I think the link is that there are some here saying it won't change how they think about him even if he's found not guilty, and larus is saying IF he's acquitted, then he doesn't deserve as harsh criticism, just because he's a shit.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ched Evans
- Thread starter Brighton TID
- Start date
nwgull
Well-known member
You understand the conditional tense though don't you? There's a chance that this conviction may be overturned, and IF it is, I'd regard him as innocent and have no problem with him continuing his career as a pro footballer.
Then Larus should be clearer, "threads like these" encapsulate the whole thread, not the latest post.
Yes, I also understand when the conditional tense is in one line, it doesn't automatically follow through to all following paragraphs, especially when the following paragraph appears to be making a separate point.
I think most of us understood him perfectly.
I have only just visited this thread and it has obviously passed me by all this time.
Rather than look through 250 pages, I know this point has probably been discussed at length many times but how did they find McDonald not guilty but Evans guilty when they both did the same thing. Surely the crux of it was whether the sex was consensual or not so they were either both guilty or both not guilty.
I don't get the difference in the verdicts.
Rather than look through 250 pages, I know this point has probably been discussed at length many times but how did they find McDonald not guilty but Evans guilty when they both did the same thing. Surely the crux of it was whether the sex was consensual or not so they were either both guilty or both not guilty.
I don't get the difference in the verdicts.
Because they had to decide if the defendants had, or it was reasonable that they believed they had, consent.
The jury decided that either Macdonald had, or it was reasonable for him to have believed he had consent on the basis that she met him in town and agreed to go back to the hotel with him.
The jury decided Evans didn't have, or it was unreasonable for him to believe he had, her consent on the basis she didn't head to a hotel with him, he came along after MacDonald texted him, and he lied to a porter to get a key so he could get into MacDonald's room.
OK thank you
It's still ok to be confused by the verdict though One Love. The jury decided that the woman was in control of her decisions when choosing to have sex with one defendant but not with the other, although she can't remember.
The tawdry nature of the whole situation aside, I still don't get it.
The tawdry nature of the whole situation aside, I still don't get it.
No they didn't (probably).
They had two points to judge:
That she consented
or
That it was reasonable for the defendants to believe she had consented
Given this, they very well could have concluded that she did not consent to either defendant, because she was in no condition to do so.
They then decided that it was reasonable for Macdonald to assume the woman who got into a taxi and went to the hotel alone with him believed she was capable of consenting, but that it was unreasonable for Evans to assume consent considering he sneaked into the room without her expecting him when she agreed to go to the room she went into with another man.
Last edited:
Hang on, didn't it have to be proved without any reasonable doubt that he had had non-consensual sex with her to come to a guilty verdict?
I think you should put aside about a day and half and read the whole thread!!!
Acker79 I presume you have some legal, professional background with the way you choose to look at this. I don't.
I'm no apologist for men who commit violent and/or sexual crimes against women. I've known enough damaged people in my life to understand how such actions ruin lives and how most go unreported.
However, this case stinks and has done from the start and I very much doubt that Evans would have been convicted in the first place had he not been a "famous" football player.
I'm no apologist for men who commit violent and/or sexual crimes against women. I've known enough damaged people in my life to understand how such actions ruin lives and how most go unreported.
However, this case stinks and has done from the start and I very much doubt that Evans would have been convicted in the first place had he not been a "famous" football player.
Nope, I think he's got it.
I don't think anyone on this thread has argued the Ched is a good guy, or it could happen to anyone etc. Many have had no problem with the verdict and see him as a rapist, but some find it difficult to see how it was beyond reasonable doubt that she wasn't capable of giving consent and that he knew he didn't have consent.
Blues Rock DJ
New member
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
symyjym
Banned
In court, the players gave conflicting evidence as to the order of events.
McDonald claimed Evans had asked if he could get involved.
But Evans claimed it was McDonald who asked him if he wanted sex with the victim.
McDonald and Evans couldn't even agree on what happened. Either way there was no mention of the victim giving consent in their statements.
If you were the part of the jury how would you explain the contradiction? To me this is incriminating and cannot be ignored.
That bit of evidence alone doesn't strike me as a big deal. If you ask me and a mate who said what in the pub the night before we won't agree exactly on everything.
I don't think that's correct, but I don't have a link to it now.
EDIT - here you go:
When she was asked if the applicant could join in, the complainant clearly replied "Yes". McDonald stopped. The complainant asked the applicant to perform oral sex on her. He did so and then they had sexual intercourse.
From
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
Last edited:
Obviously we are both guessing but I suspect that famous people get away with a lot more than non famous people as they can afford better lawyers.
Leaving this case aside, I suspect that if you or I assaulted someone in a bar in Liverpool then we would be doing time. Famous footballer does it and it is self defence.
symyjym
Banned
You cannot say it is no big deal. They both said that the other initiated it.
In my view the "hypothetical mates in the pub not remembering what each other said" argument isn't a valid rebuttal because this would be a debate in its own right and is only relevant to people who need to be carried home at the end of the evening.
Edit: Just going to look at your last link.
symyjym
Banned
That's not evidence to what actually happened though.
How about this bit; After about half an hour McDonald left the hotel via the reception. He had a brief word with the night porter, telling him that he should look out for the girl in room 14 (the room in question) because she was sick.
I think we can agree that the girl was intoxicated and not in a fit state, and at least McDonald had some concern for her.
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.