Ched Evans

[Da Man Clay]

Why should he? His actions like sneaking into the room were maybe immoral but not illegal. Even if he did apologise along the lines of what you suggested it wouldn't be enough to appease everyone. We would then hear 'but he's still a rapist'

He doesn't have to. Just making the point there is plenty he could show some sort of remorse for if he wanted to. I would imagine he would find a lot more people that would support his return to football if he did. You're right in that he'll never appease everyone. He won't appease everyone if he does get off on appeal either unfortunately.

 

[Triggaaar]

You know what, I think I'll go with the Judge and the appeal review on this one if that's ok?

You don't seem to have any idea what's going on. The judge and appeal review have not given a verdict or questioned the jury's verdict, because that's not their role.

(note, saying note in brackets after a statement doesn't make it any more true)

What? lol. No one was trying to suggest otherwise, I had a separate point to make, so made it in brackets, that's all.

If that were the case that is no reason in itself for Evans to be found not guilty. His belief has to be judged as 'reasonable' for a not guilty verdict.

Yes, true, that is possible, as are other scenarios.

I think this is the most likely scenario and explains much about the case and people's actions following the case. Evans appears to sincerely think he is innocent because he believes the girl consented to what happened - however the jury have judged that such a belief was not one that a reasonable person, (the man on the Clapham omnibus test), would have held.

I disagree, but I accept that is possible. However, you don't seem to accept it's possible that she was so clearly aware of what was happening that any reasonable person would believe they had consent.

 

[Triggaaar]

Why should he? His actions like sneaking into the room were maybe immoral but not illegal.

As Da Man says, he doesn't have to, but apologising for immoral (even if not illegal) behaviour does help your image.

But... he has apologised for his behaviour. Hans Kraay suggests there's a fundamental difference between his statement and apologising for his behaviour, but when I've seen his quote elsewhere in the media the journalists have taken it as an apology for his behaviour. He wasn't apologising on the behalf of others, he was apologising on behalf of himself, so of course he's apologising for his behaviour - what else could he be apologising for if not his behaviour?

 

[Creaky]

I disagree, but I accept that is possible. However, you don't seem to accept it's possible that she was so clearly aware of what was happening that any reasonable person would believe they had consent.

Of course it's possible that she was fully cognisant of what was going on and gave valid consent - the jury however didn't believe that was the case nor that Evans would have been behaving reasonably if he thought that was the case. The jury had those two decisions to make based on the evidence they had heard.

That is why I cannot see how any appeal can be successful because the verdict of the jury cannot be overturned unless it can be shown that they were either misdirected or there is evidence now available that they didn't have presented to them before they gave their verdict.

With regards to the directions given to the jury by the judge the Lord Chief Justice found nothing wrong with them in his review which makes it unlikely the CCRC will find differently. As for new evidence, what can there possibly be as all those present took the witness stand?

 

[Triggaaar]

Of course it's possible that she was fully cognisant of what was going on and gave valid consent

And do you accept that IF that were the case, that Evans would know it was?

With regards to the directions given to the jury by the judge the Lord Chief Justice found nothing wrong with them in his review which makes it unlikely the CCRC will find differently.

So what's the point in having the CCRC then? It's there to review things and they wouldn't be reviewing this case if they knew it was pointless, they'd just say no.

 

[Creaky]

And do you accept that IF that were the case, that Evans would know it was?

I accept that Evans could well believe that was the case, (he can't KNOW for certain unless you are saying the girl was stone cold sober!), but the test is whether or not such a belief was reasonable and the jury have decided it wasn't.

So what's the point in having the CCRC then? It's there to review things and they wouldn't be reviewing this case if they knew it was pointless, they'd just say no.

They can't just say no - they have to review the case, that is their remit as an independent body. They can't decide whether or not the judge's summing up and the Lord Chief Justice's decision that it was fine is correct without looking at the details, (i.e. reviewing it). Likewise when it comes to new evidence although I am at a loss to see what new evidence there could possibly be?

 

[Triggaaar]

I accept that Evans could well believe that was the case, (he can't KNOW for certain unless you are saying the girl was stone cold sober!)

