit person, not least due to his seeming to have no remorse.

In reply to off-duty:

Wrong Oyston, I think - Karl's the chairman, Owen's the rapist - interestingly he was told to mdispose of his interests in various radio stations after his conviction, as he was not considered a proper person to do so. Which kind of suggests that in some industries being a convicted rapist precludes you being employed, even though there's not arguably a "risk" to you doing so.

I snogged his daughter when I was at school.

In reply to IainRUK:


two wrongs etc.


the NFL situation appears to be changing, Iain- see my link, current story from this month. and tyson- given his in ring achievements, his post boxing career is much lower profile that would be expected.


yes


it will show people that carrying out acts of sexual aggression has consequences beyond just doing the jail time. it would for you, and me, and we are much lower profile and less influential than evans (well, i certainly am...)

i really dont know what the issue is with 'taking away any way for him to make a decent living is'. that's part of the deal with raping people - if you get caught, in most fields, you're not going to get hired afterwards. that's not the main reason for not raping people, but if you are concerned about your earning power, then not raping people is probably a good plan.

and if you do rape people, and get caught, and it messes up your potential to earn millions of pounds, then dont expect any sympathy.

the point over oyston has been addressed, but is another instance of football appearing to have a problem with morality. at times it seems hard to work out what youd actually have to do to fail the 'fit and proper person test' if your pockets were deep enough.

gregor

In reply to off-duty:

Can he not be someone who reforms his character, goes into schools to talk about his experiences..

You've made a bad statement.. he's freely admits his behaviour and is far from unapologetic about it..

Thats twisting what he has said. He said his behaviour was shameful/embrassing/wrong but won't admit to rape.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I know so we don't have any rules to bar him from the game…

The argyle keeper who drunkenly killed two kids in a car crash, released, back in the side, now made captain..

Lee Hughes..

Marlon King..

Oyston…

There's no law on why he should not play football.

I think we have our system to rehabilitate and let people have a life after their sentence.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


its certainly better than people like us speculating based on a skewed subset of the evidence here on the internet

also- as the link near the top of the thread shows, a panel of judges looked at the evidence and conduct of the trial and found no issue.

they could of course be wrong. he has another appeal. based on the summing up of why the last one was dismissed, i wouldnt hold my breath over him getting acquitted.

and until then, he shouldnt be paid to be on a football pitch,

cheers
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

But how can others?

A team will take him and I sincerely hope they do. We should allow people to fully re-enter life after a sentence, we have a legal system based on rehabilitation and punishment. We let the legal system have due process, it did, he served his time, he's now free to continue his life and that's playing soccer..

In reply to IainRUK:


He was shamed because he was caught out.

In reply to IainRUK:

iain, there is no law to stop dave lee travis getting employed as a DJ, or rolf harris presenting a tv show, but i dont think we'll be seeing them working in the media anytime soon

just because its not illegal for them to be employed doesnt mean they should be. some jobs carry a greater responsibility.

and as to the others- some crimes are more repugnant than others- and sex crimes are near the top of the list.

and- if SUFC do employ him- will be interesting to see the reactions of the sponsors. it will be national news, and being associated with rapist is probably not what they expected when they handed over their cash.

cheers
gregor

In reply to IainRUK:


Fair enough, it didn't seem all that clear.

In reply to IainRUK:




for the umpteenth time- he's not served his time, hes been released on licence at the halfway point of his sentence. he wont have 'served his time' until 2017

and rehabilitation does not mean carte blanche to resume where you left off as if nothing had happened.

i hope he does rehabilitate- which means taking ownership and responsibility for his actions, for a start- and find something to do with his life. but that shouldnt be playing professional football

gregor

In reply to IainRUK:


>possibly yes. if he genuinely takes responsibility, accepts he is a sex criminal and agreed to head up a high profile campaign against violence against women; and agreed to donate a significant portion of his earnings to rape charities; and sat out until his sentence was actually served; then perhaps he could return

i would love to be proved wrong, but as far as i can see, pigs will fly before that happens,

gregor

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


That argument works both ways. Just because he's a footballer, should he be denied the treatment afforded by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?

The "but he's a famous footballer" argument seems to be working very much against him at the moment, with people saying he shouldn't be allowed to be a footballer any more.

I confess that I don't know what the 'right thing to do' is.

In reply to IainRUK:

That would be good. Unfortunately his (and his families) attitudes on his release would tend to suggest that there aren't going to be a queue of people looking at booking him for that.



Yes fair enough, he has expressed some form of regret, I suppose :-

“Although I am ashamed of my actions, she was definitely up for it. I most certainly didn’t rape anyone.”

“I really thought it would have been thrown out of court and I was stunned when I was convicted. I had done nothing wrong.

“It was something that should never have happened. And it is something that I will regret for the rest of my life. I cheated on my girlfriend and had sex with this girl – but it was definitely consensual.”

In reply to captain paranoia:


In order to be rehabilitated, one has to accept what they did was wrong and show remorse.

Note that Shame and embarassment are not synonyms of remorse.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Why, if he thinks he's innocent? A woman in the US just got released after 20 years after finally being acquitted. Miscarriages do happen. Its possible, not probable, but if he's convinced what he did wasn't rape then he shouldn't admit to it.

He's accepted the decision of the court, it's not like he fled to Brazil and then played football there having avoided the sentence.

His sentence was 5 years? He's served half as is common and is now free to get on with his life.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:



So someone who is convinced they are innocent can never be re-habilitated?

TBH I doubt we'll ever know for sure. Even if he's cleared, even if the conviction is upheld. What happened in that room is just a black box, only the 3 of them know the truth and unless one of them admits something we won't know.

In reply to IainRUK:



we should take this as some sort of character endorsement?


no he's not. he's on licence, will be subject to supervision and can be recalled to prison until the full term is passed.

his appeal has been fast tracked. his reaction should he lose will be instructive. if he continues to claim hes done nothing wrong, then a return to the professional game should be out of the question.

still think football is out of step with public opinion on this iain- we wouldnt accept this from politicians, entertainers, or professionals- it would be the end of the line for anyone convicted as he has been in these fields

i'll say it again, as it seems to be being ignored- if he does return, there will be replica shirts. and young men will wear a convicted rapists shirt on their back. that would be utterly, utterly inappropriate, and will send a powerful message to young men, many of whom will already have questionable attitudes to women, that rape is no big deal, and no bar to a career as a highly paid athlete. does that not trouble you?

best wishes
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
When did I say you should?

We do accept it from entertainers..

There's many in life who have serious convictions who return and lead a crime free life.

I think once the conviction is either upheld or overturned we'll see a statement from him as that is the end of the matter legally. Until then I don't think we'll hear much at all.

I suspect Sheffield United will offer him a deal imminently and I doubt football can do anything about it as there is a long history of players returning to the game immediately post release.

In reply to IainRUK:



not any more we dont. no yewtree convict is going to work in entertainment ever again.

times change, and society's attitudes change. the attitude to sexual aggression against women is not as tolerant as it used to be


but not necessarily in their previous occupation. it will hopefully be possible for evans not to return to raping people in whatever he ends up doing

though if the quote attributed to him is correct, and he still holds these attitudes, and allows them to direct his behaviour, then perhaps not,

gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I just can't see how the FA can stop this.

McCormick killed a families only 2 kids in a DUI accident and was sentenced to 7+ years and played, and is now captain, after release when on parole. He got a longer sentence than Evans.

No sometimes they can't return to their previous occupation but I fail to see why he shouldn't? Just because he'll make a lot of money. I see the argument about role model but it will be in the press what he is.

In reply to IainRUK:

you edited and added a bit..!

i think the history of players returning is not necessarily relevant, as

a) they didnt commit sexual offences. society doesnt see all crimes as equivalent, and rape is pretty much second to murder in the revulsion it generates.

b) they didnt get released in 2014. post yewtree, and saville, attitudes towards sex criminals have hardened.

i dont think he'll get signed- i think the sponsors will put pressure on the club. i think its too late, SUFC are already damaged by their not making it clear he has no place there

and: why wont you address my comment about the replica shirts and potential to influence the attitudes to women and sexual aggression in young men? i think this is the most important part of the debate, and the main reason he shouldnt return,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to IainRUK:



Not that I necessarily agree with his position but a few differences (other than around the nature of the offence)- including pleading guilty and expressing remorse.

In reply to IainRUK:


i dont think they can- but i dont think they need to. someone has to sign him. whoever does that will have a PR disaster on their hands which will run and run, and could wreck relationships with sponsors. did you follow my NFL story link on the beeb website?

i think that will put all but the truly desperate off


see comments in previous post- not all crimes are seen as equal, and sex crimes are definitely regarded by society, if not the sentencing guidelines, as a bigger deal.

and: two wrongs dont make a right


its not the money- see previous post- its the message it sends to a generation of young men about the acceptability, responsibility and consequences of sexual aggression,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


That's the point of the edit button..






I think I did.. I think his shirts won't be great sellers.. mothers buy a lot of the shirts at Christmas/birthdays..

It also keeps the debate about rape and what is rape in the public arena. I can't see how it encourages equal sexual aggression. He was convicted and is labelled a rapist for ever. This is probably the most common type of rape which occurs and the hardest to get conviction.

I do think a statement will help but understand why that won't happen until after the appeal.

At a University I coach at I was looking at posters last week on this subject. The had talkers in to discuss sexual aggression, what it is, what's consent.. that drunken consent isn't consent. Our university has a horrific past, the football coach in the news a few years back, and I think this is one of its strategies to right the wrong..

In reply to off-duty:


Yeah that's key in his case. But Evans seems to be convinced he was innocent? What if he is? As I said miscarriages do happen, hence why we don't have the death penalty.

In reply to IainRUK:




thats true, and helpful. but we arent the audience that im concerned about- its the 15-25 year old men, who dont think he did anything wrong, and will see his return to top flight football as a validation of that.


true, and understandable


sounds like you are doing more practically to improve the situation than i am...

cheers for the debate iain, getting late here now so thats me done for tonight,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to IainRUK:


If he was innocent then he is going to need to present a better case than:-

"Well, me and Clayton thought it would be funny to have a threesome with a drunk girl. I thought it would be even funnier to get my brother and my mate to film it from outside. Then we abandoned her in a hotel. I'm sorry for cheating on my girlfriend though"

before he even approaches some prospect of rehabilitation.

It's not exactly on a par with getting fitted upfor a crime he didn't commit...

In reply to off-duty:

I agree.. I don't think he was fitted up at all..

I'm not defending Evans, I know it looks that way, he's a rapist but I just feel that post conviction and sentencing a person has a right to a relatively normal life and unless in a position of immediate trust I think he should be allowed to resume life. I understand the role model point totally, I just don't agree.

