Ched Evans

[aolstudios]

are you sure?

That they had more evidence than you & were convinced, yes, of course

 

[hans kraay fan club]

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 long as you could convince the jury that, it was reasonable for you to have believed you 'were doing nothing wrong', then no, you could not be convicted. See McDonald, Cayton for further details.

 

[Triggaaar]

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?

Well you could be yes, it's for a jury to decide on the evidence available. If you're with a girl who is happy to be with you, and you're doing nothing wrong, then it's unlikely she will complain the next day. But that's not what happened in this case.

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

If convicted, the jury would be saying no, it wasn't accidental, you knew she wasn't consenting. If they weren't saying that, then they'd find you not guilty.

I'm really struggling to see how could be 100% sure he is guilty (which is what they tell you you need to be to reach a guilty verdict) 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.

Firstly, it doesn't have to be 100%, it has to be beyond reasonable doubt. But that aside, that is exactly why this case is probing so controversial.

 

[pb21]

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.

Is it not beyond reasonable doubt, not 100% sure, to be considered guilty? If you had to be 100% sure no one would ever be found guilty!

 

[Creaky]

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.

Unlike most commenting on the case the jury had the advantage of seeing how Evans, the girl and other witnesses gave their account of that night face to face. From accounts I've read, particularly quotes by McDonald, Evans didn't present himself very well. We don't know, and have no right to know, how the discussions went in that jury room nor what scenarios were discussed but for Evans to be innocent of rape the girl would have to be the sort of person who would not only engage in casual sex with one man but would willingly agree to have sex with a complete stranger. Evidently the jury didn't believe that to be the case.

I find it almost defies belief that a girl can be having sex in what she thought was a secure room, was suddenly faced with a complete stranger and without any expression of surprise agreed to stop having sex with her original partner and engage in sexual activity with a man she'd never seen before! The only explanation I can think of for such behaviour is that she was so drunk she didn't know what she was doing.

 

[Withdean11]

Is it not beyond reasonable doubt, not 100% sure, to be considered guilty? If you had to be 100% sure no one would ever be found guilty!

It's what I was told when I done jury service a couple of years back.

Something like "If you are sure that this man committed the crime, your verdict will be guilty. If you are anything other that sure, your verdict will be innocent"

 

[nwgull]

That they had more evidence than you & were convinced, yes, of course

They must have been party to evidence relating to what went on, and was or wasn't said, in that hotel room that isn't in the public domain. I can't believe that any sane member of the public would send a man to prison based on the evidence that's publicly available.

 

[nwgull]

Unlike most commenting on the case the jury had the advantage of seeing how Evans, the girl and other witnesses gave their account of that night face to face. From accounts I've read, particularly quotes by McDonald, Evans didn't present himself very well. We don't know, and have no right to know, how the discussions went in that jury room nor what scenarios were discussed but for Evans to be innocent of rape the girl would have to be the sort of person who would not only engage in casual sex with one man but would willingly agree to have sex with a complete stranger. Evidently the jury didn't believe that to be the case.

I find it almost defies belief that a girl can be having sex in what she thought was a secure room, was suddenly faced with a complete stranger and without any expression of surprise agreed to stop having sex with her original partner and engage in sexual activity with a man she'd never seen before! The only explanation I can think of for such behaviour is that she was so drunk she didn't know what she was doing.

I disagree. I think that there are plenty of sexually liberated girls about that would be more than happy to engage in group sex with two good looking, tall, athletic and well paid professional sportsmen.

Evans is/was also a local celebrity in the small town of Rhyll, of similar age to the victim, so she possibly knew who he was.

 

[Triggaaar]

Unlike most commenting on the case the jury had the advantage of seeing how Evans, the girl and other witnesses gave their account of that night face to face.

Yes, that's a good point and too easily overlooked.

for Evans to be innocent of rape the girl would have to be the sort of person who would not only engage in casual sex with one man but would willingly agree to have sex with a complete stranger. Evidently the jury didn't believe that to be the case.

