Ched Evans

[Triggaaar]

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.

You're confusing the law and the verdict with reality. drew has already said how it is possible for Ched to KNOW whether he's innocent or not. I will add that even if he thought she was capable of consent, but she was not, then he is still innocent, because he had to know she was not capable of consent in order to be convicted - that's why McDonald was acquitted - they jury decided she wasn't capable of consenting to sex with him either, but he had reason to believe she did.

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.

Which is why the case is being looked at, to see if there was an error.

 

[drew]

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.

Can you point me to where the statement or reference to the evidence from the porter says he was 'concerned enough' to go to the door to check what was happening. The judgement of the appeal court merely states he went to see what was happening. He might have been but equally he might just have been a voyeur.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Can you point me to where the statement or reference to the evidence from the porter says he was 'concerned enough' to go to the door to check what was happening. The judgement of the appeal court merely states he went to see what was happening. He might have been but equally he might just have been a voyeur.

Why don't you answer my previous posts?

 

[drew]

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

You are entitled to your opinion but the actual case is not about football, it is about whether justice was administered. I don't read David Conn but judging from your link, he is convinced beyond doubt that Evans is as guilty as sin. A lot of people don't. What is your view based on what you know of the case. Oh, and don't hide behind the decision of the jury, give your own view.

 

[drew]

Why don't you answer my previous posts?

I'm working through them!

 

[Triggaaar]

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

What has anyone done in this thread to make you feel ashamed? Men around the world murder, torture and brutally rape people millions of people, but it's the opinions expressed on here that suddenly make you ashamed to be a man.

And it's just men that are uneasy about the verdict is it? Is it bollox. I expect just as large a proportion of women have the same doubts.

 

[Creaky]

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!

You are missing the point - yes he may KNOW the girl gave consent and he may BELIEVE she was sober enough to give that consent. The judgement however as to whether or not that BELIEF was accurate and reasonable lies with the jury who decided she wasn't in a condition to give that consent and the BELIEF that she was was not reasonable.

From the CCRC section of the justice.gov.uk website

If we are going to be able to refer your case for an appeal we will usually need to find some important new evidence or legal argument. Usually this means something that was not covered at your trial or your appeal. For example it may be new evidence not known about at the time, or something that has changed since your trial, like the appearance of a new witness or a new development in science.

We can’t usually look again at things that were known about by the jury,the judge or the magistrates, even if you beieve that they made the wrong decision in your case. We need to identify something new that wasn’t raised back then, and that the judges at your appeal didn’t know either, that makes your case look significantly different now. In some cases it might be a new legal argument, rather than new evidence, that means we can refer a case. New legal argument is usually some significant new point of law that has not been made before, such as a complaint that the judge’s summing-up was faulty, or that the prosecution applied the law incorrectly

 

[beardy gull]

You are entitled to your opinion but the actual case is not about football, it is about whether justice was administered. I don't read David Conn but judging from your link, he is convinced beyond doubt that Evans is as guilty as sin. A lot of people don't. What is your view based on what you know of the case. Oh, and don't hide behind the decision of the jury, give your own view.

I have followed the case extensively. If I have seen or heard nothing to make me believe there has been a miscarriage of justice here then I guess I must be hiding behind the decision of the jury.

 

[drew]

Note that the quote you're replying to wasn't accurate - no judge has said whether they were convinced or not. I was referring to the reference to more evidence. Appreciate the point about the Judges was resolved.

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.

There is no evidence as to how many beds there were but wasn't the room booked by Evans for McDonald and another friend (although we don't know his name) with McDonald being named as the lead occupant. That might suggest (but we don't know) that it was a twin bedded room.

I'm not sure the judge made any such comments, and it wasn't the judge that made the verdict.

I can't find the link but I'm sure I read somewhere he made reference to it when sentencing.

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?

No, don't agree with that. You know long before you are incapable of making a decision that you have had too much to drive.

 

[drew]

I have followed the case extensively. If I have seen or heard nothing to make me believe there has been a miscarriage of justice here then I guess I must be hiding behind the decision of the jury.

If you have read everything available then no you are not hiding behind the jury. Having said that, my view is I fail to see where there is any evidence he raped her. His actions might not be everyone's cup of tea but then neither should that of the girl. Remember, there is no physical evidence of a rape, no witness evidence of a rape (in fact witness evidence to the contrary) and there is no accusation of rape from the girl!

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'm working through them!

Don't go mad on them. I've lost too much time this week on this case already, I had to work till 10pm last night just to catch up on time lost to Ched Bloody Evans!

 

[beardy gull]

If you have read everything available then no you are not hiding behind the jury. Having said that, my view is I fail to see where there is any evidence he raped her. His actions might not be everyone's cup of tea but then neither should that of the girl. Remember, there is no physical evidence of a rape, no witness evidence of a rape (in fact witness evidence to the contrary) and there is no accusation of rape from the girl!