This is a hugely subjective case for me, hence why McDonald got off.

A drunk girl cannot give consent, however in McDonalds case it was assumed she could because of other actions.. for me if she was so drunk, and presumably she didn't drink any more (drugs were possibly an issue), then both should have been convicted.

In reply to IainRUK:


We don't know exactly how the jury reached it's verdict, but repeating myself yet again - part of the offence of rape is the reasonable belief of the defendant as to whether the victim is consenting.
Eg - she did not consent at all, but the jury thought McDonald might have reasonably believed she did for a variety of reasons. Reasons which Evans could not rely on.

In reply to IainRUK:

If Evans had suffered a career ending injury he would have had to find a non-playing job either within football or without. Evans has effectively inflicted a career ending injury on himself - no sponsor will want to be paying an unrepentant rapist to advertise their products, and no decent club should want such a man on their team, representing them.

In reply to 999thAndy:
Whilst I firmly believe that as long as he refuses to accept his guilt (and indeed until he and his supporters stop blaming the victim) he should be kept away from the game, I think that if he was injured there'd be a fairly substantial insurance policy in place - suspect that "rape cover" is quite hard to come by.

In reply to andy:

If injured he would still have to fill his time somehow even if he could claim on insurance to cover his financial problems. Footballers face this at the end of their playing days even if they don't get injured.

In reply to Indy:

I've experienced witness accounts and photos of me being very drunk wandering around and having no personal memory of the occasion whatsoever. Ive met many many others who say the same has happened to them. I've talked to some unfortunates who had a single drink spiked who said the same. Ive read about others who were spiked and raped, or were drunk with no memory of being raped. This wont be as much as a mystery to those on a jury deciding on evidence as it seems to be for you. Sure the legal system isn't perfect... its obvious that some women have lied about rape and sometimes there are miscarriages of justice but there are many more rape cases not prosecuted and plenty of rapists who are prosecuted and not found guilty, sometimes just on technicalities.

As he has served his jail term he is entiled to work as a footballer but if I had any link with a club I would make it very clear I wouldn't want him playing for it.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Well wouldn't you deny it if you hadn't done it. Remorse is ok if it's needed.

In reply to Indy:

My point was Lesley Grantham is a far more high profile public personna, a without doubt murderer, yet nobody ever mentions the tears the victims family must shed whenever he is on TV, he was a regular in a soap for christs sake on several times a week.

In reply to Al Evans:

Why are you defending this guy? He admits to turning up in the middle of a sexual act to form a thresome with a girl who was obviously drunk enough for the consent of the act to be potentially called into question...even if he had got found not guilty this would been on balance of reasonable doubt in a very dark grey area.

In reply to Offwidth:


You're lucky - I can always remember what I have said or done when I'm drunk !

In reply to Al Evans:

Lots of people complaned about Lesley Grantham and if it happened today I suspect he wouldnt get the job. Two wrongs never made a right.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I felt unlucky (except for being lucky not to have hurt myself) and not a little ashamed and therafter stopped celebratory excessive binging.

In reply to Al Evans:

I believe Grantham's conviction did get a lot of publicity, as did the feelings of the victims family. However he didn't simply walk out of prison and into Eastenders. In fact you could say he is a good example of successful rehabilitation as he changed his life around, and worked hard for many years before he became famous. Nor was his acting in any way related to his crime. Also attitudes have changed since the 80's, particularly with regards to sex crimes, and just because something happened 30 years ago doesn't mean it is a valid precedent today.

I'd say that part of the reason Evans committed his crime was the arrogance that comes with being put on a pedestal. Putting him back on that pedestal as if nothing has happened would be a grave mistake.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Footballers aren't paid to be on a pedestal, or to be role models, or anything other than footballers.

I also didn't know there was a law that said only nice people are allowed to earn big money, but that appears to be the case.

In reply to Offwidth:


What people choose to get up to is up to them, IMO. He says she consented. She says she cannot remember. How do we determine what actually happened?


'Obviously'?

How do we judge that? We might have CCTV and witness evidence of her intoxication, although, even then, it might be difficult to determine whether she was competent enough to give consent. Do we have some absolute relationship between physical competence and mental competence? Or blood alcohol level and mental competence?

How did he judge that? He didn't see the video evidence, or have the witness statements. As far as I understand it, his only meeting with her was in the hotel room. Do we have any independent evidence of her state of intoxication or mental capacity at that point, or how she appeared to him?


Guilty or not guilty, I think this case raises a very grey area.

Reading the comments here, it struck me that the crux of the trial was the issue of consent, and whether the girl was too drunk to give informed consent.

And, reading the summary of the appeal decision, it's clear that this was the case, and that one of the points of appeal was whether the judge had explained to the jury that 'a drunken consent is still a consent'. In fact, he went to some lengths to discuss what has been worrying me; the various levels of intoxication, the reduction in inhibition, and the ability to give informed consent. At some point along the line to unconsciousness, the judge suggested, that, whilst not unconscious, the ability to give informed consent would be lost. And this was what the jury had to make a decision on; was she so drunk that she couldn’t give informed consent, and should the defendant have known that she was too drunk to be able to give informed consent?

How do we know, with a drunk person in front of us, beyond reasonable doubt, when that point is reached, and they are incapable of giving informed consent?

How do we know, from secondhand reports, beyond reasonable doubt, if that point was reached in this case, and she was incapable of giving informed consent?

As the decision summary says 'this was a classic case for decision by the jury'.

I don't hold footballers in high regard, and I find the antics in this case pretty unpleasant, but the verdict does make me uneasy, in a very general sense, beyond this particular case.

It strikes me that the jury were asked to judge on the basis of what they thought the girl's state of mind was. And I cannot see that there can be hard evidence on which to make that judgement. And I'm pretty sure that I was directed not to speculate when I sat on a jury.

Before someone jumps down my throat, I'm not trying to defend Evans in particular. I'm asking questions that are applicable to all such intoxicated consent cases (and those are questions that would concern me as a juror on such a case). And, in fact, for any of us who engage in sexual activity when any of the involved parties is intoxicated to some extent. How can we know that consent is truly informed?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Well, from his point of view, he turns up and asks the girl if he can have sex, and she says yes. The girl didn't contradict that version of events; she said she couldn't remember. So there's no basis on which the jury can really have believed that wasn't true.

The basis for his conviction seems to be that, notwithstanding that he'd been out himself drinking until 4 am, he nonetheless should have realised that the girl was too drunk to give a valid consent. It's easy to understand why he might feel he hadn't done anything wrong.

In fact, based on the facts of the trial as recorded by the Court of Appeal and nothing else - obviously like all of us I wasn't at the trial - I must say that I find the jury's decision extremely surprising. If the girl's evidence was that she couldn't remember her interaction with Evans in any way at all, it's very hard to understand how the jury could possibly have believed, beyond reasonable doubt, that he didn't reasonably believe she'd given her consent. It must follow that if I meet someone in a hotel bar, she asks me perfectly coherently to have sex, we go up to the room and do it, and evidence then emerges that in fact she'd drunk quite a lot and before meeting me was falling-down drunk, I may be convicted of rape. That's disturbing.

In general though I've never understood the view that people who continue to maintain their innocence shouldn't be rehabilitated.

Rehabilitation of offenders is either, in general, a good thing or it isn't. If it is, then high-profile rehabilitation of offenders is also a good thing. It doesn't 'send out a message' that raping people is acceptable - this is a stupid view. The message it sends out is if you rape people you'll be imprisoned but that after that rehabilitation is possible. If we don't believe that, we should say so and enact that rapists are not to be employed after they've served their prison sentence.

jcm

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

>rape is pretty much second to murder in the revulsion it generates.

Wow. Worse than killing children while drink-driving? Really?

jcm

In reply to IainRUK:

>What happened in that room is just a black box, only the 3 of them know the truth

Well, no. Only two of them know, at least according to the woman's evidence. She said she couldn't remember a thing.

jcm

In reply to Indy:
He has a very loyal girlfriend.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

' I must say that I find the jury's decision extremely surprising. '

Anyone who thinks juries are rational, objective arbiters of the law hasn't been in a jury room.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Well said!

In reply to Indy:
Did the jury have a night out in Rhyl prior to sentence?

In reply to Indy:

Technically he hasn't served his time because he will probably be on licence and so still serving a sentence

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Can't disagree with any of that.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Footballers are supposed to represent their club.
Generally speaking their clubs profess some interest in something more than just making money and kicking a ball around - building community, helping charity and generally trying to represent some kind of greater good.
That could of course be simply some kind of nonsense to mask their greed, it's good to know ...

http://www.sufc-community.com/home-c62

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


There's a huge difference between meeting someone in a bar, or indeed pizza place, and letting yourself into a room where they are being shagged by a mate. There were witnesses to the fact that the girl was willing to at least spend the night with McDonald, but none for Evans. Add to that the evidence that Evans was planning something all along. Basically if you get your kicks from having sex with someone within seconds of meeting them, then yes you run a risk if you don't get an independent witness.

As I understand it, one of the grounds that Evans is appealing on is that the judge was wrong to direct the jury that they could find one defendant guilty and acquit the other. Perfectly correct in my opinion, although I still think McDonald was lucky

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




rehabilitation is of course possible, John

however, rehabilitation is not synonymous with returning to whatever position you occupied prior to offending

if you raped someone (and if instead of meeting someone at the hotel bar who invites you to her room for sex, you sneak into your mate's hotel room and have a threesome with someone who is literally falling over drunk and hasn't met you until that point, you would appear to be playing with fire in that regard), would you be able to return to your current job on release from prison?

i hope evans can be rehabilitated. that is not the same as hoping he resumes his football career

best wishes
gregor

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


of course they are. why would advertisers pay millions for footballers to endorse their products if they didn't influence the behaviour and decision making of very many people?

cheers
gregor

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



so what other suggestion do you have to arbitrate in cases where the criminal law is alleged to have been broken?

we have an appeals system to allow for the fact that the system is flawed. evans is taking full advantage of it, as is his entitlement. so far, the trial decision has already been validated once. we'll see what the outcome of the second appeal is. i'll be happy to accept the outcome if it overturns the conviction. if the appeal fails, will those who support him finally accept he is a rapist?

cheers
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

No, because I'm a solicitor and we have rules about this stuff. Largely because the public is supposed to trust us more than other people, or something. But when you get down to it it's a commercial decision by our trade union designed to improve our economic position.

If I was a plumber, on the other hand, obviously I could. It seems to me that being a footballer is the same as being a plumber. I don't buy this stuff (being peddled this morning by that berk Henry Winter in the Telegraph, I saw) that it 'sends out the wrong message' to female supporters. Every business has female customers. As for teenage boys running round with Chad Evans shirts, that's what rehabilitation means, I should have thought.

