Ched Evans

[Hugo Rune]

The link doesn't work for me. She consented to sex with the first chap, but not the second. Is that what you are saying?

Yes. Exactly. Both men were charged with rape after they both admitted sleeping with her . . . .she had no memory of any sexual activity with either of them according to her testimony but one man was cleared and the other found guilty. Perhaps because she went back to the hotel room with the cleared man, this could have been seen as implied consent (which I find disturbing if true)? My point is, this case highlights a grey area in the law which is open to interpretation. The law is not crystal clear on consent when under the influence of alcohol and drugs. I think Ched deserves an appeal or at the very least, the law on rape should be changed and clarified to define specific boundaries and responsibilities.

 

[Acker79]

I don't think he has. Read below for the plain facts. This is a very complicated case and raises serious issues about consent when drunk. The victim claimed she had memory loss yet the jury found she had consented (in the same state of drunkenness) to one man but not to another.
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

a) Chedwyn?

b) It's not the same circumstances, and it's not necessarily that the jury thought she had consented. The jury had to decide if they thought she had consented or if there was a reasonable belief of the men on trial that she had consented. The jury, it would seem, saw a distinction in 'meeting a very drunk girl out on the town who seemingly willingly returned to a hotel room with you and had sex with you while she was very drunk and the two of you were alone' and 'showing up at a hotel room where a drunk girl is having sex with your friend and then having sex with her while your friends take pictures through the window'. One of them can reasonably assume a degree of consent, the other, according to the jury, can not. It isn't a simple one man has sex with a drunk girl she consented, the other had sex with her and it was rape' situation.


EDIT: I was typing this up when you posted the reply acknowledging the difference.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Yes. Exactly. Both men were charged with rape after they both admitted sleeping with her . . . .she had no memory of any sexual activity with either of them according to her testimony but one man was cleared and the other found guilty. Perhaps because she went back to the hotel room with the cleared man, this could have been seen as implied consent (which I find disturbing if true)? My point is, this case highlights a grey area in the law which is open to interpretation. The law is not crystal clear on consent when under the influence of alcohol and drugs. I think Ched deserves an appeal or at the very least, the law on rape should be changed and clarified to define specific boundaries and responsibilities.

Either way: he goes back to a hotel with a girl he's just picked up in a pub, and a team-mate. She's clearly paralytic, however you look at it. And he thinks she's fair game for a quick shag.

Do you not think the slightest hint of an alarm bell should have been ringing in his/their mind(s) at that point? Even if it was out of nothing other than self-preservation? Perhaps- this rings particularly true in light of events at the Jury's Inn a couple of years ago- it's a pretty depressing reflection upon the general attitude of rich young men, specifically footballers, when it comes to women.

 

[nwgull]

Either way: he goes back to a hotel with a girl he's just picked up in a pub, and a team-mate. She's clearly paralytic, however you look at it. And he thinks she's fair game for a quick shag.

Do you not think the slightest hint of an alarm bell should have been ringing in his/their mind(s) at that point? Even if it was out of nothing other than self-preservation? Perhaps- this rings particularly true in light of events at the Jury's Inn a couple of years ago- it's a pretty depressing reflection upon the general attitude of rich young men, specifically footballers, when it comes to women.

Why should alarms bells have been ringing? She may have had plenty to drink, but she was clearly conscious; you can tell that by the video of her getting out of the can and walking into the hotel. We've all made 'errors of judgement' when drunk, but, as adults, we're still held accountable for then.

If she regrets having a 3some with these 2 footballers then tough. It's something she should just have to live with and learn from. I'm sure we've all woken up next to ropey women following a boozy night that we regret instantly. It's not something we'd have done sober; however it certainly doesn't mean that we were raped.

 

[nwgull]

Why should alarms bells have been ringing? She may have had plenty to drink, but she was clearly conscious; you can tell that by the video of her getting out of the can and walking into the hotel. We've all made 'errors of judgement' when drunk, but, as adults, we're still held accountable for then.

