Ched Evans

[Triggaaar]

On the basis that her evidence is that she can't remember anything after leaving the night club apart from some vague recollection of a kebab shop then there isn't even an indication that she knew she was even going back to a hotel other than McDonalds testimony. You seem willing to believe McDonald's testimony up to the point he said Evans and the girl had consensual sex but you don't believe Evans!

Firstly, this is not what I believe, I'm simply explaining why the jury came up with different verdicts. No, I'm not choosing to believe McDonalds testimony, there is CCTV footage to show that she went up to McDonald in the street, there is evidence that he went into the hotel, she went back out to get something, then went back i again with no pressure from McDonald, and there is evidence from the porter that she said 'you're not going to leave me are you'. Maybe she didn't know what she was doing, but the jury could see why a reasonable person might think she was ok with the events.

In both of those examples, the men have had more signals than Ched had. Ched had nothing until he walked into that room, and there's no proof he got any indication of consent in the room, which is different to what McDonald had.

There is also no evidence that he didn't get consent from the girl

Yes there is - I'm not saying I agree with it, I don't, but there is evidence that she was extremely drunk - witness saying so, her falling over, urinating in the street etc, waking up having wet herself the next day and having no memory - and although I wouldn't say that was conclusive evidence, it is at least some evidence that she may have been too drunk to be capable of giving consent - that is what the jury found.

Where did this 'few seconds' come into evidence?

The defendants said the Evans walked into the room, McDonald stopped having sex with her and Evans started - the defendants didn't claim that Evans talked to her, other the comment about joining in (which is a claim, but not fact, in the eyes of the jury).

We could also conjecture that she met McDonald and 15 minutes later was having sex with him. Evans got a text that McDonald had a 'girl/bird' and went straight to the hotel, got access to the room and watched them having sex. He could have been watching for 15 minutes with the girl well aware he was there (I suspect the length of time he was watching probably came out in court but we don't know for sure)

You're wondering how it's possible that the jury had two different verdicts, and I'm explaining it to you. It's possible that what you say is true, but I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is. The jury know for a fact that there was more than a few seconds between the girl choosing McDonald, and them having sex - they don't know that there was more than a few seconds between Evans walking in on her, and joining in. And the jury didn't believe Evans's testimony.

Thing is, we don't know other than the testimony of Evans and McDonald and that is what allows for the reasonable doubt.

I personally think there was doubt, that's not what you and I are debating, we're debating how it's possible for the jury to come up with two verdicts.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

The mob rule argument was started by the Evans PR team last week. You have been arguing the toss for months, and now you want to get your teeth into a mob rule argument in an attempt to vindicate your opinion.

Of course, this ruling mob is a fantasy, and nowhere to be seen in reality ( unless you hold the view that, by definition, all petitions are some sort of 'mob rule').

 

[Hampster Gull]

the second part of your comment invalidates the first and is a daft thing to say in a discussion/debate/argument about Evans. Don't waste my time.

Don't mean to waste anyones time, just giving my views and responding when prompted. You can engage, ignore or act like a chimp, your call

 

[symyjym]

Don't mean to waste anyones time, just giving my views and responding when prompted. You can engage, ignore or act like a chimp, your call

I will leave you to play on your hamster wheel in that case.

 

[Triggaaar]

Pretty much the way I see it, it's incredible how much more you get to see as a Juror that doesn't get reported.

And yet people on hre still seem to think they know enough to question the verdict.

It's not helped by the fact that recently judges have criticised jury's for being unable to comprehend simple instructions - we recently had a case where the jury came out and asked the judge if they could use evidence they'd seen in the press that was not shown in court - and another case where (after the judge had explained everything and sent the jury out) the jury came back and asked if they should say guilty if they thought he might have done it, but weren't sure.

 

[Hillian1]

It's not helped by the fact that recently judges have criticised jury's for being unable to comprehend simple instructions - we recently had a case where the jury came out and asked the judge if they could use evidence they'd seen in the press that was not shown in court - and another case where (after the judge had explained everything and sent the jury out) the jury came back and asked if they should say guilty if they thought he might have done it, but weren't sure.

You are Ched Evans, and I claim my £5

 

[Steve.S]

Firstly, this is not what I believe, I'm simply explaining why the jury came up with different verdicts. No, I'm not choosing to believe McDonalds testimony, there is CCTV footage to show that she went up to McDonald in the street, there is evidence that he went into the hotel, she went back out to get something, then went back i again with no pressure from McDonald, and there is evidence from the porter that she said 'you're not going to leave me are you'. Maybe she didn't know what she was doing, but the jury could see why a reasonable person might think she was ok with the events.

