Ched Evans

[jimbob5]

Really? So by that basis, if you have a night out consume plenty of alcohol, wake up in bed with someone and have no memory of going there, they have raped you?

I think you've missed out part of the equation ………………………………………………….. the sex

 

[spring hall convert]

No one ever claimed he did or that she ever said no. What the prosecution claimed is that she was too drunk to have been able to make a conscious decision on consent (even if it may have be regretful when sobriety returned), in which case they both should've gone to prison.

That's not true. The reason that McDonald could reasonably believe that he had consent is that he had a prior relationship (non-sexual) with the girl and she went willingly with him to the room. Even though she was intoxicated the jury believed that McDonald could reasonably assume consent. I am personally comfortable with that.

Evans on receipt of a text message stating "I've got a bird" or words to that effect, came back to the room seeemingly with the only intent being to have sex with the girl that he had only ever met briefly before. I can see why the jury could be convinced that Evans could not reasonably assume consent.

 

[Withdean11]

I think you've missed out part of the equation ………………………………………………….. the sex

I would think that is slightly obvious. But for arguments sake, lets say, upon waking you realise that you have had sex, but do not remember the events. Despite also being drunk, they do remember. That means rape?

I might well of missed something about this case, so correct me if i'm wrong. But that's what is sounds like to me. If this is the case, i feel Ched Evans has been very hard done by.

 

[BLOCK F]

I suppose I should be glad that I'm not very good looking, boring and get brewers droop. That covers most angles.

Ha-ha;every cloud has a silver lining.

 

[jimbob5]

I would think that is slightly obvious. But for arguments sake, lets say, upon waking you realise that you have had sex, but do not remember the events. Despite also being drunk, they do remember. That means rape?

I might well of missed something about this case, so correct me if i'm wrong. But that's what is sounds like to me. If this is the case, i feel Ched Evans has been very hard done by.

pedantic of me Dr Watson, I know but it's not 'slightly obvious'

 

[Triggaaar]

I would think that is slightly obvious. But for arguments sake, lets say, upon waking you realise that you have had sex, but do not remember the events. Despite also being drunk, they do remember. That means rape?

I might well of missed something about this case, so correct me if i'm wrong. But that's what is sounds like to me. If this is the case, i feel Ched Evans has been very hard done by.

Oh please tell me you're not serious. We're on page 3000 or something now - don't tell me you're now jumping in with a verdict without having read any of the evidence.

 

[Withdean11]

Oh please tell me you're not serious. We're on page 3000 or something now - don't tell me you're now jumping in with a verdict without having read any of the evidence.

Of course I have read the evidence.

The girl has claimed that she does not remember anything.
Ched however does remember, and claims consent was given. To which he has a witness.

Which leads me to my original question. If a drunk girl gives you consent, but does not remember, is that rape?

 

[nwgull]

Really? So by that basis, if you have a night out consume plenty of alcohol, wake up in bed with someone and have no memory of going there, they have raped you?

If the UK legal system were to be consistent, then yes; this is what it has decided in the case of Ched Evans.

 

[Birdie Boy]

That's not true. The reason that McDonald could reasonably believe that he had consent is that he had a prior relationship (non-sexual) with the girl and she went willingly with him to the room. Even though she was intoxicated the jury believed that McDonald could reasonably assume consent. I am personally comfortable with that.

Evans on receipt of a text message stating "I've got a bird" or words to that effect, came back to the room seeemingly with the only intent being to have sex with the girl that he had only ever met briefly before. I can see why the jury could be convinced that Evans could not reasonably assume consent.

Why? Clearly he went there for sex but that doesn't mean that she said no or she was too intoxicated to say yes/no. There is too much element of doubt for me to ruin someone's life when there is a chance that he could be innocent.

 

[spring hall convert]

Why? Clearly he went there for sex but that doesn't mean that she said no or she was too intoxicated to say yes/no. There is too much element of doubt for me to ruin someone's life when there is a chance that he could be innocent.

Which is your perogative. I was just explaining why it is inherently believable that McDonald was not guilty of rape, whilst Evans was from the jury's perspective.

 

[nwgull]

A unanimous jury & two judges seem to have been convinced. Maybe they had more evidence than you

Not strictly true. The judges reviewing the original application to appeal can only give their verdict that all legal procedures were followed, and that the judge did not influence the jury either way in his summing up. They can't review the evidence that was presented at trial to the jury and decide that they got it wrong; trial by jury would be pointless if that was the case.

 

[spring hall convert]

If the UK legal system were to be consistent, then yes; this is what it has decided in the case of Ched Evans.

