Ched Evans

[Bold Seagull]

Not sure of the point you are making? As Trigaar said, we already know how much she drank as that was entered into evidence and referred in the appeal judgement available on-line. What the expert was calculating was the blood/alcohol level at 4am, roughly when they arrived at the hotel. It is around that time that the level of drunkeness is relevant as it pertains to her alleged inability to give consent. 2½ times the drink drive limit sounds a lot but people are able to drive a car at that level and higher. Certainly not legally, and not safely, but they are able to get a car started, drive it along a road and probably in many cases, park it. Raises the question as to whether she was too drunk to give consent!

I guess we all have ways of presenting this case the way we want to.

We don't definitely know how much she drank. She is the only witness to what she consumed, and in a case where someone has potential memory loss, and loss of control, her evidence in that regard was probably taken as a probable amount. She may have had drinks she didn't remember, a spiked drink or 2. Her statement of what she drank is entered into evidence, that doesn't follow that IS what she drank.

The expert making an informed but speculative estimate on what her alcohol level might have been was based on her evidence of what she drank, is again almost entirely speculative and would have been treated as such. It didn't need to be challenge as this wasn't presented to the court by the expert as being definitive, it was presented as an educated estimate, on only based on her statement. Therefore 2 1/2 times the limit isn't necessarily the figure the jury judged her intoxication on. It would also be balanced with witness statements, and all the other evidence. People don't wake up having urinated in their bed because they haven't had that much to drink - it's generally because you're, and I'll use the medial term, bladdered.

2 1/2 times the drink drive limit is one persons carrying on fairly normally, to another persons falling about - all dependent on your metabolism, what you've eaten, current state of your immune system, whether you've been drinking that week. I've been out and felt really tipsy on 2 pints, other nights I can have 4 and feel right as rain (well, maybe a bit unsteady…).

Regardless of CCTV footage, and you didn't answer this before, but she did report it to police in the morning after waking up in her wet bed, she was seen by a police doctor that afternoon, why if she thought she's be wronged in any kind of way did she not mention anything to the police? It is a question you continue to dodge, because if she wasn't as drunk as you're implying, she did consent and did likely remember, what possible reason does she have for saying she doesn't remember the night before therefore implicating no one? Her statement only makes sense in the context of someone who genuinely doesn't have a recollection of the past events.

 

[maynardsg]

So...u do ur time..and then get another sentence.....never work again..how can that be right?

 

[Bombadier Botty]

150 pages within our sights! Keep going gang, we'll get to the Botty of this before Ched gets another club I shouldn't wager and remember - all input on this debate is valid, regardless of which side of the debate you're on.

 

[Withdean11]

The night porter said he had heard both male and female voices and groans as well as a request for oral sex. Admittedly that was with McDonald, who the jury agreed had gained consent. That is further evidence that she was conscious and able to give consent/deny consent.

I'm still yet to hear any evidence to suggest she was 'too drunk' to give/deny consent to Evans.

 

[TonyW]

The fact that there is sooooooooooooo much speculation and unknown about this case, makes it quite disgusting that Evans isn't being given a chance to continue working.
And that he was even convicted in the first place.

The lad could be completely innocent.

Imagine if he is, and then pretend that its you.

How would you feel eh?

 

[TonyW]

Lets face it, we're not talking about some weirdo jumping out from a park bush at night are we?

 

[Bold Seagull]

The night porter said he had heard both male and female voices and groans as well as a request for oral sex. Admittedly that was with McDonald, who the jury agreed had gained consent. That is further evidence that she was conscious and able to give consent/deny consent.

I'm still yet to hear any evidence to suggest she was 'too drunk' to give/deny consent to Evans.

What? He said in the foyer after giving MacDonald the key card he heard her say 'you're not going to leave me are you'. The Porter described her in evidence as 'extremely drunk', to the extent he was concerned enough to go to the door of the room to check what was happening. He said he heard what he thought to be consensual sex (MacDonald is the only person in the room with her at this point) and he left. There is nothing on his evidence that he heard a request for oral sex. You have just got mixed up with MacDonald's evidence and the Porters.

 

[dazzer6666]

150 pages within our sights! Keep going gang, we'll get to the Botty of this before Ched gets another club I shouldn't wager and remember - all input on this debate is valid, regardless of which side of the debate you're on.

Even better when none of us have heard all the evidence......

 

[Triggaaar]

The night porter said he had heard both male and female voices and groans as well as a request for oral sex. Admittedly that was with McDonald, who the jury agreed had gained consent. That is further evidence that she was conscious and able to give consent/deny consent.

I hadn't thought of that. Why ask for oral sex if she's clearly (which the jury had to decide) not capable of giving consent?