The real problem with this case is that many people think CE was wrongly convicted. That's what's really causing the furore, I think; anti-CE-ers overcompensate.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



i think so John. i'm not saying that i believe this personally, or that this should be the case, or that one crime is worse than the other. just that driving related crimes, even ones resulting in a death, seem to attract less public opprobrium that sexual offences, as judged by the extent and tone of their coverage in the media,

the point i was making was about the likely response of sponsors to his hiring; and that having a sex offender connected to your product is not what most sponsors would wish for when they hand over their cash to a club,

cheers
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

>if the appeal fails, will those who support him finally accept he is a rapist?

Juries are like referees; they are right even if they are wrong.

There can't be any appeal against the jury's finding, or indeed even any explanation of it. The appeal will be about whether the judge directed the jury properly, and I imagine is more or less bound to fail. So anyone who, like myself, cannot see how that finding could possibly have been justified on the basis of the facts recorded in the existing Court of Appeal judgment and reported in the papers, will continue to have the same doubts, unless any new facts emerge. This is the glory of our jury system, you understand.

Whether that makes me a 'supporter' of CE, exactly, I rather question. More of an opponent of some of the more foolish moralising we're seeing just now, I'd say.

jcm

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

>and that having a sex offender connected to your product is not what most sponsors would wish for when they hand over their cash to a club,

Oh, well, I certainly agree about that. If SU were to re-employ him, it would be a very courageous decision commercially, for sure. In fact I would rather take my hat off to them; it could be seen as a very principled decision.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



that would depend, John. if you were a plumber, and wanted to take on any work for the local authority, or B&Q, then they would expect CRB checks. i suspect most tradesmen working on contract for larger firms or councils would have to now. with a conviction for a sexual offence, its unlikely you'd get the contract.



clearly the first part of your statement is true. there are many people who think that. if they continue to do so after a fair trial by a jury of their peers and 2 appeals, should the upcoming one fail, they we are entitled to dismiss them as wrong and wonder about why they persist in clinging to a view that the actions that led to the conviction are anything other than sexual offending.

the 'overcompensating' comment can be dismissed as irrelevant ad hominem,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:






fair enough John. But as i said to Rob, what choice do we have? the jury reached their decision; you disagree with them, having read the same material i can see how they came to the decision and support it, as, it would seem, does our in situ police officer. we dont try people on an x factor-esque public vote; we delegate that responsibility to the jury. when they turn up verdicts we disagree with, we just have to lump it, and it doesnt necessarily mean they are wrong.

and the jury of course had the benefit of seeing the evidence led in the flesh, to judge evans' and body language, and to form a view of his reliability as a witness. none of that can come through in the written summary, and it is very likely to have played a part in their deliberations.

and as your last para- just more ad hom, so can be ignored,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


i would indeed be 'principled'- the debate is over the principles that would be being upheld!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:






I can't figure out if I'm missing something or am incorrectly explaining the law as I understand it.

Suspect A, knows victim, talks to her, invites her back to hotel. Jury decide either it was possible she consented to sex with him, or thought victim too intoxicated to consent but he reasonably believed she consented. Certainly muddy enough waters that proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not possible - not guilty.

Suspect B turns up unannounced (to the victim), jumps in and has sex with her. Jury decide she was too intoxicated to consent and he didn't reasonably believe she consented. (ie disbelieve his account and believe the prosecution case against him) - guilty.




I'm all for rehabilitation, and, if he believes he is innocent then quite reasonably he is not admitting his guilt.
Unfortunately all the comments from him and his family appear to centre on minimising his guilt, smearing the victim and certainly making zero effort to prevent the offensive backlash against her that his comments and release have stirred up. The current "lets retry this case on social media on our (ched evans) website" is not helpful.
Perhaps when he issues a full statement then we will see some degree of genuine empathy/remorse for his actions.

If he wants to resurrect his career then I don't see that as being compatible with his current attitude and behaviour.

In reply to Indy:

Intestingly according to a number of news outlets Ched Evans family is being investigated by the police for the use of the CCTV footage from the hotel showing the woman in questions arriving. I think I remember reading them saying as the footage was in the public domain then they could use it, anyway.......

Regardless of what you think I'm left wondering IF the sudden police interest has more to do with people seeing the footage of a young woman walking around in high heels without falling, stumbling or having to hold on to things in a perfectly normal way even remembering her pizza and the (not) forgotten handbag in the taxi and then trying to square the circle with the police/prosecution evidence assertion that she was paralytically drunk to the point of unconsciousness?

Doesn't look good does it!

In reply to off-duty:

The prosecution's entire case was that she was too drunk to give valid consent, so let's assume that's right (though it's surprising; she had drunk enough to make her two-and-a-half times the legal limit, according to the trial evidence). It was uncontested that she'd managed to order a pizza and pay for it; if you can do that I would have thought you're in a fit condition to consent to sex. But let's say she wasn't.

If so, then the jury must surely have disbelieved McDonald's entire evidence that she was conversing with him perfectly well, walking OK, etc. He was with the girl for something like an hour, during which time he had ample opportunity to notice that she was totally drunk. Sure she went willingly in the taxi with him, got in and out of it unaided, etc, but if we're to believe the prosecution case, she was in fact too drunk to consent.

If that's right then one would have thought McDonald had *less* reason than Evans to believe she was validly consenting. Evans only had a minute or two to observe her condition; McDonald had an hour.

jcm

In reply to Indy:




Is this more ridiculous conspiracy theories?
The police present the evidence, the CPS prosecute, the jury decides.
If he is successful in his appeal - fine. But it's failed.
If the CCRC decide to re-open his case - again fine. I am very doubtful that they will.

If the family want to try the case on social media, by selectively presenting the evidence as they deem fit - ignoring for example the cross exam of all parties involved, then it's pretty despicable really.
I'm not convinced that the family will have committed a specific offence, but it certainly doesn't show a shred of any emotion other than spite towards the victim.

In reply to off-duty:

Yes, I hadn't seen the website of his supporters before. That's not really a pretty sight in places. I don't quite get what's supposed to be significant about the 'if i win big' tweets.

They say the entire transcript of the trial is online somewhere, though I can't find it. Anyone do better?

They also say that there was evidence the woman had accused others of rape before, which they weren't allowed to bring. Always controversial, of course, if true. I'm never very happy about excluding evidence.

Still, if we assume that he's right that at the time she joined in and appeared to enjoy things and subsequently wanted to bring proceedings, you can see why he'd be angry. He would definitely be better advised to give some of it a rest, I agree.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

From the relative sentancing instructions for drunk drivers who kill a child and those who commit rape I thought it was pretty obvious rape is regarded as a similar highly serious level of crime. I welcome, the increase in sentencing for the former group over the years as before the changes a young friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver who left the scene and tried to cover up (it was clear from evidence he was very drunk and was responsible and had been caught drunk driving before) and yet shockingly he only got a short non-custodial sentance.

In reply to off-duty:

>Is this more ridiculous conspiracy theories?

I'm not sure it's a ridiculous conspiracy theory. I don't see it as being a conspiracy to say that the video doesn't look as though it shows someone who is too drunk to consent to sex. Clearly she can walk in platform shoes unaided. It's reasonable to ask how someone can do that and be too drunk to consent to sex.

I would have thought using the video was contempt of court, isn't it?

>it certainly doesn't show a shred of any emotion other than spite towards the victim.

Come, that's not true. They want to show their loved one is innocent. That's a very understandable emotion, and presenting evidence that makes it look that way is in line with that. You don't need to have any spite towards the victim to be doing that.

jcm

In reply to Chris the Tall:

>There's a huge difference between meeting someone in a bar, or indeed pizza place, and letting yourself into a room where they are being shagged by a mate.

I could see that, if it were a case where she says she didn't consent and he says she did. But it isn't. She can't remember. There's just no evidence at all to suggest that anything other than ostensibly consensual sex took place. The prosecution case is that she was too drunk to give valid consent. Once that's the issue, I would have thought the only thing that mattered was whether the accused ought to have noticed the complainant was drunk. Whether it's plausible for her to have consented in the circumstances doesn't matter, since we're assuming that she outwardly did consent, but that it didn't count because she was drunk.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I don't particularly want to dissect the ins and the outs of a case when we don't know all the facts - but the effects of alcohol in different people are diffeent and happen at different times. Haven't you ever woken up, having been "perfectly sober" when ordering a kebab, to find it all over your front as you are slumped in some bizarre position at home... or is that just me



The timings according to the appeal case appear to indicate that they had been in some sort of larger group together but had split up, and were only together for about 15 minutes before arriving at the hotel.
The "lengthy conversation" appears to have consisted of "Clayton stated that the complainant asked him where he was going, he replied that he was going back to his hotel to which she replied “I’m coming with you”"
I would suggest, and clearly the jury agreed, that McDonald "may" have formed a reasonable belief she consented, or certainly the prosecution couldn't prove he had not.



There is an argument that McDonald should also have been found guilty, yes. That does not mean that he "must" have been found guilty, or that the decision is perverse.

Just to add to the mix, it's feasible that the jury may also have considered that she may have drunkenly consented to McDonald, by her actions with him, but did not believe, having heard her and Evans give evidence, that she would have similarly consented to have sex with Evans.

In reply to off-duty:


Surely your point about the variability of alcohol effects is exactly my concern; how can we be sure, beyond reasonable doubt that she was incapable of giving consent?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



A conspiracy theory to suggest " I'm left wondering IF the sudden police interest has more to do with..... "


Not sure. Presumably the video was the defence redacted copy.released to the defence. Not sure on the rules for onward transmission of defence evidence when the proceedings are no longer active. Might prejudice a retrial (if that is something in the remit of the CCRC)




You don't need to have any spite towards the victim, but in a case like this, then you would have to present a rather more nuanced position to avoid what they have done - which is to turn this into one long saga of victim blaming.

Unless I've missed the pages where they are urging people on social media NOT to make comments about the victim.

In reply to off-duty:

>it's feasible that the jury may also have considered that she may have drunkenly consented to McDonald, by her actions with him, but did not believe, having heard her and Evans give evidence, that she would have similarly consented to have sex with Evans.

That wasn't the prosecution case, of course, but I suppose that needn't have stopped the jury.

The trouble with that though is that if you accept she was in a condition to give consent, it really is ground-breaking to convict someone when there are two witnesses to say the complainant did consent, and no witness at all to say she didn't, including the complainant herself.

jcm

In reply to captain paranoia:


"We" probably can't. The jury have had the benefit of hearing the video evidence she provided, the statement of first complaint - presumably to her mother or friend, the evidence of the taxi driver and the night (and morning) porter. The CCTV of her in the town , at the hotel, during the night and the morning after. Her evidence in chief (under cross-exam) etc.....