If she regrets having a 3some with these 2 footballers then tough. It's something she should just have to live with and learn from. I'm sure we've all woken up next to ropey women following a boozy night that we regret instantly. It's not something we'd have done sober; however it certainly doesn't mean that we were raped.

I feel I ought to add that my second para is meaning to say 'if she regrets drunkenly consenting to a 3some'.

Basically I'm trying to say that it shouldn't be a crime to have sex with a drunk person. I'd estimate that about 80-90% of sexual encounters with a new partner happen under the influence.

 

[keaton]

Yes. Exactly. Both men were charged with rape after they both admitted sleeping with her . . . .she had no memory of any sexual activity with either of them according to her testimony but one man was cleared and the other found guilty. Perhaps because she went back to the hotel room with the cleared man, this could have been seen as implied consent (which I find disturbing if true)? My point is, this case highlights a grey area in the law which is open to interpretation. The law is not crystal clear on consent when under the influence of alcohol and drugs. I think Ched deserves an appeal or at the very least, the law on rape should be changed and clarified to define specific boundaries and responsibilities.

Is it a grey area or do you not understand it? He's been found guilty and an appeal was turned down. Why are people so eager to believe his innocence?

 

[Braggfan]

On one side of the fence she is a victim and on the other she is an alleged victim. To date, he hasn't had an appeal. The right to an appeal was turned down and that decision was upheld. He has a legal team looking at seeking a case review. Are you saying the Guildford 4 and Birmingham six are guilty of bombing? If I recall they were all convicted.

Read the website and see whether it raises any questions as to your view if this was a safe conviction. Having said that, maybe you were there so perhaps you know better than I. So, as far as I'm concerned, she remains an alleged victim.

If your sympathies lie with a rapist that's your choice. I prefer to pidgeon hole my morals to things have legally been decided as FACT not the suspect opinions of a convicted criminal's family and friends.

 

[COYP]

Is it a grey area or do you not understand it? He's been found guilty and an appeal was turned down. Why are people so eager to believe his innocence?

Firstly, lets hope this is a lesson to all young (and old) footballers that its time to stop things like the drunken gangbangs etc. At best it's sleazy at worst something like this can happen. www.chedevans.com has some fairly convincing evidence that has come out since the trial including deleted tweets to friends by the woman saying things like 'After my big win I will buy us both pink mini coopers' and other things that suggest she is on the make. Whilst several rape victim organisations have attacked the website then several other rape victims have come forward and supported Ched Evans saying women like the defendant are why they were unable to get justice.

 

[keaton]

Firstly, lets hope this is a lesson to all young (and old) footballers that its time to stop things like the drunken gangbangs etc. At best it's sleazy at worst something like this can happen. www.chedevans.com has some fairly convincing evidence that has come out since the trial including deleted tweets to friends by the woman saying things like 'After my big win I will buy us both pink mini coopers' and other things that suggest she is on the make. Whilst several rape victim organisations have attacked the website then several other rape victims have come forward and supported Ched Evans saying women like the defendant are why they were unable to get justice.

They've presented that evidence to the Police and the appeal was turned down though

 

[Nitram]

Ŵ

Either way: he goes back to a hotel with a girl he's just picked up in a pub, and a team-mate. She's clearly paralytic, however you look at it. And he thinks she's fair game for a quick shag.

Do you not think the slightest hint of an alarm bell should have been ringing in his/their mind(s) at that point? Even if it was out of nothing other than self-preservation? Perhaps- this rings particularly true in light of events at the Jury's Inn a couple of years ago- it's a pretty depressing reflection upon the general attitude of rich young men, specifically footballers, when it comes to women.

Well written. Also for those that are judging this case, the jury took one hour to find him guilty and two attempts at an appeal have already been turned down. He may think she was fair game and be able to justify it to himself but others see it different based on the evidence presented.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Is it a grey area or do you not understand it? He's been found guilty and an appeal was turned down. Why are people so eager to believe his innocence?