I'm still yet to hear any evidence to suggest she was 'too drunk' to give/deny consent to Evans.

I don't think you're going to. The counter argument is that you weren't at the trial, and didn't hear the testimony from the claimant or defendants, which would put you in a better position to judge. It's hypothetical for example, that you'd find inconsistencies in someone version of events, and deem them to be lying and maybe hiding something.

The lad could be completely innocent.

Lad is a kind term, in the circumstances.

Imagine if he is, and then pretend that its you.

How would you feel eh?

I don't think anyone here will admit to being capable of doing what he did, so they can't imagine it was them.

 

[Withdean11]

What? He said in the foyer after giving MacDonald the key card he heard her say 'you're not going to leave me are you'. The Porter described her in evidence as 'extremely drunk', to the extent he was concerned enough to go to the door of the room to check what was happening. He said he heard what he thought to be consensual sex (MacDonald is the only person in the room with her at this point) and he left. There is nothing on his evidence that he heard a request for oral sex. You have just got mixed up with MacDonald's evidence and the Porters.

No, I haven't.

The night porter stated in Court that he had heard the sounds of people having sex – when pushed on this he said that he had heard both female and male voices “squealing, panting and groaning”. He also said that he heard a male voice ask for oral sex in a “playful” manner.

http://www.chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts

 

[inland seagull]

am I the only person sick of hearing about Ched Evans, who the f**k is he anyway?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

am I the only person sick of hearing about Ched Evans, who the f**k is he anyway?

You clearly wern't listening very well if you still don't know who he is.....

 

[Triggaaar]

am I the only person sick of hearing about Ched Evans, who the f**k is he anyway?

I think you're on the wrong thread. Thanks for your contribution in getting the thread to page 150 anyway.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No, I haven't.

The night porter stated in Court that he had heard the sounds of people having sex – when pushed on this he said that he had heard both female and male voices “squealing, panting and groaning”. He also said that he heard a male voice ask for oral sex in a “playful” manner.

http://www.chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts

Have you really just linked back the Ched Evans website to me?

 

[Creaky]

The fact that there is sooooooooooooo much speculation and unknown about this case, makes it quite disgusting that Evans isn't being given a chance to continue working.
And that he was even convicted in the first place.

The lad could be completely innocent.

Imagine if he is, and then pretend that its you.

How would you feel eh?

The bottom line on this case is that guilt or innocence can only be based on a matter of judgement.

Ched Evans can't KNOW he's innocent as a matter of fact - his guilt or innocence depends on whether a jury of his peers believe the girl was capable of giving consent to sex. He can't know if she was or wasn't, he may believe she was on which basis he believes he's innocent, but the judgement as to whether or not she was capable or whether or not his belief was reasonable does not lie with him but with the jury and they have given their verdict.

The above is why I can't see any appeal being successful beause this would undermine the whole jury system. For an appeal to be successful there has to be 'new' evidence that wasn't presented to the original jury or there has to have been an error in the procedure of the trial or actions of the judge.

 

[Triggaaar]

Have you really just linked back the Ched Evans website to me?

He has. So are you suggesting that the website has blatantly committed libel?

 

[Withdean11]

Have you really just linked back the Ched Evans website to me?

Are you really suggesting that the website would not have accurate quotes from the court room?

 

[Da Man Clay]

Lets face it, we're not talking about some weirdo jumping out from a park bush at night are we?

Doesn't make him any less of a convicted rapist.

 

[drew]

The bottom line on this case is that guilt or innocence can only be based on a matter of judgement.

Ched Evans can't KNOW he's innocent as a matter of fact - his guilt or innocence depends on whether a jury of his peers believe the girl was capable of giving consent to sex. He can't know if she was or wasn't, he may believe she was on which basis he believes he's innocent, but the judgement as to whether or not she was capable or whether or not his belief was reasonable does not lie with him but with the jury and they have given their verdict.

The above is why I can't see any appeal being successful beause this would undermine the whole jury system. For an appeal to be successful there has to be 'new' evidence that wasn't presented to the original jury or there has to have been an error in the procedure of the trial or actions of the judge.

Of course he can know he is innocent as a matter of fact. He was there, the jury, the media, you and I weren't. He knows whether the girl agreed to sex or not. He knows if whether or not she was a very active participant or whether she was virtually comatose. His argument has never been that he presumed consent, it is that she agreed to sex and that is substantiated by McDonald.

As to the CCRC, I'm not sure that they do only consider cases with new evidence otherwise it would be a case just for the appeal courts. It would help if they said on their website under what circumstances they take on a case!

 

[beardy gull]

David Conn sums it up for me. A number of people on this thread make me feel ashamed to be a football fan/man.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/09/ched-evans-furore-football-men-uncaring