If Sheffield United get promoted.... (merged with other Ched Evans threads)

[Wilko]

She met McDonald in the town and went back to the hotel with him, so there is a certain ELEMENT of consent there. He then texted Evans to invite him round, which she may or may not have known anything about - either him coming round at all, or what happened once he got there.

True. I was just thinking that if someone is 'completely out of it' and remembers nothing then can they actually claim they have been raped, likewise can you claim that you did not consent? If you remember nothing then surely this invalidates your claim?

Genuine questions here by the way, I am not being deliberately inflammatory, maybe a question for Edna: How do you claim to be raped and that you remember nothing?

 

[The Truth]

True. I was just thinking that if someone is 'completely out of it' and remembers nothing then can they actually claim they have been raped, likewise can you claim that you did not consent? If you remember nothing then surely this invalidates your claim?

Genuine questions here by the way, I am not being deliberately inflammatory, maybe a question for Edna: How do you claim to be raped and that you remember nothing?

A bad night in the casino?

 

[SK1NT]

It is odd... if she was out of it... she cant categorically say if she didn't consent or not... Tough case...


I wonder if she was fit

 

[fataddick]

It was McDonald who text Evans "found a girl". It was McDonald who obviously got her in bed and it was McDonald who invited Evans into the room. I'm confused? If evans raped the girl then how comes McDonald doesn't get any punishment for co-ordinating the whole thing? These judges use as much common sense as a pencil sharpener.

Firstly, it's a Jury not the Judge that came to the verdict. Secondly, they can only decide on the charges put in front of them. MacDonald was charged with rape, the Jury decided he was not guilty of it. They can't pass sentence on being an accessory as he wasn't charged with that. Maybe that's what he should have been charged with, and the CPS are at fault here for trying to go for a more serious charge that was less likely to stick, but you can't criticise the Jury, they only get to rule on the offence that defendants are charged with, they can't just pick something else to find someone guilty/not guilty of.

 

[happypig]

To be found guilty, the jury must be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt". It could be that they considered that the fact that the girl went off with McDonald introduced a sufficient element of doubt to make a conviction unsound.
In Evans' case, that part of the doubt would not be there.
Of course, it could be something completely different, juries are funny beasts.

 

[Sheebo]

She met McDonald in the town and went back to the hotel with him, so there is a certain ELEMENT of consent there. He then texted Evans to invite him round, which she may or may not have known anything about - either him coming round at all, or what happened once he got there.

It doesn't say he invited him does it? The bit I read was that he text saying 'got a bird' - unless they'd planned a sex attack, I don't consider that an 'invite'

 

[Sheebo]

The court heard that Mr McDonald met the woman and took her back to the hotel room, sending a text to Evans stating he had "got a bird".

During Evans' evidence, he told the jury he had gone to the hotel, let himself in to Mr McDonald's room and watched his friend and the woman having sex.

It was claimed Mr McDonald asked if his friend could "get involved", to which the woman said yes.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

True. I was just thinking that if someone is 'completely out of it' and remembers nothing then can they actually claim they have been raped, likewise can you claim that you did not consent? If you remember nothing then surely this invalidates your claim?

Genuine questions here by the way, I am not being deliberately inflammatory, maybe a question for Edna: How do you claim to be raped and that you remember nothing?

Yes they can, because to remember nothing rather suggests someone was in no position to give consent. I would venture that if you're a bloke and there's a woman lying pretty much unconscious on a bed, it would be an outrageous violation to think its acceptable to have sex with her.

Let's turn this around, say you (a bloke) went out and got absolutely twatted, drinking, I don't know, ten pints. A bloke approaches you (you probably don't know he's a footballer but I'm trying to replicate the scenario here) and you end up going back to a hotel with him. Before anyone says "why would I go back to a hotel room with a strange bloke?", you're pissed as a fart, and we all make decisions when pissed that we don't understand when sober.

The next thing you know, it's morning, you're naked in a hotel bed and you realise to your horror that one or more of these guys has had sex with you while you were out of it.

Did you consent? No. Did you remember specifically saying no? Probably not I'd guess.

Would you consider what they'd done to you acceptable then, if you couldn't remember saying no?

 

[The Truth]

Firstly, it's a Jury not the Judge that came to the verdict. Secondly, they can only decide on the charges put in front of them. MacDonald was charged with rape, the Jury decided he was not guilty of it. They can't pass sentence on being an accessory as he wasn't charged with that. Maybe that's what he should have been charged with, and the CPS are at fault here for trying to go for a more serious charge that was less likely to stick, but you can't criticise the Jury, they only get to rule on the offence that defendants are charged with, they can't just pick something else to find someone guilty/not guilty of.

double post. oops

 

[The Truth]

Firstly, it's a Jury not the Judge that came to the verdict. Secondly, they can only decide on the charges put in front of them. MacDonald was charged with rape, the Jury decided he was not guilty of it. They can't pass sentence on being an accessory as he wasn't charged with that. Maybe that's what he should have been charged with, and the CPS are at fault here for trying to go for a more serious charge that was less likely to stick, but you can't criticise the Jury, they only get to rule on the offence that defendants are charged with, they can't just pick something else to find someone guilty/not guilty of.