You're wrong. You are saying that if my wife comes home from the pub after drinking, and asks for sex, that I can't KNOW if she's really consenting or not, so basically I should say no.

I don't expect you mean to be saying that, but you are, because you're saying that for me to KNOW I am being given consent, then she needs to be stone cold sober!

 

[nwgull]

Why should he? His actions like sneaking into the room were maybe immoral but not illegal. Even if he did apologise along the lines of what you suggested it wouldn't be enough to appease everyone. We would then hear 'but he's still a rapist'

Exactly, and all this stuff about morals is a load of bollocks anyway. Morality is such a subjective issue; the only thing that we can truly expect him to apologise for is breaking the law, which he denies doing, as is his right. If his appeal is successful, the only person that he has to answer to is his girlfriend, which he seemingly has.

I hope that the people sending death threats to the Oldham board are caught and punished. Oldham were not proposing to do anything that was outside of the law of this country by employing Evans. The only people who have a legitimate claim to protest about that are fans or sponsors of Oldham who may not want to be represented by Evans. For everyone else, it's just tough if this offends you - this is a free country.

 

[Triggaaar]

They can't just say no - they have to review the case, that is their remit as an independent body.

Ok, I thought they had a first look and decided whether there was anything to review or not, but no problem if they review all cases.

Maybe there is nothing in the case that warrants an appeal, but the CCRC have sent cases to appeal before, and some of those cases have had verdicts reveresed - and presumably before the CCRC sent those cases to appeal, some appeal judges had already said no, there's no grounds for appeal. And nothing is different here. How can we know that there's no chance of the CCRC sending it to appeal?

 

[nwgull]

You're wrong. You are saying that if my wife comes home from the pub after drinking, and asks for sex, that I can't KNOW if she's really consenting or not, so basically I should say no.

I don't expect you mean to be saying that, but you are, because you're saying that for me to KNOW I am being given consent, then she needs to be stone cold sober!

Maybe we should all carry those home breathalyser kits that are supposed to show if you can drive or not. Just re-calibrate them a bit to see if someone's too drunk to shag without risk of prosecution if they regret it the next day and/or feel used.

 

[Acker79]

I think you've got that (the second bit) wrong. I believe the jury found that she was too drunk to give consent, which means she was too drunk to give it to either men. They didn't find McDonald guilty because, although they don't believe he had consent, they didn't think it was beyond reasonable doubt (weren't sure etc) that he didn't think he had consent.

We obviously have to speculate on this, unless someone from the jury come out and explain their decision, and I've no idea if they can/will.

To me, it seems possible/I would prefer it if the jury had decided that she was too drunk to consent, and was so drunk was acting almost on autopilot in a way that should be clear that she isn't actually aware of what she's doing.

It was perhaps reasonable for Macdonald to not notice how she was on autopilot because of the circumstances, but not for Ched, because of the circumstances of how he got there.

I don't like the idea of the jury saying well, if a vulnerable woman goes back to a place with you, it's ok for you to assume she is consenting to sex. Having her consent without realising what she is consenting to, also would explain Ched's defiant belief of innocence.

Of course there are a range of reasons he could believe he is innocent; the possibility that he is innocent, the possibility that a life of being idolised and getting what he wants just because he's good at football and some girls have thrown themselves at him, etc. led him to just view women as pieces of meat rather than human beings and so doesn't view using a vulnerable young woman for sex as crime if it's not violent.

But I feel the "she was in a state that probably should have made it obvious she was in no position to give consent" explanation is the one that is the simplest and the one with which I'm most comfortable.

I don't think they are. If so, which people?
...
As above, which posters, and what exactly did they say to give that idea?

I honestly don't remember. I Got that feeling while browsing during my lunch break yesterday, and maybe it was just the way I was reading things, but there has been so much activity on this thread I'm going a bit cross eyed as I look back trying to find the passages that gave me that impression.

I've had plenty of conversations with people who talk in seemingly coherent sentences, who sometimes remember the evening sometimes don't, but don't remember all the conversations they had.