In reply to off-duty:

Ah, sorry, got you (on the conspiracy).

I assumed evidence released to the defence in criminal proceedings is the same as documents produced to a party on disclosure in civil proceedings - there's an implied undertaking to the court only to use it for the purpose of the proceedings and breaching that undertaking is contempt of court. Maybe that's wrong.

They don't seem to be urging people either way on making comments on the victim. I'm not really following you.

As to 'victim-blaming', that kind of begs the question, doesn't it?

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

A jury found that to be so and most people Ive talked to seem to understand that is a very likely inference from what they had read. Above all we were not in that position in that court so we just dont know. John certainly needs a weekend trip to somewhere like Newcastle to see how effective exceedingly drunken women can be getting around in heels. There is more to education than books.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



The prosecution case was that she didn't consent to either. The jury may have felt that the prosecution failed to prove this aspect of the case against McDonald, but did believe it was proved against Evans. (Side note really - as this is one option as to how they might have made their decision with it still not being perverse)




It might suggest that either Evans, McDonald, or both were singularly unconvincing when giving evidence. (Or lying. The uncertainty as to who exactly initiated the "threesome" probably wouldn't have helped.)

In reply to off-duty:

>The CCTV of her ......, at the hotel,

Well, if we want to we can all google and watch the video at the hotel (assuming the online version hasn't been photoshopped). We can all decide if we think that looks like someone incapably drunk ten minutes before the incident, I guess.

>The jury have had the benefit of hearing the video evidence she provided,

Not sure what you mean by 'video' evidence. Her evidence was that she couldn't remember what had happened. That can't have helped the jury all that much.


Again, not sure what you mean. Her first statement was presumably to the police, to whom she went after waking up and doing a day's work.

>the evidence of the taxi driver and the night (and morning) porter.

Well, we know from the CA judgment that the night porter thought she was 'very drunk' and that the taxi driver thought she was drunk but capable of controlling her actions, or some such expression.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

>The prosecution case was that she didn't consent to either.

It was that she was too drunk to consent to either.

>The jury may have felt that the prosecution failed to prove this aspect of the case against McDonald, but did believe it was proved against Evans.

Well if they did I don't see how that can be justified. Unless she was drunk, there's just no evidence that she didn't give consent to Evans. Even she didn't say it. She just said she was sure she wouldn't have done. That can't possibly found a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Surely you agree with that?

As to the uncertainty, I always think that what would be really suspicious in circumstances where it's four in the morning and everybody's had a bit to drink, would be if everyone told exactly the same story.

jcm

In reply to Offwidth:

>John certainly needs a weekend trip to somewhere like Newcastle to see how effective exceedingly drunken women can be at consenting to sex.

Fixed that for you, as they say.

jcm

In reply to Offwidth:

Why don't you google, Ched Evans make up your own mind, or some such wicked link, and see whether you think the video of the complainant at the hotel looks like someone incapable of consenting to sex. I suspect we can all agree that it looks like someone who's about to *have* sex, but that's perhaps not quite the same thing.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Could be - not sure. I see on their website they are trying to draw some more bizarre conclusions by reproducing the OIC's scribbled notes.




If you want to claim rehabilitation and get back being a "role-model" then it's probably unwise to start retrying the case on social media.
They might consider she is not a victim, but equally there is no evidence to suggest that she has done anything wrong.
She doesn't appear to have lied, perjured herself or set them up - but given that she is the other party in this, it doesn't take a footballer to realise if you start attacking the case you are going to end up attacking her, or certainly whipping up the idiots to attack her.

If he seriously wants to claim rehabilitation then he has a responsibility to try and still the victim trolling that is going on, and also present a much more nuanced view on the circumstances of HIS actions that have led him to his current position.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



But not the other video at the kebab shop etc. I wonder why.




It is highly likely that she will have given a video interview to the police. Normally in a rape the first person the complainant told would also be statemented. In this case I'm sure her mother who picked her up will have given a statement as to her condition.

Given that this evidence was likely to have been crucial to establishing whether the jury believed that she wouldn't have consented, and was so drunk she didn't consent I imagine that this early record of her account and demeanour would have been useful to the jury.




But - given that the defence presumably sought to minimise that drunkeness, we have no idea what they said under cross exam.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Yes my mistake.



It is just one possibility as to how a guilty and NG verdict could have been reached. They may well have felt that in all the circumstances there was sufficient mud around McDonald that they weren't happy beyond reasonable doubt, but in the case of Evans they were. They had the benefit of seeing and hearing all the evidence, and just as importantly, seeing and hearing those involved give that evidence.



A point which I am sure the defence were at pains to point out.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

We are back on that old acting /dressing provacatively chestnut are we. Not everyone drunk and in heels is looking for sex which is something else you might learn the hard way if you assumed that on your visit.

In reply to Offwidth:
That's an absurd thing to say, and would even be thoroughly offensive were I the sort of person who gets offended by foolish prating on the internet.

I didn't say everyone drunk and in high heels was looking for sex. I said everyone capable of walking unaided in high heels was capable of consenting to sex. That's not the same thing, as I'm sure a little reflection will show you.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

>They may well have felt that in all the circumstances there was sufficient mud around McDonald that they weren't happy beyond reasonable doubt, but in the case of Evans they were.

Obviously they did think that, and obviously you're right that they've heard everyone. But you're ignoring my point - if it's true that the complainant wasn't in a fit state to give consent, then which defendant was in a better position to judge that, McDonald or Evans? Obviously McDonald.

I agree it would be interesting to see the kebab shop video.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Consent and High Heels? How the f*ck do the two go together... The individual symptoms of alcohol are not the same in each person, motor coordination and balance do not neccicarily equate to demonstrating sobriety and cognative function in any other facet.

I was grossly disappointed and angered by the advert for this evening's "The Moral Maze" on the radio this morning which literally equated the reprehensibility of Raping the Victim with the Victim having got blind drunk as being equal...
I'm pretty sure getting blind drunk is something most people will do at some point, and then most likely in their youth before they learn their limits.

In reply to Indy:

Im reading this thread with interest from both sides of the opinion. I wont look at the pro-Ched websites or facebook pages as i can imagine what is being said on there and I prefer to take the view of the jury in these matters as this is the system of jurisdiction in which we live and operate. On the whole it is a sound system and whilst imperfect, is about as good as one can expect when dealing with humans.

What really worries me however, is this notion of consent or presumed lack thereof. I dont know the ins and outs from a legal standpoint nor will I offer my own opinion on this case. Im curious though, was Ched himself pissed on the night? Anyhow, the worrying part of this for me is that most, if not all, young males (and many older) are potentially open to rape accusations on a weekly basis.

Think of weekend nights out on the town, you are absolutely shitfaced as many do get you meet a lady who has agreed to spend a night with you in a hotel or at home. You end up having sex. How should this consent actually be given? I can think of many times during my younger years when I have been in similar situations. Granted, i have never been sober and taken advantage of someone drunk; this would make me feel uneasy and rightfuly criticised but what if a lady wakes the next morning, realises what she has done, regretted her actions and then sought to channel that regret onto the poor unsuspecting male who, thought that she was perfectly fine with it? How should consent be measured when force clearly hasnt been applied and at the time all parties seemed willing? Do we need a signature or a credit card swipe to prove it? Does getting in a taxi and actually walking over the threshold with someone suggest that, legally, consent has been given. What if one party only wanted to indulge in heavy petting but ended up having sex they didnt specifically consent to? What if the bloke was more drunk than the female and didnt give consent?

What if there is a third person? Why should that make a difference? Is there a level of drunkedness which one party musnt cross before another should completely walk away? Testoterone-fuelled young males in the heat of the moment on a Friday night the country over should be very concerned, I think.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Good they should be concerned as being testosterone fuelled and drunk maybe needs thinking about in terms of lots of problem areas incuding consent given the damage rape causes in the same way it does with drunk driving or drunken gbh. All the evidence in rape seems to point the other way in that large numbers of alledged reported rapes are not prosecuted and significant numbers of those prosecuted are found not guilty. 6% of allegations are successfully prosecuted, 58 % of cases taken up are successfully prosecuted.

In reply to Offwidth:


I think guys do have to be more wary these days. You do things when drunk you wouldn't do when sober.. most have will have done. Guys should be more wary now. Its not just testosterone, the jury concluded she had done something she regretted (sleeping with mcdonald) which she wouldn't have done sober.

You can understand why large proportions aren't prosecuted. Something that happens behind closed doors, when two people are drunk, is just impossible to prove in most situations. How can you prove beyond reasonable doubt when you have two sides of a story and neither are particular clear about what happened?

In reply to IainRUK:

Not a bad idea if people are a bit more wary of their behaviour as regards alcohol and sex, but it strikes me that some of you are exaggerating the risk of being prosecuted for rape. There's far more to it than one person's word against another. Lets not forget that one of the accused in this case was acquitted. Would it even have come to court if Evans hadn't turned up ? I doubt it.

Context is important. This wasn't some simple drunken encounter at the end of the evening, it was 2 men acting in a predatory manner, quite possibly to a pre-arranged plan

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Was that proven? Genuine question as I dont know.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

CE had been drinking that night, certainly. The question of how much probably wasn't explored, since in law it's irrelevant, as I understand.

I agree with you that the situation in this case is a little disturbing. According to the verdict we have a woman who was too drunk to give a valid consent to sex, but not so drunk that it wasn't possible for one man to believe that she was in a condition where she could validly consent, although not another.

Evidently therefore the men were expected to make very fine judgments. However, in so doing they are to be treated as being sober. That's the law, just like it's no defence to a charge of assault to say you were drunk.

So if you have two pissed-up individuals having ostensibly consensual sex, it's OK for the woman to say afterwards, "I may have come back with you to your hotel room and thrown myself into your arms with the words 'take me, darling', but I was too pissed for it to count so you raped me", (and any suggestion that this was undesirable would of course be victim-blaming and therefore wicked), but in seeking to rebut that allegation the man cannot say, "well I was blind drunk myself, how do you expect me to assess whether your actions were genuine consent or the apparent consent of someone who didn't actually have the capacity to consent?". His only defence, assuming the woman succeeds in showing she really was too pissed to consent, is to show that a sober man in his position would have reasonably, albeit mistakenly, formed the view that she wasn't so pissed her consent was invalidated.

One might think this wasn't terribly fair, I agree. Some people do, others say it's just like any other crime, what's the problem?

jcm

In reply to Indy:
I should add that I support the rule of law in this case (rightly or wrongly) but viewed from a position of complete neutrality it must be wickedly hard to be a juror on such cases.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Nothing is ever 'proven' in a criminal case; the evidence is put to the jury and they decide on their verdict. As they don't give their reasons, nobody knows what they thought.