That's incorrect for a few reasons. Firstly, they had to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, Evans would have been found innocent even is she didn't want to have sex with him IF he wasn't to know that (ie, her drunken actions gave him the impression it was ok). Also, the victim chose to go to a hotel room with McDonald who was a complete stranger to her, so I wouldn't be sure she wouldn't want to have sex with a complete stranger (and I'm not saying there'd be anything wrong with that, plenty of men go out to have sex with complete strangers and that's seen as ok). Finally, it's a worrying thought that the jury could be deciding she's not the sort of person that would have sex with a couple of people - plenty of people do, and as many of us know, it's not always the ones you'd think. Some seemingly sweet and innocent girls happen to have a very open mind in the bedroom.

I find it almost defies belief that a girl can be having sex in what she thought was a secure room, was suddenly faced with a complete stranger and without any expression of surprise agreed to stop having sex with her original partner and engage in sexual activity with a man she'd never seen before! The only explanation I can think of for such behaviour is that she was so drunk she didn't know what she was doing.

So if you were on the jury, you'd be thinking she must have been too drunk to give consent because no woman would do such a thing - well that's a problem, because some women would do that, because they enjoy sex with strangers. You know about dogging right?

 

[Triggaaar]

It's what I was told when I done jury service a couple of years back.

Something like "If you are sure that this man committed the crime, your verdict will be guilty. If you are anything other that sure, your verdict will be innocent"

That doesn't mean 100% sure

 

[Creaky]

I disagree. I think that there are plenty of sexually liberated girls about that would be more than happy to engage in group sex with two good looking, tall, athletic and well paid professional sportsmen.

Evans is/was also a local celebrity in the small town of Rhyll, of similar age to the victim, so she possibly knew who he was.

You may well be right about there being sexually liberated girls partaking in such activities but how many of them would react as Evans claims this girl did. No expression of surprise but an immediate willingness to have sex with a stranger walking unannounced into a room where they were having sex with someone else?

 

[spring hall convert]

McDonald who was a complete stranger to her

I may be wrong but I don't think that's true. Wasn't the victim known to McDonald in advance of the night?

EDIT - Nope My mistake.

 

[Triggaaar]

I may be wrong but I don't think that's true. Wasn't the victim known to McDonald in advance of the night?

I haven't heard that. If so, why would he use her name in the text rather than 'girl/bird'?

 

[nwgull]

You may well be right about there being sexually liberated girls partaking in such activities but how many of them would react as Evans claims this girl did. No expression of surprise but an immediate willingness to have sex with a stranger walking unannounced into a room where they were having sex with someone else?

If you were in a room having sex with a strange girl and her mate let herself in and asked if she could join in, wouldn't you be well up for it?!

I would if she was attractive enough (and I was single). I certainly wouldn't have any qualms about the casual nature of it all.

 

[pb21]

It's what I was told when I done jury service a couple of years back.

Something like "If you are sure that this man committed the crime, your verdict will be guilty. If you are anything other that sure, your verdict will be innocent"

Well you are getting into semantics now, but I agree with triggaaar in that 'sure' does not mean, at least in this sense, the same as '100% sure'. Its like confident vs. certain.

 

[spring hall convert]

I haven't heard that. If so, why would he use her name in the text rather than 'girl/bird'?

See above.

 

[Withdean11]

I may be wrong but I don't think that's true. Wasn't the victim known to McDonald in advance of the night?

Surely not? McDonald was just visiting Ched's home town for the night (hence the hotel) I would be very surprised if he knew her too.

 

[Creaky]

If you were in a room having sex with a strange girl and her mate let herself in and asked if she could join in, wouldn't you be well up for it?!

I would if she was attractive enough (and I was single). I certainly wouldn't have any qualms about the casual nature of it all.

I'd certainly be surprised!

 

[spring hall convert]

Surely not? McDonald was just visiting Ched's home town for the night (hence the hotel) I would be very surprised if he knew her too.

Yeah I might have got the wrong end of the stick. I'll have a root around again, see what I can find.


EDIT - Did definitely get the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Withdean11]

Well you are getting into semantics now, but I agree with triggaaar in that 'sure' does not mean, at least in this sense, the same as '100% sure'. Its like confident vs. certain.

Sorry no, the word used was "certain" I had meant to type that (been a busy morning!) We was told we had to be certain to reach a guilty verdict.