It's a good point. And our society has changed a lot over the last few decades. People are much more sexually adventurous than they used to be.
Not sure if I was supposed to laugh there, but I did.
Who said it? Either way, I've never heard of an example where people had to be 100% or 100% certain. I've always heard 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
You mean below
Thank god for that. This case is messy enough, without fresh evidence of McDonald knowing her.
Definitely both said exactly the same thing? I wonder why there isn't a globally agreed term (like 'beyond reasonable doubt') for judges to use, so that the jury for each case is answering the same point, because you were a juror, and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you understood your instructions to be that you had to be 100% certain if you were to convict, and others on the jury probably felt differently.
This bit doesn't make full sense: "you have to consume quite a lot more than that" because what is "that" - you're suggesting that "that" is an amount of alcohol, but it isn't, it's a blood level limit. ie, on the one hand, you're acknowledging it's a blood level (2.5 times) bit on the other hand you're suggesting the limit itself (ie, 1 times) is an amount of alcohol you can consume. Yes, your body will process the alcohol before you get to 2.5 times, but the same is true of before you get to 1 times.
What's happening here is that people are using her alcohol level and then speculating about how much she had to drink - we don't need to do that, she said how much she had to drink!
Yes she was. To play devils advocate, depending on the timing, I could be in a state to walk home, but then when my head hits the pillow I could be feeling quite different. But then I'm not talking about the walking she was doing - I'm talking steaming towards the pillow while my legs hold out, certainly no time to return for pizza boxes.
That's one of the reasons we don't have the death penalty.
So you have to be a criminal lawyer to express an opinion? Yes, but if she said "she had read extensively on the case and didn't see how one man could be found guilty and the other aquitted", then that's a strange opinion. While I question the certainty that the victim was too drunk to give consent, the difference between the two defendants is obvious to anyone who has read extensively on the case.
I agree. Pop stars probably have more women thrown at themselves than football, and I doubt their behaviour is any better.
Note that the quote you're replying to wasn't accurate - no judge has said whether they were convinced or not.
And she was in the front of the taxi while he was in the back, and I haven't heard any evidence of them even talking in the taxi.
On it's own, no, but it means something. He had a hotel room with one bed - why was she getting a cab back with him to share that bed? Although that in itself is not consent (she might still say no) it's certainly not surprising that he'd thought he'd get some action, and it is clearly different to Ched's circumstances.
I'm not sure the judge made any such comments, and it wasn't the judge that made the verdict.
If you're too drunk to make a decision about having sex, are you then not responsible for your actions? Does that mean that if drunk enough, you shouldn't be done for drink driving, as you didn't know what you were doing?