So? That doesn't mean they weren't in any way in control of what they were saying.

The ability to speak is not intrinsically linked to the ability to consent. It's also why Ched may not know whether he is innocent or guilty.

I definitely agree that he 'may not know', because it's possible she was so drunk she didn't know what was happening, but he mistakenly thought she was ok with it (note, if that were the case, he should have been found not guilty). BUT - it's also possible he does know, if for example it was obvious she wasn't too drunk, and she was consenting. If your examples of your friends not remembering the evening is your idea of people not being able to give consent, you have misunderstood the law.

The two lines you separated were related to one another. The second explained the relevance of the first. That just because someone can say yes doesn't mean they are in a position to know what they are saying yes to. Or who they are saying it to. That maybe they are offering a ride to the person they got into a taxi with, not realising his friend has sneaked into the room and it's him she's now talking to.

My point with that is also that his being there does not give him absolute knowledge. Just because he was there, it doesn't mean he knows she consented. Maybe her behaviour was such he believed she did, but she was unaware, in which case he doesn't know she didn't, couldn't consent. Maybe her behaviour was such it would be obvious to most people she wasn't in any state to consent, but he was too excited by the idea of getting some to stop and think about whether she was in a position to consent, or he didn't view her as a human being deserving of respect and dignity enough to acknowledge her beyond her vagina and ability to say yes (or words of encouragement) to pay attention.

No he can't. So 'sorry for my behaviour that night but I didn't do anything wrong.' Would you apologise for something when you don't believe you have done anything wrong? The 'he hasn't apologised' brigade are showing a complete ignorance of the law. If you believe in your innocence you don't apologise. Has jeremy bamber ever apologised? Sion Jenkins? Eddie Browning? The Cardiff 3? Birmingham 6? Guildford 4? Like it or not miscarriages of justice do happen and those who feel they are innocent will fight to clear their name.

"I maintain the girl consented to sex with me, and as such I am not guilty of the rape of which I have been convicted. However, I realise that much of my behaviour that night was wrong. I should not have sneaked into the hotel, or lied to the porter to gain access to the room, and I apologise for that. I also apologise for leaving a girl in vulnerable state. It is important people realise that just because my behaviour around my sexual relations with the girl is not behaviour I am proud of or feel is in keeping with the actions of a decent human being, it does not mean I did not have consent. I did, and I look forward to having my chance to prove it when the review board looks at my case."

It is quite easy.

 

[dazzer6666]

The other point to bear in mind is the jury appear to have failed to believe Evan's version of events (based on their conclusion anyway). This may be due to other evidence presented in court, or aspects of his performance in court, or a combination of the two, none of which we know about.

 

[beardy gull]

You know what, I think I'll go with the Judge and the appeal review on this one if that's ok? (note, saying note in brackets after a statement doesn't make it any more true)

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

He went on to explain: "A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."

You don't seem to have any idea what's going on. The judge and appeal review have not given a verdict or questioned the jury's verdict, because that's not their role.

I'm confident I do thanks. I've quoted the Judge's guidance to the jury and said I'll go with that advice rather than your advice to us. You really are spouting some first degree nonsense on this thread.

 

[Triggaaar]

We obviously have to speculate on this

On a lot of what's being discussed we're speculating and hypothesising, but not that much on this point. The judge summarized that she was not able to give consent, and there's no reason why that point alone applied to Evans and not McDonald.

unless someone from the jury come out and explain their decision, and I've no idea if they can/will.

There's no guarantee that each member of the jury would have the same reason for reaching the verdict they did.

To me, it seems possible/I would prefer it if the jury had decided that she was too drunk to consent, and was so drunk was acting almost on autopilot in a way that should be clear that she isn't actually aware of what she's doing.

It was perhaps reasonable for Macdonald to not notice how she was on autopilot because of the circumstances, but not for Ched

Exactly. That's roughly what I believe the jury has decided, and what 'spring hall convert' was saying, but you disagreed and said "I don't believe that the jury felt he could assume consent given the circumstances, but assume she was aware of what she was consenting to, given the circumstances. A subtle difference, but an important one in this case."