As I recall the evidence in the public domain bearing on this question, it was thus.

Evans had booked a room that night in the name of McDonald and another friend. McDonald, Evans, and at least three other men then went out together. McDonald became separated, and one of the other friends was arrested in a street altercation. CE and the remaining two set out in a taxi to the police station to render some assistance to the arrested one.

Meanwhile McDonald's evidence (uncontested as far as I know, since were are now in the period which the complainant couldn't remember, although it may be that this encounter was caught on CCTV) was that the complainant approached him and asked him where he was going, and then said that she was coming back to his hotel with him, and flagged down a taxi. He then texted CE and said he had a girl - I don't know what explanation he gave for doing this. CE, on hearing this, diverted the taxi to the hotel, told his mates to wait and arrived in the room while McD and the complainant were having, or had just had, sex, asked if he could join in and the complainant said yes (according to McD and E). McD then left as he didn't want to watch (I don't know where he said he intended to, or did, spend the night). CE had sex, and then left, presumably to continue to the police station, I don't know.

Make of that what you will. Obviously McD and CE were up for a threesome if the opportunity arose, but whether it was part of a premeditated plan (as the prosecution suggested) or whether it just happened that way seems open to debate to me, and also not terribly important in considering events - unless you think they were looking specifically for a girl who was too drunk to object to a threesome. I don't think there was any evidence which tended to show that, particularly.

jcm

In reply to Chris the Tall:

>Would it even have come to court if Evans hadn't turned up ? I doubt it.

It would be pretty shocking if that were true.

jcm

In reply to IainRUK:


In general, quite. In this case, of course, you had only one side. The complainant couldn't remember whether she had ostensibly consented or not.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:


Yes, I didn't understand that either. Although it is curious that the OIC wrote down 'Titus Bramble'. It would be slightly interesting to know why, don't you think?

jcm

In reply to KellyKettle:


Well, it's been a traditional test of sobriety to demonstrate an ability to walk in a straight line, no? They definitely go together to the extent that there's a positive correlation, albeit perhaps not an exact one. I'd suggest that if someone is continually conscious, not throwing up, can walk and talk and verbally consents to sex, then no matter how drunk she may in fact be it will usually be the case that the man has a defence in that he reasonably believed she consented.


I didn't hear it. However, the whole victim-blaming-is-wicked thing can be taken just a tad too far. In this case, the complainant was so drunk that she couldn't remember her actions and was unable to give valid consent to sex, but yet her actions led one man to consider reasonably (or at least not unreasonably) that she was consenting, with the result that he found himself being tried for rape. I'm not sure you can entirely defend that behaviour (saying nothing about his). And on the other hand, even if you agree with the verdict, what that means is that Evans - possibly equally drunk - formed a belief that she was consenting, quite possibly a genuine one, but one which a reasonable sober man would not have formed, and as a result found himself convicted of rape. I'm not convinced that the popular view that no blame whatsoever can possibly attach to the woman in those circumstances is entirely correct either.

jcm

In reply to Indy:
I was discussing this case today with someone who actually understands criminal law, and as a result I think I've formulated my problem with the verdict better.

First, the prosecution's entire case was that the complainant was too drunk to give valid consent. Not that if they were wrong and she did have capacity she didn't in fact consent at the time. They couldn't submit that, for two reasons. One, the woman couldn't remember. Two, either they took a tactical decision not to say, or the woman simply would not truthfully say, that she would never have consented in similar circumstances. If it was a tactical decision, that was because the defence had evidence which they wanted to call about the complainant's sexual history, which in the event was not allowed in because it wasn't part of the prosecution's case that she wasn't that type of girl (at least according to chedevansisinnocent.com, or whatever it's called).

It follows from that that there was simply no evidence whatsoever offered by the prosecution about what happened in the room, because they didn't have any (bar the night porter's evidence he heard sex going on there, which was common ground). The jury therefore just could not properly conclude that there had not been verbal consent given, because it didn't have any evidence on which it could do that. If it did, then that wasn't a proper conviction. However, we don't know whether the jury actually did that, because they don't have to give their reasons.

So in order for this to be a proper verdict the jury must have considered that the complainant was too drunk to consent (as the CA say they did). Otherwise Evans could not have been convicted.

It follows that the jury must have considered that no proper consent was in fact given to McDonald either, but that he reasonably believed that it had been. This was what the CA said.

In order for McDonald to have reasonably believed that consent had been given, he must have reasonably believed that the complainant had capacity to give consent. This is why Chris the Tall's point about context being important is wrong - it doesn't matter how probable or otherwise it is that the complainant's conduct, were she sober, would amount to consent. The defendant has to believe reasonably both that ostensible consent has been given (which was effectively common ground, since as I said the prosecution wasn't suggesting it hadn't been and couldn't do so) AND that the complainant wasn't too drunk to give a proper consent.

Now, as to the latter, McDonald had fifteen minutes or so alone with the complainant immediately before the sex. He said she was obviously sober enough that her consent was valid. Now plainly the jury thought that was a mistaken but honest belief, and one which would have been reasonable even if McDonald had been totally sober; otherwise he would have been convicted.

It's hard enough to see how, if the woman was able to fool a sober man over a fifteen minute period a deux, into thinking she was capable of giving consent, it was possible for the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that she was in fact not capable of giving it. I would say, in fact, that it was unprecedented.

But even more so, if she was able to fool McDonald into thinking that when he had fifteen minutes to consider it, how was the jury possibly able to conclude beyond reasonable doubt either that Evans wasn't, as he and McD both said had happened, given coherent verbal and physical consent, or that it wasn't reasonable for Evans on the basis of one minute's acquaintance, to think that the complainant was sober enough to consent? After all, presumably he was entitled to reflect that McDonald obviously thought she was.

What separates this from the usual JCT-style I-thought-he-was-guilty-from-the-start case is that it isn't necessary to form any views about the evidence or the characters involved to be pretty troubled by it. To properly decide the way it did, the jury must have decided that McDonald reasonably but wrongly believed the woman to be sober after fifteen minutes' acquaintance, and Evans unreasonably and wrongly believed it after a minute. That doesn't make sense - obviously McDonald had far more opportunity to see that she wasn't capable.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

... which feeds into my view/suspicion, that the jury were reflecting all sorts of moral judgements, emotional responses, dislike of footballers etc rather than making a legal judgement.

Which they are allowed to do, in fact in my limited experience one of the huge flaws in the jury system is that as a juror you don't KNOW what you are supposed to be doing. Are you supposed to be judging the niceties of the law? Well if you are, you're not really qualified; just following your argument above is hard work for a lay person, and the jury will almost certainly not seen it put as lucidly. Are you supposed to be judging the 'facts'? Well once you're in the jury room, having listened to counsel batting said 'facts' to and fro - and without the opportunity to cross examine, revisit or query said facts yourself, the agreed facts become an awfully elusive commodity.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


You'd have to check the timeline, I can't find it to look it up, but McDonald said he left because he didn't want to watch, left the hotel and on the way out went to the night porter and asked him to look out for the girl as she was ill/sick/incapable of getting home, IIRC that is what led to the night porter hovering outside the door.

If that's correct then it implies that McDonald knew the girl was unwell whilst Evans was on the job, so the jury may well have formed the view that Evans would know as well but proceeded anyway.

In reply to winhill:

Yeah, I remember that. But on the face of it, that too would incriminate McDonald more than Evans, wouldn't it?

It really would be interesting to see a transcript of the trial. McDonald must have been pressed pretty hard about that. Wonder what he said about it.

jcm

In reply to Indy:

I was shocked to hear a Sheffield United spokesperson referring to the "duty of care" to support their employee and therefore rehabilitate him.

I am guessing that about 99.99% of UKC's readers would lose their job upon a guilty rape conviction. So the employers "duty of care" ceases entirely at that point and they would be sacked under gross misconduct. Many employees might also lose pension rights accrued for such a serious conviction.

If CE wants to ply his footballing trade elsewhere with a spent conviction/licence that's fine by me.

Of course nobody will have him and he will find the same problems that Joe Public convicted rapist would find.

The most astonishing and repugnant thing in the whole saga is Sheffield Utd's apparent decision to "support" a convicted rapist. Not CE's desire to return which seems quite a normal response.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
The jury process is our system and plenty of research supports its utility compared to other systems despite the very old story of ordinary people being 'too stupid to take part'. They do not work in a bubble but are instructed in their task and need to form clear decisions under that instruction as a group. The big micarriages of justice tend to be because of being presented with false evidence and testimony or legal technicalities rather than incompetant decision making.

In reply to Babika:

He lost his job..

He's basically asking for it back.. you really think 99.99%, 1 in 10,000 wouldn't get their job back? So you are saying that someone who is a convicted rapist should never get a job and just spend their life what? claiming benefits?

In reply to Offwidth:

>The jury process is our system and plenty of research supports its utility compared to other systems

Does it? I thought one of the regular complaints about the jury system was that it was impossible to do any sensible research into it because you weren't allowed to ask people the reasons for their decisions, etc.

In any case I'm not really sure how you'd do any research into whether juries tend to arrive at better verdicts than say inquisitorial systems. You'd need to know the actual truth somehow, surely? Or did you mean something else by 'utility'?

jcm

In reply to Babika:

I thought they had sacked him? Certainly he's no longer their employee because his contract would have run out even if he hadn't been sacked. So you're right that there's definitely no legal duty of care. I'm not sure why you should be shocked to think that a football club considered it had a general pastoral duty towards its players and former players, though, nor why it would distress you that they'd continue to think that if their employees did wrong.

I also can't understand why it would annoy you if Sheffield United employed him but not if another club did. Where's the sense in that?

jcm

In reply to IainRUK:

Evans got himself into the mess he's in now. If you or I spent time inside for rape we'd lose our jobs. In any event, Evans is not employed by SU as his contract expired while he was inside. Without either his conviction being overturned on appeal, or his demonstrating some remorse / contrition for his actions his rehabilitation can't start in any meaningful way.

Once it does start, then yes I agree he could return to playing football, but not before.

In reply to IainRUK:




I'm not saying that at all.

I have no problem with him applying for any job he wants (including football) and declaring his conviction.
My problem was the Sheffield officials statement about "duty of care". Most employers do not feel any duty of care to an employee they have sacked for gross misconduct,

In reply to 999thAndy:
If he thinks he's innocent why show remorse? He has shown some remorse just deny's rape..

A miscarriage of justice isn't unthinkable, especially in this case.

I think they hold his registration..

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




The jury might have thought there was much longer for the victim to voice reservations about what was happening. The victim did under her own steam go to the hotel with Macdonald, even if she was out of it.