But not in the case of McDonald. I think that is very important when you consider this case.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Are Hull City the latest club to consider Ched? Bruce seems to have taken an interest in the case.

 

[leigull]

Are Hull City the latest club to consider Ched? Bruce seems to have taken an interest in the case.

Bizarre for Bruce to come out with these comments either way.

Ched Evans: Steve Bruce questions rape conviction

Hull City boss Steve Bruce has questioned the conviction of rapist Ched Evans and says the footballer should be given a chance to play again.

Evans, who was convicted in 2012, was released from prison in October and saw a move to Oldham collapse this week. The 26-year-old has been refused the right to appeal, but the Criminal Cases Review Commission is studying his case.

"I might be upsetting people but there is a question of the rape and how he's been convicted by a jury," said Bruce.

"When you look at the evidence, it is there for appeal.

"It has divided opinion of course. When you look at the case in detail and, I don't think most people have really, because they have just seen Ched Evans as a convicted rapist, but when you look at the case and the evidence then certainly Ched has got a case."

Bruce said he had spoken to Latics chairman Simon Corney and offered his support before the League One side ended their attempt to sign the Welsh striker on Thursday.
"I spoke to Simon. In my mind he has looked at the case and evidence and he was of the opinion to give the kid a chance," added Bruce.

"I'm a big believer that if you have done your time, you've done your time. Everyone deserves a second chance."

Evans served half of a five-year sentence for rape and was released on licence.

 

[Triggaaar]

Of course I have read the evidence.

Oh ok, fair enough - I wasn't sure as you'd said:

Really? So by that basis, if you have a night out consume plenty of alcohol, wake up in bed with someone and have no memory of going there, they have raped you?

She obviously didn't wake up with someone, her circumstances were different. Another way you could put it, is you went to a hotel room with someone, had sex with them and then woke up alone, and later discovered that another man you didn't know decided to pop in and have sex with you too.

The girl has claimed that she does not remember anything.
Ched however does remember, and claims consent was given. To which he has a witness.

Which leads me to my original question. If a drunk girl gives you consent, but does not remember, is that rape?

No, it is definitely not. The jury found that she had not given consent, as she was too drunk to do so.

 

[brightn'ove]

Bizarre for Bruce to come out with these comments either way.

I didn't know Steve Bruce was a criminal lawyer! You learn something new every day.

 

[Triggaaar]

Really? So by that basis, if you have a night out consume plenty of alcohol, wake up in bed with someone and have no memory of going there, they have raped you?

If the UK legal system were to be consistent, then yes; this is what it has decided in the case of Ched Evans.

That's not correct. The UK legal system looks at each case on its own merits. If you wake up in bed with someone and have no memory of the events, then let's look at the evidence of you got there - CCTV footage of you dancing in a club with them, getting a taxi back together etc, then no, your not likely to be seen to have been raped. However, if there was evidence that you'd never seen the man before, and they let themselves into your hotel room while you were in bed undressed and drunk, and then they had sex with you - that might be considered to be rape.

 

[Triggaaar]

Clearly he went there for sex but that doesn't mean that she said no or she was too intoxicated to say yes/no. There is too much element of doubt for me to ruin someone's life when there is a chance that he could be innocent.

The main evidence as I see it is that this young woman was drunk and having sex in a room (so in an extremely vulnerable position) when a man she didn't know let himself into her room and had sex with her - that seems pretty nasty. A jury decided, beyond reasonable doubt, that she was too drunk to be able to give consent. I just cannot see how they were able to do that, and I suspect they found him guilty because his actions were so horrible, not because they followed the law.

 

[dragonred]

Bruce has probably just written his own resignation once the backlash for his comments start (and it makes no difference whether he is right or wrong, the timing and sentiment of them is just plain crazy ).....have to wonder how seriously thick are people in football like Bruce and their so called professional advisors as the simple approach of just say nothing, especially on things you don't have any personal interest in, or any in-depth knowledge of, is not hard to comprehend..

 

[Withdean11]

No, it is definitely not.

Okay, but if, for an unknown reason, she complained of rape and the jury believe she was too drunk, you could then be convicted of rape, despite at the time you fully believing you're doing nothing wrong?

So would in affect, be accidental rape - which seems odd.

The jury found that she had not given consent, as she was too drunk to do so.

I'm really struggling to see how they could be 100% sure she was "too drunk to give consent" based on the evidence they had. Which is the two men saying she consciously gave consent, and the CCTV footage showing her walk in and out of the building.