I don't like the idea of the jury saying well, if a vulnerable woman goes back to a place with you, it's ok for you to assume she is consenting to sex.

No jury can ever say that, all they can say is a) it is beyond reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would know she wasn't consenting or b) it's not. ie, there is doubt.

Of course there are a range of reasons he could believe he is innocent; the possibility that he is innocent,...

Indeed, it's possible he knows he's guilty, it's possible he thinks he's innocent, it's possible he knows he's innocent.

But I feel the "she was in a state that probably should have made it obvious she was in no position to give consent" explanation is the one that is the simplest and the one with which I'm most comfortable.

So you'd find him not guilty then, because 'probably' isn't enough.

I honestly don't remember. I Got that feeling while browsing during my lunch break yesterday, and maybe it was just the way I was reading things

Well maybe someone said something like that, but certainly not me. I'm mostly debating the legal issue of a jury being certain that she didn't give consent and being certain that he knew she hadn't, and whether it's possible for a person in his position to know if he's innocent or not.

That just because someone can say yes doesn't mean they are in a position to know what they are saying yes to. Or who they are saying it to.

I don't think anyone disputes that.

My point with that is also that his being there does not give him absolute knowledge. Just because he was there, it doesn't mean he knows she consented. Maybe her behaviour was such he believed she did, but she was unaware, in which case he doesn't know she didn't, couldn't consent. Maybe her behaviour was such it would be obvious to most people she wasn't in any state to consent, but he was too excited by the idea of getting some to stop and think about whether she was in a position to consent, or he didn't view her as a human being deserving of respect and dignity enough to acknowledge her beyond her vagina and ability to say yes (or words of encouragement) to pay attention.

I haven't disagreed with that.

 

[Triggaaar]

You really are spouting some first degree nonsense on this thread.

You're welcome to pick just one point and explain why it's nonsense. I suspect you won't.

 

[Creaky]

You're wrong. You are saying that if my wife comes home from the pub after drinking, and asks for sex, that I can't KNOW if she's really consenting or not, so basically I should say no.

I don't expect you mean to be saying that, but you are, because you're saying that for me to KNOW I am being given consent, then she needs to be stone cold sober!

I think your definition of 'know' and mine may be different - how can you 'know' the intent behind a statement unless you can read their mind?

 

[Triggaaar]

I accept that Evans could well believe that was the case, (he can't KNOW for certain unless you are saying the girl was stone cold sober!)

I think your definition of 'know' and mine may be different - how can you 'know' the intent behind a statement unless you can read their mind?

Now you're arguing with yourself. You said that you could only KNOW for certain if the girl was sober, now you're saying that even then you can't know unless you can read their mind.

Bringing the idea of reading someone's mind into this is ridiculous. There are times when we know we've been given consent, even when the other person has had a drink, and to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[beorhthelm]

On a lot of what's being discussed we're speculating and hypothesising, but not that much on this point. The judge summarized that she was not able to give consent, and there's no reason why that point alone applied to Evans and not McDonald.

thats because the circumstances where different. one she has time to change her mind, the second she apparently doesnt. far too much is being made of the drunkeness, the point is the circumstances of where and how the act occured. the judge did not decree its illegal to shag someone drunk (the courts and jails would be overrun).

 

[Triggaaar]

thats because the circumstances where different. one she has time to change her mind, the second she apparently doesnt.

Of course the circumstances were different, which is why we have different verdicts, but I've never seen any mention of her changing her mind before. There's no suggestion that not having time to change her mind means she hasn't consented. Consenting, and not having time to change your mind, would still be consenting.

far too much is being made of the drunkeness, the point is the circumstances of where and how the act occured. the judge did not decree its illegal to shag someone drunk (the courts and jails would be overrun).

You think too much is being made, but we're told the jury reached their verdict because she was too drunk to consent.

 

[beardy gull]

You're welcome to pick just one point and explain why it's nonsense. I suspect you won't.

Thanks.

So what's the point in having the CCRC then? It's there to review things and they wouldn't be reviewing this case if they knew it was pointless, they'd just say no.

I believe it's been pointed out to you already.