So let me get this straight. If I went out tonight, got f***ed off my face and woke up in a hotel bed next to some naked women whilst her mate is lying on my other side but i have no recollection of what the hell just happened. Does that give me the right to press charges of rape? If so, then does that mean the 'Jury' have to punish someone for what happened to me regardless of how little sense is coming out of the story?
I myself think what is important is that Ched Evans and McDonald went out prowling for girls as if they were meat on a rack and that a women gets herself into such a state she'd be willing to follow anyone anywhere. Why is the drug alcohol legal when we have illegal drugs which cause far less social problems. The problem is that the Jury are probably consuming alcohol themselves so therefore would rather blame ched evans than there sneeky little habit. It's madness and here is another case of alcohol fuelled mayhem.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The worst element of this case for me is that it reflects a culture amongst certain groups of young men that it's perfectly OK to go and pick up drunk- and therefore vulnerable- women at will, purely for sex. Clearly it's drummed into them that their own desires override any sense of human decency. The only thing that's made them reflect even for a moment upon their conduct is the fact they've been arrested over it.

 

[NMH]

Nothing here suggests she struggled against what was happening. Being drunk surely isn't any excuse for suggesting it wasn't consensual unless she was unconscious and carried unwittingly to the room.
That she consented AFTER one, to the other - says it all.
Whorebag.

 

[Wilko]

The worst element of this case for me is that it reflects a culture amongst certain groups of young men that it's perfectly OK to go and pick up drunk- and therefore vulnerable- women at will, purely for sex. Clearly it's drummed into them that their own desires override any sense of human decency. The only thing that's made them reflect even for a moment upon their conduct is the fact they've been arrested over it.

I agree with this BUT there are also women that go out and get pissed and looking for sex, they are not as open as men about it sure but it is by no means a male only culture of binge drinking and sexual promiscuity.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

So let me get this straight. If I went out tonight, got f***ed off my face and woke up in a hotel bed next to some naked women whilst her mate is lying on my other side but i have no recollection of what the hell just happened. Does that give me the right to press charges of rape? If so, then does that mean the 'Jury' have to punish someone for what happened to me regardless of how little sense is coming out of the story?
I myself think what is important is that Ched Evans and McDonald went out prowling for girls as if they were meat on a rack and that a women gets herself into such a state she'd be willing to follow anyone anywhere. Why is the drug alcohol legal when we have illegal drugs which cause far less social problems. It's madness and here is another case of alcohol fuelled mayhem.

No, because technically a woman can't commit the offence of rape

And I do accept that people don't always help themselves by the state they get into, but that doesn't mean their rights are negated in the meantime.

If you were mugged, or stabbed, or murdered while paralytic, nobody would suggest it was somehow your responsibility because of your intoxication, so why is rape any different?

 

[Wilko]

Yes they can, because to remember nothing rather suggests someone was in no position to give consent. I would venture that if you're a bloke and there's a woman lying pretty much unconscious on a bed, it would be an outrageous violation to think its acceptable to have sex with her.

Let's turn this around, say you (a bloke) went out and got absolutely twatted, drinking, I don't know, ten pints. A bloke approaches you (you probably don't know he's a footballer but I'm trying to replicate the scenario here) and you end up going back to a hotel with him. Before anyone says "why would I go back to a hotel room with a strange bloke?", you're pissed as a fart, and we all make decisions when pissed that we don't understand when sober.

The next thing you know, it's morning, you're naked in a hotel bed and you realise to your horror that one or more of these guys has had sex with you while you were out of it.

Did you consent? No. Did you remember specifically saying no? Probably not I'd guess.

Would you consider what they'd done to you acceptable then, if you couldn't remember saying no?

Yup, that is a good way of thinking about it actually. The first bit you put actually provides a lot of clarity, if she was clearly out of it then if she remembers anything or not is irrelevant, Evans should not have even considered it.

This then opens another can of worms- what if everyone is out of it?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Nothing here suggests she struggled against what was happening. Being drunk surely isn't any excuse for suggesting it wasn't consensual unless she was unconscious and carried unwittingly to the room.
That she consented AFTER one, to the other - says it all.
Whorebag.

She didn't. That's why Ched Evans is a convicted rapist. What part of that don't you understand?

How would she struggle if she was semi-conscious? Are you saying its ok to have sex with someone semi conscious or unconscious so long as she doesn't struggle?

Why the eagerness to believe Evans and not the victim?

 

[Wilko]

Why the eagerness to believe Evans and not the victim?

Unfortunately there have been so many 'cry-wolf' stories by celeb wannabe girls trying to make a quick buck that it now leaves the public suspicious of any case. That is the real shame, that those false cases make it THAT much harder for a genuine victim (that has had to go through the awful trauma) to convince the public.

 

[happypig]

Not saying "no", whatever the reason, isn't the same as saying "yes"

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Yup, that is a good way of thinking about it actually. The first bit you put actually provides a lot of clarity, if she was clearly out of it then if she remembers anything or not is irrelevant, Evans should not have even considered it.

This then opens another can of worms- what if everyone is out of it?

I'd have thought, as a bloke, if you were that out of it, then the necessary equipment to perform the act of rape wouldn't be functioning sufficiently for it to be possible...

Surely, SURELY most people on here can see its reasonable to establish whether a woman is happy to continue before doing the deed? It doesn't mean getting it in writing, of course not, but I just can't believe anyone would think having sex with an unconscious or semi-conscious woman in any way suggests she's given an informed consent to it.

What if the victim was your sister, or girlfriend- would you be so quick to condemn her then? (not aimed at any particular poster)

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

It might have something to do with the fact that (according to the first story) the other player is the one that actually chatted her up at the bar and took her back to his hotel room, whether she was blackout drunk or drugged or whatever, so maybe the court thought she consented to having sex with him; while Evans got a call from his mate, showed up at the hotel room and, without having met or talked to the girl before, just started having sex, maybe with a mumbled 'yes' from a basically passed out girl. If that's really the case, I can see why a jury might find one guilty and the other not.