In both of those examples, the men have had more signals than Ched had. Ched had nothing until he walked into that room, and there's no proof he got any indication of consent in the room, which is different to what McDonald had.
Yes there is - I'm not saying I agree with it, I don't, but there is evidence that she was extremely drunk - witness saying so, her falling over, urinating in the street etc, waking up having wet herself the next day and having no memory - and although I wouldn't say that was conclusive evidence, it is at least some evidence that she may have been too drunk to be capable of giving consent - that is what the jury found.

The defendants said the Evans walked into the room, McDonald stopped having sex with her and Evans started - the defendants didn't claim that Evans talked to her, other the comment about joining in (which is a claim, but not fact, in the eyes of the jury).
You're wondering how it's possible that the jury had two different verdicts, and I'm explaining it to you. It's possible that what you say is true, but I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is. The jury know for a fact that there was more than a few seconds between the girl choosing McDonald, and them having sex - they don't know that there was more than a few seconds between Evans walking in on her, and joining in. And the jury didn't believe Evans's testimony.

I personally think there was doubt, that's not what you and I are debating, we're debating how it's possible for the jury to come up with two verdicts.

Really good points, but I would say that you are banging your head against a wall. Drew will not be moved, he likes to think he has more information and facts then what the jury had to sit through. He will say that there have been miscarriages of justice in the past, however a lot of that has to do with the way the police have gone about their job. The simple facts in this case has always been a girl who has no recollection of the events and two men who admit sleeping with her. One of them met and went back to the hotel and one sneaked into the room. The verdicts are not surprising given the circumstances.

 

[Triggaaar]

It's not mob rule, Oldham didn't sign him for financial reasons because their sponsors threatened to pull out.

Is that definitely right? I thought Oldham were influenced by the death and rape threats they received?

This mob rule has only been suggested by his misguided advisors to make Ched look like the victim

I think he's got the worst PR team since Max Clifford did silly faces behind a reporter - but I thought mob rule was mentioned on here before Ched's people said anything about it.

Jessica Ennis and anyone else are perfectly entitled to withdraw their support and I can see why she would.

Are you seriously suggesting that Jessica Ennis's threat to withdraw her support was due to her being swayed by mob rule?

I didn't think he said that.

Really good points, but I would say that you are banging your head against a wall. Drew will not be moved, he likes to think he has more information and facts then what the jury had to sit through.

Actually I'm quite sure a few people here would say that about me too

The simple facts in this case has always been a girl who has no recollection of the events and two men who admit sleeping with her. One of them met and went back to the hotel and one sneaked into the room. The verdicts are not surprising given the circumstances.

I disagree Even though I do understand that the two cases are different, I still find the verdict surprising. And of course I appreciate I didn't see all of the evidence, or see how shifty the defendants looked in court, but as I posted earlier, it's not possible to get me so drunk that I wouldn't know what I was consenting to, which does effect my judgement of this case.

I have decided to do my own research. I'm going to be rude to my wife so that she's really annoyed with me, and then I'm going to get her so drunk she can't walk, and then I'm going to ask her for sex. It's important you understand that if she says yes, I will decline. If she says no, it will mean that she can't be too drunk to give consent.

 

[drew]

So why draw a parallel with a case that did?

Apologies, but the only thing I was drawing attention to was a case where there was a guilty verdict and two failed attempts to get an appeal, nothing more nothing less. Hamilton made a comment assuming the matter should be done and dusted because a jury reached a verdict etc etc. I don't claim to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of English law cases.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Apologies, but the only thing I was drawing attention to was a case where there was a guilty verdict and two failed attempts to get an appeal, nothing more nothing less. Hamilton made a comment assuming the matter should be done and dusted because a jury reached a verdict etc etc. I don't claim to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of English law cases.

Fair enough. The Guildford 4/Birmingham 6 cases were both quashed for quite outrageous reasons and I don't think you can compare them against many, if any, other cases. They're unique in some respects.

 

[symyjym]

Is that definitely right? I thought Oldham were influenced by the death and rape threats they received?

I think he's got the worst PR team since Max Clifford did silly faces behind a reporter -

but I thought mob rule was mentioned on here before Ched's people said anything about it.