In the case of Evans he deceitfully entered the room uninvited, with the victim already in bed naked. There was then conflicting evidence form Macdonald and Evans about what happened next.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

You're illustrating precisely my point.

The prosecution's claim was that the woman was too drunk to consent validly to either of them. That was their *only* claim. They didn't offer any evidence about what happened in the room, because they couldn't. So the jury just wasn't entitled to conclude that ostensible consent hadn't been given, because it didn't have any evidence on the basis of which it could have done that.

The considerations you mention would certainly have been relevant if this had been a case where the prosecution was saying that the woman had been capable of consenting but hadn't done so.

However, here what the jury had to decide was (i) was she too drunk to consent at all - which they did, rather surprisingly given the evidence that's in the public domain, but still, and (ii) given that she was, did either defendant reasonably believe that she was not too drunk to consent.

It's very, very difficult to understand how the jury can have thought beyond reasonable doubt that the woman was too drunk to consent, and simultaneously have thought that it was possible to spend fifteen minutes in her company and form an honest and reasonable view that she wasn't too drunk to consent, and that Evans, observing the same woman a few minutes later, did not reasonably believe that she was not too drunk to give consent. It seems to me that the jury simply *must* have wandered into the question of whether the girl ostensibly consented, and if so, Evans was convicted on a case which wasn't the prosecution's case, for which they offered no evidence, and in respect of which the court had denied him the chance to bring evidence that would have been relevant had the prosecution been making a different case.

jcm

In reply to IainRUK:

Actually, the way the case was run at trial, and also the chedevans website, seems to have been to attack the girl's credibility. The defence called an expert who testified that given what she'd drunk the girl would only have been two and a half times over the legal limit and wouldn't have been expected to lose her memory. If so that was a bad mistake, I'd have thought, bound to be rejected and forfeit the jury's sympathy. Much better to do as they wanted to on appeal and call an expert to say that losing your memory about events doesn't mean you can't walk, talk, order pizzas, hail taxis, consent to sex and generally operate normally, if a little disinhibitedly.

It's a quaint feature of the case that the girl's own evidence didn't really support the prosecution case on drunkenness; she said she often drank far more, was tipsy but in control as long as she had any memory and drank nothing after that, and that her drink must have been spiked.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



They may have believed the hotel receptionist, who said she was "extremely drunk", they were in court and could asses the witness , we were't.


Probably, yes, but it's very, very difficult to understand what evidence he could have brought forward, had that been the prosecutions case, that wasn't heard anyway.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

First of all, thanks for such a long and detailed post. Really interesting to get an expert opinion on such intricate legal matters. I'm still going to disagree though....!

As I understand it you friend has outlined one of the grounds that Evans is appealing on - that the judge was wrong to direct the jury that they could acquit one and convict the other. This has been rejected once, but may still succeed.

Yes if you eliminate some of the evidence then convicting CE and not CM looks odd, but should the judge have told the jury to do that, and would they have done so if instructed?

CM can prove the girl was able to walk, with him, to his room. When CE arrived her condition could have been anywhere from enthusiastic participant to semi-comatose - the only evidence on this matter is from the accused. In fact it's quite possible it could have deteriorated rapidly when she got into bed. Do we believe that CE checked that she able to give considered consent, or do we believe that he relying on the opposite ?

I also suggested you considered what would have happened had CE not turned up. IMHO the evidence against CM - the fact that CE had booked the room, the text - now looks a lot less suspicious and less like he was procuring a girl for his friend. Also, if he doesn't leave, the victim doesn't wake up alone, feeling used and abandoned. Not saying she wouldn't go to the police, not saying she shouldn't, and not saying the CPS would drop it, but I don't think many cases like that have come to court.

In reply to IainRUK:




I'm saying that he shouldn't return to his previous high profile / highly paid / highly influential position until *either* he wins his appeal *or* he accepts responsibility for his crime, and the effect it has on the victim. I'm not saying he should never play again, I'm saying he has to wait until he is either proven innocent or remorseful of the rape he has been found guilty of.

In reply to Indy:

Apparently when Sheff Utd said he couldnt play, he just carried on...

In reply to mh554:

Apparently when Sheff Utd said he couldnt play, he just carried on...

Wonder if he dribbled before shooting into the back of the net...

In reply to 999thAndy:
And I'm saying why?

He thinks he's innocent..

If the appeal is rejected I think he will then make a statement as that's the end of the matter, but I still think he will deny it was rape..

A woman in the US just got released after 20 years of denying murder and unsuccessful appeals before finally new evidence cleared her..

In reply to IainRUK:

What he thinks of his actions is of secondary importance to what the jury thought, and what the appeal court decide. If he's found innocent on appeal, he takes up where he left off. If not I feel he should accept that whatever he thinks, he really did wrong, and caused harm to his victim. Until one or other of those things occur then he should stay of the pitch.

In reply to 999thAndy:
Why?

As long as he served his time..

I doubt he will get an appeal tbh as there was very little evidence and probably nothing new...

If he thinks he's innocent of rape then I can't blame him for not accepting it.

If he knows how drunk or sober she was why should he admit it? It's quite possible she wasn't that drunk and was consenting.. It is possible that even appeals don't get to the truth..

In reply to IainRUK:

Why?
Because being a footballer, playing for your country, representing a huge amount of fans brings with it wider social responsibility. If that's not self evident then there's no point in further discussion.

In reply to 999thAndy:
No it's not .. So he should say something he doesn't agree with? Doesn't think? I don't see what his country has to do with this? I can understand why he thinks it wasn't rape.. I'm not sure tbh like jcm I do have a doubts over the conviction.

The jurors couldn't come to a unanimous decision on this until the judge sent them back to deliberate further..

It's possible this was/is the wrong decision. It was obviously a close call hence one got off..

So no if he thinks he's innocent he should maintain that. He knows accepts what he did was wrong but denies it was rape.. I think that's up to him.

Wrongful convictions do happen, say jurors decisions 99.99% accurate.. 1 in 10,000 are wrong (probably much more (I thought its in the range of a few %)), With 80,000 uk prisoners we have 8 prisoners who are innocent.

If you were one of those 8 would you admit guilt after your release?

I think it's a fundamental right to still be able to assert your innocence. It's up to others to then decide.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

>They may have believed the hotel receptionist, who said she was "extremely drunk", they were in court and could asses the witness , we were't.

Absolutely they may have. But, again, you're making my point. McDonald was with the complainant during the whole time the hotel receptionist saw her. If the receptionist formed the view she was 'very drunk', and the jury took from that beyond reasonable doubt that she was too drunk to have capacity to consent, then how on earth did they also manage to conclude that McDonald reasonably and honestly thought, on the basis of the same observation, that she was *not* too drunk to consent?

>Probably, yes, but it's very, very difficult to understand what evidence he could have brought forward, had that been the prosecutions case, that wasn't heard anyway.

Well hang on, you speak as if it was just chance that the prosecution didn't put that case.

First of all, it doesn't matter what evidence the defence might have brought to meet a case that wasn't put. It wasn't put because there was no evidence for it. If the woman doesn't remember what happened, then in order for there to be a case to put before the jury at all (other than that whatever she might have done she was too drunk for it to count) there has to be some evidence to suggest that she wouldn't have consented. Usually, the complainant gives evidence that she isn't the sort of person who would have consented to sex with someone she'd only just met. If this complainant didn't do that, then the only proper inference the jury can draw is that she couldn't have said that because it simply wasn't true.

Secondly, it's very easy to understand what evidence he could have brought forward. He could have brought forward evidence of previous sexual history. In fact, he tried to and his application to get it in was refused (quite properly, no doubt) on precisely the grounds that the prosecution wasn't alleging a lack of consent other than by reason of drunkenness. Had there been any evidence that the woman hadn't agreed (albeit too drunkenly to count) then the credibility of the complainant would have become relevant, and evidence of the complainant's sexual history would have been allowed in. As I say, Evans had some ready which he wasn't allowed to bring. We don't know what it was. It might have been that the complainant had been out every Saturday night for the last five years, drunk at least as much every night as she did on this occasion, and had never allowed a night to pass without having sexual intercourse. Alternatively, it might have been some feeble suggestion that she had on one occasion done some sexual act or other. We don't know. But for sure if the prosecution had brought this case, there would have been more evidence in play.

jcm

In reply to Chris the Tall:


My highlighting.

This is all supposition, I'm afraid. There is no reliable evidence for any of those assertions. Whilst she could have deteriorated, equally, she could have sobered up. CE says he asked for, and was given her consent; the prosecution presented no evidence for what happened in the hotel room. As you say yourself, she could have been an enthusiastic participant, and yet you seem to have decided she was semi-comatose.

We simply do not know what happened with any certainty.

How then, can we judge beyond reasonable doubt, that your 'coulds' are certainties?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

How come he got early release whilst still maintaining his innocence?

I thought that was a fundamental parole step.. Hence the 'innocent prisoners dilemma'?

In reply to Indy:

I don't think football clubs should employ convicted rapists.

I do find it hard to see how there wasn't reasonable doubt in this case though. She was only two and half times the drink drive limit, and she could walk and remember her pizza when she got to the hotel. If she could do that, it seems to me that there's certainly a reasonable possibility that she could have consented to sex with Ched Evans.

So, if I think there's reasonable doubt, surely I think he should be re-employed? Not really. Playing football's a privilege and while there's doubt about whether this was rape his behaviour was pretty disgusting regardless.

I wouldn't have him at Hibs.

In reply to Donnie:
Really?

There's a few broader points within this .

But one was football is on trial too.. This is one of many similar incidents of group sex involving footballers and a girl or two over the past 5 years that we've heard of..

If he's not guilty of rape he's guilty of the behavior of many many players who still ply the game.. If the conviction is overturned he should return..

In reply to IainRUK:



Yes, me too. I've no idea what the answer to your question is.

jcm

In reply to Donnie:

>his behaviour was pretty disgusting regardless.

Was it, really?

There's nothing illegal about going out with a view to meeting members of the opposite sex (or the same sex, indeed) who are disinhibited by drink and might fancy a little recreational sex with you. Lots of people do it all the time. And if you meet such a person and she invites you to do this and that, how much checking as to her sobriety do any of us actually do? I'm a little past that sort of thing, but if I were out on the town feeling randy, drink taken, and some fit lass asked me if I fancied a shag, would I do more than assume that if she could walk and talk she knew what she was doing, and go for it?

I doubt it very much. I doubt if many of us would. And if I didn't, and it the woman then went to the police and said that she couldn't remember what had happened but that she'd been far too drunk to be taken advantage of by the likes of me, would I think I was a rapist, or would I think I'd been hard done to? I suspect the latter; I suspect I'd be doing exactly what Ched Evans is, although I do like to think I'd have issued some public appeal telling my supporters to lay off the complainant and to stop outing her on social media.