He is absolutely guilty of having sex with a drunken women, and most likely, taking advantage of the victim when she was extremely drunk, he has admitted the whole thing. Where he and his co accused claim consent was given, the victim claims she has memory loss. I am concerned with drunkenness & consent, how the law interprets this and how different juries and judges interpret that law. In particular, where exactly is the line when a person is too drunk to consent? If the accused is equally as intoxicated, are they still responsible for their actions? If you awake in the morning and regret the previous night's sexual activity (especially if you've been utterly humiliated in a sexist and misogynistic way as seems the case in this particular case) with videos/pictures taken that you've not consented too, should there be another charge other than rape which acknowledges there was consent but the consent was given due to high intoxication & the offending party took advantage of this situation to humiliate the victim? Rape covers a broad range of scenarios in this country (as does murder), I don't think current legislation categorises these crimes sufficiently. When hearing the word rape, It's easy to think of a stranger attacking a lone women in a park using violence & force in a terrifying assault. I would guess that most rapes are conducted in relationships or involve high levels of intoxication where victims are not in a position to either give consent or say no. I would love to live in a world where everything is black & white & wrong or right as you seem to inhabit. Sadly the world I live in is complex, subtle and difficult to define.

 

[drew]

Ŵ
Well written. Also for those that are judging this case, the jury took one hour to find him guilty and two attempts at an appeal have already been turned down. He may think she was fair game and be able to justify it to himself but others see it different based on the evidence presented.

There hasn't been an appeal!

As for Edna's post, I agree that the behaviour is at best unsavoury but is it any different to a lot of other stuff that goes on on Friday nights.

 

[keaton]

There hasn't been an appeal!

As for Edna's post, I agree that the behaviour is at best unsavoury but is it any different to a lot of other stuff that goes on on Friday nights.

There hasn't been an appeal because it was turned down as was a bid to reduce his sentence.

 

[drew]

He is absolutely guilty of having sex with a drunken women, and most likely, taking advantage of the victim when she was extremely drunk, he has admitted the whole thing. Where he and his co accused claim consent was given, the victim claims she has memory loss. I am concerned with drunkenness & consent, how the law interprets this and how different juries and judges interpret that law. In particular, where exactly is the line when a person is too drunk to consent? If the accused is equally as intoxicated, are they still responsible for their actions? If you awake in the morning and regret the previous night's sexual activity (especially if you've been utterly humiliated in a sexist and misogynistic way as seems the case in this particular case) with videos/pictures taken that you've not consented too, should there be another charge other than rape which acknowledges there was consent but the consent was given due to high intoxication & the offending party took advantage of this situation to humiliate the victim? Rape covers a broad range of scenarios in this country (as does murder), I don't think current legislation categorises these crimes sufficiently. When hearing the word rape, It's easy to think of a stranger attacking a lone women in a park using violence & force in a terrifying assault. I would guess that most rapes are conducted in relationships or involve high levels of intoxication where victims are not in a position to either give consent or say no. I would love to live in a world where everything is black & white & wrong or right as you seem to inhabit. Sadly the world I live in is complex, subtle and difficult to define.

Have to agree with your comments. In a lot of cases, it is clearly not black and white.

Yes. Exactly. Both men were charged with rape after they both admitted sleeping with her . . . .she had no memory of any sexual activity with either of them according to her testimony but one man was cleared and the other found guilty. Perhaps because she went back to the hotel room with the cleared man, this could have been seen as implied consent (which I find disturbing if true)? My point is, this case highlights a grey area in the law which is open to interpretation. The law is not crystal clear on consent when under the influence of alcohol and drugs. I think Ched deserves an appeal or at the very least, the law on rape should be changed and clarified to define specific boundaries and responsibilities.