You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

 

[Triggaaar]

You are missing the point - yes he may KNOW the girl gave consent and he may BELIEVE she was sober enough to give that consent. The judgement however as to whether or not that BELIEF was accurate and reasonable lies with the jury who decided she wasn't in a condition to give that consent and the BELIEF that she was was not reasonable.

No Creaky, it's you that's missing the point. What you are posting is about the law, not about reality. The jury have to use their judgement, and they clearly didn't believe Ched. You said "Ched Evans can't KNOW he's innocent as a matter of fact", and you are wrong. If a woman said to a man, 'come here, I'm going to ride you like red rum', and then she got on top of him and did so, then that man would know he was not guilty of rape. If she forgot what happened, and a jury didn't believe him, he could be found guilty, but he would know he's not. I have of course come up with a more exaggerated set of circumstances, but the point is the same. Ched has made claims about the woman's words and actions, and the jury clearly haven't believed him.

 

[Triggaaar]

No, don't agree with that. You know long before you are incapable of making a decision that you have had too much to drive.

Of course you do. But then when you get to the point of being incapable of making a decision, you no longer know. Personally I think that even when extremely drunk, people should know not to drive, and they should know not to have sex with people they don't want to have sex with.

 

[drew]

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.

So now your adding things into evidence that weren't presented by the prosecution! Of course the expert is making a speculative estimate, but it apparently wasn't disputed by the prosecution. She gave evidence as to what she drank and that was accepted by both sides. Based on that, an expert calculated as to what level of blood/alcohol she had at 4am. I don't know but I would presume that, as an expert, he would have taken into account such things as her physique. Basically, we will never know for sure exactly what the alcohol level was but isn't that why they have expert witnesses? If we knew, you wouldn't need an expert to speculate.

With regard to your last paragraph, where does it say she reported it in the morning? The appeal court judgement merely states 'she woke up at 11:30am. She had a headache and was feeling confused (Perhaps the normal effects of a hangover!). She then reported it to the Police.'. The chedevans website indicates that the evidence given says she was picked up by her mum, went to work, finished her shift at 11pm, went back to the Prem Inn to ask to see the cctv, wasn't allowed but was told the room was booked by two footballers and it was then she went to the Police. There are some that don't believe a word on that website but could they post information like that which wasn't true as they would immediately be in contempt of court!

It's your choice to disregard the video evidence.

 

[drew]

Of course you do. But then when you get to the point of being incapable of making a decision, you no longer know. Personally I think that even when extremely drunk, people should know not to drive, and they should know not to have sex with people they don't want to have sex with.

That I do agree with.

 

[drew]

Don't go mad on them. I've lost too much time this week on this case already, I had to work till 10pm last night just to catch up on time lost to Ched Bloody Evans!

I know, I've decided to stop muli quoting because by the time I've finished a post, a lot of the issues have moved on!!!!

 

[Creaky]

You're confusing the law and the verdict with reality. drew has already said how it is possible for Ched to KNOW whether he's innocent or not. I will add that even if he thought she was capable of consent, but she was not, then he is still innocent, because he had to know she was not capable of consent in order to be convicted - that's why McDonald was acquitted - they jury decided she wasn't capable of consenting to sex with him either, but he had reason to believe she did.

Which is why the case is being looked at, to see if there was an error.

Nothing I have seen suggests there has been any error in the legal proceedings nor in the actions of the judge - I would have thought that if the defence had grounds to support a claim that an error had been made then this would be public knowledge by now

In regards to an earlier point/query you had:-

I'm not sure the judge made any such comments, and it wasn't the judge that made the verdict.

The trial judge made the following comment when sentencing:-

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

Just because Evans believes the girl was sober enough to give consent and that she gave that consent does not mean he is innocent - it is the jury's judgement that either she did not give any consent or that if she did she was not in a condition to be able to do so and that any belief Evans had that she was simply was not reasonable.

I've said earlier that personally I have doubts about the guilt of Evans but the bottom line is that it is not mine or anyone else's place to make that decision apart from the members of the jury whose verdict cannot be overturned unless there were facts they were not made aware of or errors in law were made at the trial.

 

[drew]

You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

Fair enough but if you don't mind me asking, what is it that convinces you beyond reasonable doubt that it was rape?

 

[Creaky]

No Creaky, it's you that's missing the point. What you are posting is about the law, not about reality. The jury have to use their judgement, and they clearly didn't believe Ched. You said "Ched Evans can't KNOW he's innocent as a matter of fact", and you are wrong. If a woman said to a man, 'come here, I'm going to ride you like red rum', and then she got on top of him and did so, then that man would know he was not guilty of rape. If she forgot what happened, and a jury didn't believe him, he could be found guilty, but he would know he's not. I have of course come up with a more exaggerated set of circumstances, but the point is the same. Ched has made claims about the woman's words and actions, and the jury clearly haven't believed him.

If that same woman was drunk when she "rode him like Red Rum" and a jury decided that she was too drunk to give consent to sex and any belief that the man may have that she was sober enough to consent was unreasonable then he would be guilty of rape.