It's always instructive to consider how disgusting we would consider someone's behaviour if the sexes were reversed. Would be saying that the behaviour of a woman who had sex with a drunk man in similar circumstances was disgusting?

In reply to Donnie:

>I don't think football clubs should employ convicted rapists.

Do you think anyone should?

>Playing football's a privilege

Is it? More so than other employment?

jcm

In reply to Chris the Tall:

>Really interesting to get an expert opinion on such intricate legal matters

Whoa there. I'm not an expert. Really not. I'm a gobby amateur who knows a little about a related field and thinks he can just transfer the concepts over.


No, the new referral to the Board will need to put forward new evidence.


I don't follow. What do you mean, eliminate some evidence?


Well, it could have been anything, but you can't find people guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of what it could have been. You need some evidence that it was so. This is fundamental.


You might be right, though I suspect McDonald might still have left once the complainant urinated in the bed. I thought you meant the CPS might not have pursued it. It would be worrying if they joined McD in to get two for the price of one when they wouldn't have done had he been on his own, was what I meant.

None of that evidence goes to the key question - did McDonald reasonably believe the woman had the capacity to consent. And of course it isn't actually illegal to go out looking for a girl to have a threesome with, not even if you feel you may need to find one disinhibited by drink. Whether the jury can properly give effect to any distaste they might feel for this practice might be an important question in this case.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

[...]


Yes.

Whatever the truth of this individual case, Ched Evans rehabilitation, as an international footballer will be subject to more scrutiny than A.N. Other who happened to be a hair dresser.

A footballer is not paid to play football, they're paid to sell media rights.

Sky and BT pay the premiership £1B per year so they must think the premiership sells much more than that in tv/broadband/phone packages.
Sky and BT are probably both hoping the other company televises his first match as they won't want their expensively advertised brand associated with Evans.
It does give them a negotiating lever though when they're deciding how much to pay for tv rights in the future.

A footballer is also paid to sell naming rights for the stadium and the club itself to the next owner.
Evans makes both of those products seem less attractive and more risky for future buyers so the value is diminished.

A more direct impact is on the shirt sponsor who won't want their expensive brand associated with a convicted rapist on blanket photo coverage of his first match.
Evans has made shirt sponsorship for all clubs seem that bit less atttractive and that bit more risky for future sponsors.

Overall if there is a tiny pin prick of damage to the multibillion media rights contracts that adds up to cost of tens of millions.

Evans can't justify a premiership salary as he doesn't add value to media rights but his club won't get a good price if they try to sell him.

The club hasn't terminated his contract for being unavailable to play whilst in prison so it looks like the club want to retain him presumably on a much reduced salary or sell him abroad.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I'm not, you're labouring your first point, then quickly throwing in this suggestion that she wasn't very drunk, based on one piece of evidence, when there's plenty of other evidence to suggest she was.


I'm looking at this from the other side. I don't think Evans was convicted because of this question of 'ostensibly consent', I think Macdonald got off because of it. If you're saying the jury had no right to do this, fine, but it seems juries are given some discretion in cases like these, were 2 drunk people meet and end up in bed.

In the case of Evans I think it's more clear cut. An 'extremely drunk' woman is in bed naked. A man she has never met before enters the room through deceit and has sex with the woman.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I was referring to you friend . But thanking you for your efforts in explaining his opinion to us laymen


You sure ? I have a feeling they are appealing on several grounds (bankrolled by his girlfriends father) and that one of them was misdirection of the jury.


You said that some of the points I made hadn't been put forward by the prosecution, so the jury shouldn't have considered them, but may have done so.


Agree, but I seem to remember being taught in my first week that one persons word against another doesn't mean the case can't proceed. Now that may have had more relevance to Civil than criminal (I didn't study any of the latter), but nonetheless the judge/jury will make a decision on whether they believe someone. IIRC this trial lasted about 2 or 3 weeks, so the jury is in a much better position that any of us to make that judgement. Having read CEs defence on his supporters website, I don't see a compelling case for miscarriage of justice.

Reasonable doubt doesn't mean certainty. If you make a rule of "No memory equals no rape" or "No witnesses equals no rape" then the already low conviction rate plummets further and you give a green light to the predatory rapists looking for vulnerable women at 3am.

Meanwhile, good article here
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/star-editor-s-opinion-no-way-back-to-sh...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


yes


yes, more so than most other employment

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It's not simply having sex with someone that's drunk that I find disgusting.

It's with a very drunk girl that your mate just shagged, that you turned up to basically have a shot on, your mates filmed it and then you snuck out the back door and left her to wake up alone. You were in a serious relationship at the time. That's pretty disgusting behaviour to me. And it smacks of treating women like objects.

Now it may not have been like that. As I said above I think there's a reasonable doubt about it being rape and there's probably a reasonable doubt about whether it was actually as bad as it seems to me even if it wasn't rape. But the way I see it,is that footballs a privilege and that a club could and should it take away with a lower burden of proof than a reasonable doubt, which is a very high bar.

I do think there are differences between the sexes here. Call me sexist but there you go. I think it's probably to do with being penetrated and relative size and strengths.

In reply to Donnie:



there was no evidence of any force at all..

In reply to Donnie:

'That's pretty disgusting behaviour to me. And it smacks of treating women like objects.'

Well yes it maybe, but the law is absolutely not there to stop people doing things that other people find disgusting. John Stuart Mill and all that.

As I suggested upthread, and JCM also implied, it's difficult not to suspect that the jury shared your disgust and that trumped the legal niceties; i.e. whether a criminal offence (as opposed to what some see as very unpleasant behaviour) had actually occurred.

In reply to IainRUK:

Hi Ian, I was making a general point in response something above along the lines of "what would you think if the sexes were reversed?"

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I agree entirely.

I still think he shouldn't play professional football again.

In reply to Donnie:

I know, but if a guy consensually slept with a girl whilst drunk, and the next morning claimed rape, I don't think it would get to court..

There has to be some responsibility for what you do when you are drunk. Like many I've gambled drunk, you make silly decisions, lose money, some casino's actually provide drinks because they know this.. Can you then claim that money back because you wouldn't have done it sober?

In reply to IainRUK:

Sex with a woman who does not consent *is* force. See also Judy Finnegan's absurd comments about "non-violent" rape.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




Whilst I agree that the law is not there to prevent "disgusting behaviour", there are several entirely legal and justifiable routes that the jury could have come to the conclusion that McDonald was not guilty, whilst Evans was guilty.

As for Evans resuming his playing career - he continues to utterly ignore the fact that his legions of fans are persecuting the victim in this case, and continues to focus on "proving his innocence" in a cack-handedly inappopriate manner.
The huge publicity, and the extremely poor use he is making of it, demonstrates clearly that being a footballer clearly is a job with influence and thus should have a degree of responsibility attached to it.
That's a responsibility that he is demonstrating that he is unable to accept as he continues to leave the victim in this case being hounded by his supporters, even actively encouraging this by showing the video on his website.

In reply to planetmarshall:

But she consented.. I realise if there is no consent there is force.. there's been a few cases recently of college students raping comatose girls passed out from drink.

Here the issue was if that consent was valid, her consent 15 minutes previously was considered valid, her consent 15 minutes later was considered invalid.

In reply to IainRUK:



The jury didn't believe she consented to sex with Evans.

This red herring that that pro-Evans supporteres keep trotting out about "15 minutes earlier she consented etc....." is very much a red herring.
The jury may have felt that they didn't feel confident, beyond reasonable doubt, that she didn't consent with McDonald, but they were confident she did not consent to Evans.
They may have felt that McDonald may have reasonably believed that she consented to sex with him, whilst the jury may have felt that Evans had no similar "reasonable belief".
They may have felt that the combinations of her and McDonald's behaviour and/or their evidence at trial meant that they were not happy beyond reasonable doubt that a rape had occurred with McDonald... etc etc

The point being that there are perfectly valid reasons for the jury's conclusion.

In reply to Donnie:


What you find disgusting is up to you. That's not the issue here.

The issue is, regardless of your feelings about what people get up to, whether informed consent for those activities was given. That's it. You're not a juror to judge people's sexual mores. You're there to judge whether the law was broken. And consensual sex between as many partners as consent to participate is not illegal.

I suggest you don't watch any of the TV programmes covering clubbing in the likes of Ibiza (or the UK, for that matter), as you may find yourself exploding with disgust at the things people get up to.

In reply to off-duty:


How do you know that? Or is that what you suspect?

In reply to captain paranoia:

If the jury thought she had consented to sex with Evans the verdict would have been not guilty.

(See the definition of rape I posted upthread.)

(Edit - in fact to be clearer - if the jury did not believe beyond reasonable doubt that she did not consent to sex with Evans, then the verdict would have been not guilty )

In reply to 999thAndy:




Well, yes, that's true, obviously. But then, as I said, either rehabilitation's a good thing or it's not. If it is, then you'd need to explain why being rehabilitated in the public eye is any different from being rehabilitated not in the private eye.

jcm

In reply to Mike Stretford:

>I'm not, you're labouring your first point, then quickly throwing in this suggestion that she wasn't very drunk, based on one piece of evidence, when there's plenty of other evidence to suggest she was.

I've no idea what you mean, to be honest. My entire point is that the jury must have believed she was too drunk to consent otherwise they couldn't possibly have convicted either defendant.

You're right, though, frankly unless the evidence was a lot different from what's in the public domain, it was absurd for the jury to conclude that the woman was too drunk to consent. The law is that the woman has to have the capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse or not. That's basically just a matter of volition; as long as you clearly understand the words 'sex', 'yes' and 'no', and you're capable of forming an intention, that's it. To convict the jury had to be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that this woman was in a state where she couldn't do those things. You can be 'very drunk' and still do all those things easily. I've been so drunk I've fallen over and felt that a little rest on the pavement would be a good idea before I got back up. I'd still have been able to consent to sex if I'd wanted.

Given that immediately before the sex the woman was clearly able to form the intention to go with a particular man to a hotel room, to walk competently in high heels, talk, remember that she'd forgotten her handbag, remember that she'd forgotten her pizza and go back and get it, it's perfectly obvious that she could also choose whether to have sex or not.

>A man she has never met before enters the room through deceit and has sex with the woman.

I'm puzzled by this 'deceit'. What do you mean? He just entered the room. Or do you mean by telling the hotel receptionist some story? What does that have to do with it?

Anyway, don't forget the jury must have believed that McDonald reasonably thought she'd consented to sex with him more or less immediately.

>I think Macdonald got off because of it.

Very possibly.