I hear what you are saying with regard to consent but the prosecution allege that she was unable to remember how she ended up at the hotel which then begs the question as to whether or not she willingly went there. Brings into question then why only one was convicted!

If your sympathies lie with a rapist that's your choice. I prefer to pidgeon hole my morals to things have legally been decided as FACT not the suspect opinions of a convicted criminal's family and friends.

My sympathies don't lie with a rapist. My question which you fail to comprehend is whether this is a safe conviction.

I am not saying he didn't but surely you have the intelligence to query why one person was found guilty and the other not? The woman was supposed to be comatose for the whole period yet one person has had consensual sex and the other not. How, when she was supposedly out of it, did she consent to one and not the other? How did the jury arrive at that decision? Maybe you don't understand the realities of our legal system but the Jury arriving at their decision doesn't make an event (whether it be this or any other case) a fact. It just means that 'in their opinion' they believe 'beyond reasonably doubt' that they think it happened. I assume you are aware of cases of miscarriages of justice.

 

[drew]

There hasn't been an appeal because it was turned down as was a bid to reduce his sentence.

The appeal wasn't turned down as I understand it. He requested the right to appeal against the decision but it was decided he had no right for an appeal to be heard. My understanding with the appeal system is that you have to present new evidence that may have altered the original jury's view on the case or maybe that there were procedural errors in the conduct of the court which was possibly not the case. That decision not to allow an appeal was upheld.

 

[Braggfan]

Have to agree with your comments. In a lot of cases, it is clearly not black and white.



I hear what you are saying with regard to consent but the prosecution allege that she was unable to remember how she ended up at the hotel which then begs the question as to whether or not she willingly went there. Brings into question then why only one was convicted!



My sympathies don't lie with a rapist. My question which you fail to comprehend is whether this is a safe conviction.

I am not saying he didn't but surely you have the intelligence to query why one person was found guilty and the other not? The woman was supposed to be comatose for the whole period yet one person has had consensual sex and the other not. How, when she was supposedly out of it, did she consent to one and not the other? How did the jury arrive at that decision? Maybe you don't understand the realities of our legal system but the Jury arriving at their decision doesn't make an event (whether it be this or any other case) a fact. It just means that 'in their opinion' they believe 'beyond reasonably doubt' that they think it happened. I assume you are aware of cases of miscarriages of justice.

I comprehend your question and I comprehend that your opinion about it being unsafe is speculation. You don't seem to comprehend that his conviction means he is a rapist, that is a fact not an opinion. Yes there are cases of miscarriages of justice but until that is proved otherwise, the fact remains he is a convicted rapist.

In regards to speculation over it being unsafe, I will speculate myself by pointing out that rape is a very hard crime to convict someone of yet it took the jury 1 hour to convict him, that would suggest the evidence (which granted I haven't seen) was damning.

 

[drew]

I comprehend your question and I comprehend that your opinion about it being unsafe is speculation. You don't seem to comprehend that his conviction means he is a rapist, that is a fact not an opinion. Yes there are cases of miscarriages of justice but until that is proved otherwise, the fact remains he is a convicted rapist.

In regards to speculation over it being unsafe, I will speculate myself by pointing out that rape is a very hard crime to convict someone of yet it took the jury 1 hour to convict him, that would suggest the evidence (which granted I haven't seen) was damning.

Perhaps you should look at some of the key facts about the case then before you arrive at your conclusion that the evidence was so damning! I doubt that you will though.

 

[Braggfan]

Perhaps you should look at some of the key facts about the case then before you arrive at your conclusion that the evidence was so damning! I doubt that you will though.

The key facts on his friends & family's website?

 

[keaton]

Perhaps you should look at some of the key facts about the case then before you arrive at your conclusion that the evidence was so damning! I doubt that you will though.

The key facts are that he was found guilty and nothing his family and friends have come up with since then is enough to get permission to appeal.

 

[drew]

The key facts on his friends & family's website?

Or the transcript of the trial.