Ched Evans

[Triggaaar]

You cannot say it is no big deal.

I can. I disagree with you, that's all.

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.

Eh? I don't need carrying home at the end of an evening, but people's memory of exact events and words is not perfect, that's all. They have a different version of who asked if he could join in, that doesn't mean it's made up. The girl lied about taking drugs, but I'm not suggesting that means he's innocent.

That's not evidence to what actually happened though.

Well firstly, I wasn't suggesting it was (even though it is, I'll come to that) - you said:
"McDonald and Evans couldn't even agree on what happened. Either way there was no mention of the victim giving consent in their statements."
- that's incorrect. There was mention of the victim giving consent.
Secondly, of course it is evidence to what actually happened - it's not proof, it's not irrefutable, it's testimony, which is evidence (but that wasn't my point in the first place, my point is that there was mention of her giving consent).

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.

She was drunk, we know that.

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.

Yes, that's what the judge had to say based on the verdict given by the jury. But I've not seen proof beyond reasonable doubt that it's correct. I've been sick from alcohol many times, but I'm still able to decide who I want to have sex with. I'm not saying that's the case for the girl, maybe she wasn't with it enough to consent, but I don't think it's beyond reasonable doubt that she wasn't.

 

[Sheebo]

The complainant stated that she had no memory of any sexual activity with either of the two men.

So, am I correct in saying even the complainant has no idea if they were guilty or not? Seems an odd case this one every time I read it..!

 

[symyjym]

I can. I disagree with you, that's all.

Eh? I don't need carrying home at the end of an evening, but people's memory of exact events and words is not perfect, that's all. They have a different version of who asked if he could join in, that doesn't mean it's made up. The girl lied about taking drugs, but I'm not suggesting that means he's innocent.

Well firstly, I wasn't suggesting it was (even though it is, I'll come to that) - you said:
"McDonald and Evans couldn't even agree on what happened. Either way there was no mention of the victim giving consent in their statements."
- that's incorrect. There was mention of the victim giving consent.
Secondly, of course it is evidence to what actually happened - it's not proof, it's not irrefutable, it's testimony, which is evidence (but that wasn't my point in the first place, my point is that there was mention of her giving consent).


She was drunk, we know that.

Yes, that's what the judge had to say based on the verdict given by the jury. But I've not seen proof beyond reasonable doubt that it's correct. I've been sick from alcohol many times, but I'm still able to decide who I want to have sex with. I'm not saying that's the case for the girl, maybe she wasn't with it enough to consent, but I don't think it's beyond reasonable doubt that she wasn't.

Well this is for the appeal to decide and it will be interesting what this "new evidence" is.

I think we can agree that he was behaving like a sexual predator looking for instant gratification that morning?

 

[drew]

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.

You seem to want to pick and chose the evidence. The fact that she is alleged to have consented, regardless of her intoxication is, I would think, pretty fundamental to the case. You say she wasn't in a fit state but you don't know the level of her intoxication.

 

[Birdie Boy]

The complainant stated that she had no memory of any sexual activity with either of the two men.

So, am I correct in saying even the complainant has no idea if they were guilty or not? Seems an odd case this one every time I read it..!

Correct.

 

[Sheebo]

You seem to want to pick and chose the evidence. The fact that she is alleged to have consented, regardless of her intoxication is, I would think, pretty fundamental to the case. You say she wasn't in a fit state but you don't know the level of her intoxication.

She surely doesn't know herself if she consented or not? Memory loss doesn't mean you can't make decisions at that time surely!? The few times I've had memory loss from booze, I know I was making decisions for myself as I was choosing to walk / get undressed etc etc - yes I know consenting to sex isn't a nothing decision like the 2 i've just listed but surely as I said above, the complainant herself wouldn't know if they were guilty or not?!

 

[drew]

Well this is for the appeal to decide and it will be interesting what this "new evidence" is.

I think we can agree that he was behaving like a sexual predator looking for instant gratification that morning?

So, in your mind you've decided he was a sexual predator out looking for a victim. Has there been any suggestion of any evidence that he went out that night with the sole purpose of having sex with a stranger?

 

[Birdie Boy]

She was drunk, we know that.

Yes, that's what the judge had to say based on the verdict given by the jury. But I've not seen proof beyond reasonable doubt that it's correct. I've been sick from alcohol many times, but I'm still able to decide who I want to have sex with. I'm not saying that's the case for the girl, maybe she wasn't with it enough to consent, but I don't think it's beyond reasonable doubt that she wasn't.[/QUOTE]

I think there is reasonable doubt considering the cctv evidence. Certainly didn't look like she was in no fit state to give consent, ie able to walk in heals, not staggering or falling over. Sad case this, on all sides!

 

[nwgull]

The complainant stated that she had no memory of any sexual activity with either of the two men.

So, am I correct in saying even the complainant has no idea if they were guilty or not? Seems an odd case this one every time I read it..!