>If you're saying the jury had no right to do this, fine,

They definitely didn't, unless they could conclude that he reasonably believed the woman did have capacity, when they were certain beyond reasonable doubt that she didn't. This suggests to me that they were confusing their task.


Juries are given an absolute discretion to do whatever they like, in the sense that they're unaccountable. And quite a wide discretion about what 'too drunk to consent' means, according to my learned friend. I'm not sure they're given the discretion to make different findings about the same woman's capacity, for example.

jcm

In reply to Chris the Tall:

>Agree, but I seem to remember being taught in my first week that one persons word against another doesn't mean the case can't proceed.

I don't seem to be getting my point across very well.

What happened in the room is not 'one person's word against another'. It's one person's (two persons', actually, but close enough) word against *absolutely nothing*. The state didn't offer any evidence about what happened there. It didn't suggest that anything had or hadn't happened there. Its whole case was that, whatever happened there, the woman didn't have the capacity to choose to have sexual intercourse.

>"No witnesses equals no rape"

No witnesses, in the sense of no evidence, equals no conviction whatever the crime is. It's obviously true that a complainant who says, 'I have no memory of events, I cannot even say that I would not have consented, but I am displeased to find I had sex in that condition' cannot succeed, unless she can show that any consent she did give was vitiated because she didn't have capacity.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The jury could have quite reasonably believed that, perhaps due to the 15+minutes interaction that McDonald had with the victim, perhaps due to her prior knowledge of McDonald earlier that evening, perhaps due to the evidence that they heard from both the victim and McDonald or perhaps due to a combination of these elements, that they did not think that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent to sex with McDonald.

Set against this they may have believed that they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that she did not consent to have sex with Evans, who she appeared to have had no previous knowledge of, or interaction with.

In reply to IainRUK:

>I know, but if a guy consensually slept with a girl whilst drunk, and the next morning claimed rape, I don't think it would get to court..

Ah, well my friend educated me about this. Apparently, assuming the guy was too drunk to have the capacity to choose to have sexual intercourse, the girl would be guilty of an offence called "procuring sexual intercourse by unlawful means". I didn't ask him how common convictions for that are. Maybe offduty can educate us further.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




Not an offence I've come across. (double entendre intended).

Replaced now by :- Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (s4 Sex. Offences Act) or sexual assault (s3)

The main challenge might be establishing that though the "victim" rose to the occasion, the defendant did not/could not have - reasonably believed they consented.

In reply to off-duty:

>The jury could have quite reasonably believed that, perhaps due to the 15+minutes interaction that McDonald had with the victim, perhaps due to her prior knowledge of McDonald earlier that evening, perhaps due to the evidence that they heard from both the victim and McDonald or perhaps due to a combination of these elements, that they did not think that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent to sex with McDonald.

You keep saying this, and you keep missing the point.

What you say would be true if this case were about whether the complainant had actually consented. But it wasn't. The whole case was that she was too drunk to have capacity. Before they could convict Evans, the jury had to have concluded that she was indeed too drunk to have capacity.

In order to acquit McDonald, it wasn't enough to believe that she had given him reason to believe that she was up for sex. They also had to believe that McDonald had reasonably believed that she had the capacity to choose to have sexual intercourse, but that he was wrong about that.

Now that's essentially impossible, for two reasons. First, McDonald was obviously in a far better position than the jury to form a view; they could hardly be sure of her condition beyond reasonable doubt, and at the same time think that McDonald reasonably held the opposite view to them. Secondly, the jury must have thought that at the moment Evans believed he received consent McDonald, who was present, reasonably thought that consent was valid, but that Evans unreasonably thought the same thing. That's quite the stretch, especially as Evans had just seen the girl having sex with the non-rapist McDonald.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

Oh, I don't know. Automatic response, maybe?

It might provide an interesting defence - counterattack, maybe - to a charge of rape in circumstances similar to this case. 'Well, I don't know what happened, but I was too drunk to have capacity either, and your drunkenness is no defence to a charge of causing me to engage in sexual activity without consent. Call it a draw?'

I wonder if there's ever been such a case. It can't actually be such an unheard of situation.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

>Set against this they may have believed that they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that she did not consent to have sex with Evans, who she appeared to have had no previous knowledge of, or interaction with.

If by 'consent' you mean utter words along the lines of 'please have sex with me', albeit so drunkenly it didn't count, then if they did do that, the conviction was wrong, since that was not the case put to them, nor was there any evidence to support it.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The prosecution may well have been saying she was too drunk to consent, full stop.
The defence were equally saying she was capable of consent (as well as arguing about reasonable belief etc...)

The jury may well have felt that they felt she was sufficiently drunk that she was incapable of consent with Evans, but that they were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that that was also the case with McDonald.

It is a reasonable that the scenario of two drunk people possibly mutually deciding to go back to a hotel together and having sex might be a situation where proving an absence of consent was difficult - too difficult for the prosecution in this case.

It is reasonable to suggest - "we think she might have consented to sex with one person in the circumstances, maybe, (we have enough uncertainty that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt) but we are happy that she did not consent to have sex with this suddenly arriving second person."

The other way of examining this verdict is that rather than Evans being unfairly convicted, McDonald has been extremely lucky.

In reply to off-duty:

" "we think she might have consented to sex with one person in the circumstances, maybe, (we have enough uncertainty that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt) but we are happy that she did not consent to have sex with this suddenly arriving second person."

No, no, no, no, NO!

Either she is too drunk to have the capacity to choose, or she is not. There is no basis on which anyone could possibly have suggested that her capacity changed in between the McDonald sex and the Evans consent.

If she does not have capacity, then she did not consent, and we move on to whether the defendant reasonably believed that she did have capacity and had consented.

If she did have capacity, that's the end of it. You can't convict people on the basis that you're sure something must have happened in a particular way when there is no evidence about it, the prosecution do not put their case in that way, and worst of all, the prosecution has made a tactical decision not to offer the only evidence they could offer, either because that evidence just wouldn't be true, or because they are fearful of allowing the defence to call certain evidence if the prosecution offer theirs.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:


I'm aware of the legal requirement for the guilty verdict.

I was just a bit quizzical about the certainty of your statement.

The jury is a black box. We know nothing of what they thought, or how they arrived at their decision, because they are expressly forbidden from telling us.

In reply to off-duty:

>The other way of examining this verdict is that rather than Evans being unfairly convicted, McDonald has been extremely lucky.

Possibly, although I doubt it. Let's be honest, it seems very unlikely the jury truly believed that the girl wasn't in a state to choose to have sexual intercourse. If you can choose to order a pizza, you can choose to have sexual intercourse. The most likely construction is that they thought the girl was up for it with McDonald, didn't like the way Evans behaved and decided to go off-piste and convict him anyway.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:



I agree with that, I think it was lucky for MacDonald, unlucky for evans, the Juror's managed to draw a line between the two accusations. I just struggle to see how they could fine beyond reasonable doubt that Evans' was a different situation.

I think if you ran this trial 10 times you'd get 4 -6 incidences of each verdict..

I do think its a very unique trial, not because he's a footballer, just because I've not known such a case in the past where the rape was more than likely consensual sex which she later regretted because it only happened because she was drunk and had less inhibitions. I just think it's a can of worms. I'd imagine most people are fairly drunk when they have their first threesome/group sex experience which means they could do something consensual which they later regret.

In reply to Donnie:

'I still think he shouldn't play professional football again'

Of course, if enough people thought like that, he wouldn't.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Given that the only information you seem to think relevant is that presented on Ched Evans's website, while dismissing evidence actually submitted at trial, I'm not sure about you're objectivity on this one. If we must cherry pick evidence let's be more focused and go for the 2 encounters chronologically closest the the incident.

The last independent witness to see the victim before she went into the room described her as 'extremely drunk'. The next indication of her state was Macdonald asking the night porter to look out for the woman as she was sick. At this time Evans is in the room with her.

All you concerns were dealt with during the appeal, it would seem the judge and appeal judge have a different interpretation of the law to you eg They did think it relevant how each man came to be with the victim.

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

In reply to Mike Stretford:
Well, I do tend to think that a video of the complainant minutes before the event to which she may or may not have consented is the best evidence of her capacity, yes. I don't see any of what I've said as being inconsistent with the complainant also being 'extremely drunk'. You can be extremely drunk and still be able to choose whether or not to do things, and clearly the complainant was.

I agree that it would be interesting to know McDonald's explanation for what he said.

I don't see that my concerns were dealt with in the appeal at all. I don't know why not but then I don't know a great deal about what the grounds for appeal either were or could have been. I don't know a great deal about the extent to which you can appeal in criminal cases on the grounds that the jury were simply wrong based on the evidence, for instance, nor whether you can advance a case to the effect that the jury must have misunderstood its instructions from the judge, as opposed to those instructions being wrong.

But you're right that the CA thought the circumstances were relevant. To be frank, their analysis makes no sense to me and reads exactly like the decisions of appeal courts often do when it's suggested to them something has gone wrong, especially when it's hinted that something must have gone wrong with the system, and they instinctively just like the verdict and want to defend it without engaging in much argument. They just say it was all a matter for the jury.

After all, as someone said, if it's accepted that their verdict is inconsistent, one conclusion is that both should have been convicted. Putting my case at its highest, one would agree that either both should have been convicted or neither. I'm not even sure that that would be grounds for a successful appeal even if the CA agreed with it.

jcm

In reply to captain paranoia:

Hi, just to be clear, i think there was probably reasonable doubt and, therefore, he probably shouldn't have gone to jail.

I don't think he should play high level professional football again though. Whether it was illegal or not it seems pretty clear he treated the girl and his girlfriend badly. I'd prefer my club not to employ him because of that.

I don't think there should be a law that forbids him from playing. Just that clubs should choose not to employ him.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Yup. Sadly they don't.

It is no wonder so many women do not come forward to report being raped.if I had been raped and was to come across discussions of this nature I doubt I would have the courage nessary to report my ordeal never mind through legal process.
I can not understand why this footballer has chosen to act the way he has, before and after his conviction.i would argue he is ignorant/arrogant and incredibly naive to believe that society would not be deeply suspicious of his actions, wether he chooses to believe himself guilty or not.

In reply to IainRUK:

I agree. As the law says you can consent while drunk but at some stage you're too drunk to consent.

I think sensible and experienced drinkers can tell the difference.

In thus case I think there's probably reasonable doubt as to whether she was at that stage. I wasn't at the trial though...

The same should apply to gambling! Maybe it does?

In reply to Zoro:

What is it on the thread you think shouldn't be here?

It's mostly a reasonable debate about the tricky question of consent while drunk and what constitutes reasonable doubt.

(FTR I think there was probably reasonable doubt as to whether she was too drunk to consent but his actions were pretty disgusting regardless and football clubs shouldn't employ him)