I watched the Oldham Chairman say that the reasons why they couldn't sign him was because of their sponsors threatening to pull out, and that they couldn't sustain the club financially without their backing (or words to that effect). He did not say anything about the threats being the problem in the interview I saw.
&
Agree
&
Possibly I don't recollect. Mob rule generally means running riot in the street, not angry tweeting. I guess we have to have an argument about what is mob rule?

 

[drew]

The mob rule argument was started by the Evans PR team last week. You have been arguing the toss for months, and now you want to get your teeth into a mob rule argument in an attempt to vindicate your opinion.

It's your opinion that it isn't mob rule however not everyone shares it. Dan Hodges of the Telegraph commented about it on the TV today along the lines of rules are made by those we elect to govern, not by people signing petitions. Also, you claim it was last week that the Evans PR team was started but surely it was when the petition to get Sheffield not to sign him back in November? Evans made comments (stupidly) about mob rule last week after his other statement came out.

 

[symyjym]

It's your opinion that it isn't mob rule however not everyone shares it. Dan Hodges of the Telegraph commented about it on the TV today along the lines of rules are made by those we elect to govern, not by people signing petitions. Also, you claim it was last week that the Evans PR team was started but surely it was when the petition to get Sheffield not to sign him back in November? Evans made comments (stupidly) about mob rule last week after his other statement came out.

What is Drew's definition of mob rule?

 

[drew]

Is that definitely right? I thought Oldham were influenced by the death and rape threats they received?
I think he's got the worst PR team since Max Clifford did silly faces behind a reporter - but I thought mob rule was mentioned on here before Ched's people said anything about it.


I didn't think he said that.

Actually I'm quite sure a few people here would say that about me too

I disagree Even though I do understand that the two cases are different, I still find the verdict surprising. And of course I appreciate I didn't see all of the evidence, or see how shifty the defendants looked in court, but as I posted earlier, it's not possible to get me so drunk that I wouldn't know what I was consenting to, which does effect my judgement of this case.

I have decided to do my own research. I'm going to be rude to my wife so that she's really annoyed with me, and then I'm going to get her so drunk she can't walk, and then I'm going to ask her for sex. It's important you understand that if she says yes, I will decline. If she says no, it will mean that she can't be too drunk to give consent.

How long is your research going to take and when will you report your findings?

 

[Triggaaar]

How long is your research going to take and when will you report your findings?

She's a lightweight, should only be a couple of hours to get paralytic. Add about 30 seconds to get her pissed off with me. Video should be up tonight.

 

[Guerrero]

Never understood the jury system.
12 uneducated people could have a profound affect on the life of an innocent person.

 

[drew]

What is Drew's definition of mob rule?

My understanding, for what it's worth, would be a large group of unelected people trying to dictate how others should run their lives, whether that be by marching in the street to intimidate them or by creating on-line campaigns, the 21st century method if you like. Bullying in other words. In some cases the view of the 'mob' may be correct but like it or not, we elect a government to make the laws of the land.

Please note mob rule is different to people exercising their right to demonstrate although many will probably say there is a fine line!

What is your definition then?

 

[Acker79]

According to wikipedia:

Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is the rule of government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.

Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority", and the rule of passion over reason, just as oligarchy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack of virtue. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "mobocracy", which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy​

To me, in common parlance, 'Mob Rule' tends to mean "I don't like the majority decision, so I'm going to try to undermine it by calling it mob rule, making it seem less legitimate and try to make myself the victim".

 

[symyjym]

My understanding, for what it's worth, would be a large group of unelected people trying to dictate how others should run their lives, whether that be by marching in the street to intimidate them or by creating on-line campaigns, the 21st century method if you like. Bullying in other words. In some cases the view of the 'mob' may be correct but like it or not, we elect a government to make the laws of the land.

Please note mob rule is different to people exercising their right to demonstrate although many will probably say there is a fine line!

What is your definition then?

 

[drew]

To me, in common parlance, 'Mob Rule' tends to mean "I don't like the majority decision, so I'm going to try to undermine it by calling it mob rule, making it seem less legitimate and try to make myself the victim".

Surely you mean 'we' as opposed to 'I'. Difficult to be a mob on your own! Of course you may be referring to Evans reference to Mob Rule but I think you will note we have already discounted the suggestion this was started by his team!!!