Correct. The woman made no complaint or allegations; she just woke up with no memory, having pissed the hotel bed, and decided to report it to the police. Quite why she felt she had to report something like that to the police is unclear.

The police prosecuted the men based on the fact that they had admitted having had sex with her during their initial questioning.

 

[Sheebo]

Correct. The woman made no complaint or allegations; she just woke up with no memory, having pissed the hotel bed, and decided to report it to the police. Quite why she felt she had to report something like that to the police is unclear.

The police prosecuted the men based on the fact that they had admitted having had sex with her during their initial questioning.

I don't want to make assumptions, especially not on here, so am going to refrain from commenting anymore on this other than to say it seems a strange case. The appeal and outcome will be of interest.

 

[drew]

She surely doesn't know herself if she consented or not? Memory loss doesn't mean you can't make decisions at that time surely!? The few times I've had memory loss from booze, I know I was making decisions for myself as I was choosing to walk / get undressed etc etc - yes I know consenting to sex isn't a nothing decision like the 2 i've just listed but surely as I said above, the complainant herself wouldn't know if they were guilty or not?!

You're right, just because you are drunk doesn't mean you can't make decisions and that, I believe, is accepted in law.

 

[symyjym]

You seem to want to pick and chose the evidence. The fact that she is alleged to have consented, regardless of her intoxication is, I would think, pretty fundamental to the case. You say she wasn't in a fit state but you don't know the level of her intoxication.

As I said; 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.

It is stated that she had two glasses of wine four double vodkas with lemonade and a shot of sambuca. I would suggest that is quite a lot for a 19 year old girl.

It's the job of the court to settle this so it is a waste of time even discussing it.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You seem to want to pick and chose the evidence. The fact that she is alleged to have consented, regardless of her intoxication is, I would think, pretty fundamental to the case. You say she wasn't in a fit state but you don't know the level of her intoxication.

When she was tested the following day for alcohol, there was none in her system, but there were traces of cocaine and cannabis. The victim alleged that she was given a spiked drink.
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

 

[Triggaaar]

Well this is for the appeal to decide and it will be interesting what this "new evidence" is.

Yeah I'm skeptical that the new evidence amounts to much.

I think we can agree that he was behaving like a sexual predator looking for instant gratification that morning?

I've had to look up 'sexual predator'. I'm not sure he is, according to the definition I've read. My feeling (I'm not suggesting it's more than a feeling) is that Ched thought his mate had a girl who seemed up for sex, and he thought he'd join in for some casual sex. If I had to guess, I'd guess that they'd done similar before, but without it being a problem.

 

[Triggaaar]

Memory loss doesn't mean you can't make decisions at that time surely!?

I think an expert in the case confirmed that. They also explained that although we may make decisions when drunk that we wouldn't normally make, that doesn't mean they weren't our decisions or that they can't amount to consent.

 

[symyjym]

Has there been any suggestion of any evidence that he went out that night with the sole purpose of having sex with a stranger?

Of course he booked the hotel room for a game of scrabble. The suggestions that he wanted sex that evening are self evident and I am surprised that even you would dispute this.

 

[Mellotron]

The fact this thread has gone to over 2,500 posts shows that clearly, there is room for SOME (i.e. at least 1%) reasonable doubt. I'm not saying he didn't rape her. But to suggest there is ZERO (0.00000000%) reasonable doubt - considering the massive complexity of the case - is utterly ludicrous.

 

[Triggaaar]

So, in your mind you've decided he was a sexual predator out looking for a victim. Has there been any suggestion of any evidence that he went out that night with the sole purpose of having sex with a stranger?

Of course he booked the hotel room for a game of scrabble. The suggestions that he wanted sex that evening are self evident and I am surprised that even you would dispute this.

I thought he booked the room for his mate to stay at? And didn't the CCTV show that the girl came up to his mate when he was getting a taxi, rather than his mate trying to find a girl? And there's a big difference between a guy that would like to have sex (that covers most men) and one that's looking for a victim (drew's words).

 

[symyjym]

Yeah I'm skeptical that the new evidence amounts to much.

I've had to look up 'sexual predator'. I'm not sure he is, according to the definition I've read. My feeling (I'm not suggesting it's more than a feeling) is that Ched thought his mate had a girl who seemed up for sex, and he thought he'd join in for some casual sex. If I had to guess, I'd guess that they'd done similar before, but without it being a problem.

If they had done it before they were already treading a fine line.

Personally I wouldn't have sex let alone go down on a bird after she has just had sex with my friend, even if she was begging me. It just goes to show that some don't have any limits.

It is really for the courts to decide, but laws are always being tested and are fluid. What was used to be a massive grey area with sexual offences has got tighter over time, and that has to be good.

 

[Baldseagull]

Correct. The woman made no complaint or allegations; she just woke up with no memory, having pissed the hotel bed, and decided to report it to the police. Quite why she felt she had to report something like that to the police is unclear.

The police prosecuted the men based on the fact that they had admitted having had sex with her during their initial questioning.

She called the police because her bag was missing, she had left it in the taxi.