Ched Evans

[Beach Seagull]

how much compensation would someone get from a league 1 footballer? Criminal payouts aren't normally very high and a quick google implies that the max payout is £44k and that is if severe physical and mental trauma occurs. 44k is not enough to buy 2 pink minis and a amazing holiday.

As you mention it could be euromillions/lottery and that makes more sense. How many tweets are there going to be like that every friday/saturday before the big draws. The tweets are ambiguous at best and as such can be attributed to many different things.

I don't think the amount of compensation a crime victim receives is related to the income of the perpetrator of the crime. I believe it is paid from the public purse rather than from the pocket of the guilty person. You quoted 44k compensation which isn't a bad amount to be in receipt of, particularly when you can't even remember if a crime was committed against you or not.

As I said the tweets could well be relating to the euro millions or success in landing a well paid job, but I imagine a defence barrister would certainly relish questioning the victim as to what they were referring to.

 

[Barry Stir]

The only way to appeal a conviction is to show it is unsafe, that is the test. The court of appeal then decide, if they have ruled the conviction to be unsafe, whether he is to stand trial. Any issue, as marginal as these tweets, would never lead to a ruling that he shouldn't be tried again.

He ran four grounds of appeal, all of which were rejected out of hand by the first Lord Justice of Appeal and then rejected again by the full court who heard oral submissions. It must be something fresh for the CCRC to be considering it.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

You would surely expect a traumatised rape victims tweets to be talking about 'rebuilding my life' rather than 'pink mini coopers' and 'winning big.'

Once again though - SHE is not the one on trial. She may very well be exactly as you wish to paint her - promiscuous and money grabbing, and not at all traumatised - but that isn't what this trial was about. Unless - and you wont like this, but its what I'm reading in your posts so I'm going to write it - you feel that promiscuous young girls deserve no legal protection from rape.

 

[nwgull]

I'd imagine a defence barrister would be interested in questioning why she deleted them and denied that they existed as well.

 

[Beach Seagull]

Once again though - SHE is not the one on trial. She may very well be exactly as you wish to paint her - promiscuous and money grabbing, and not at all traumatised - but that isn't what this trial was about. Unless - and you wont like this, but its what I'm reading in your posts so I'm going to write it - you feel that promiscuous young girls deserve no legal protection from rape.

When did I write that? Please show me.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'd imagine a defence barrister would be interested in questioning why she deleted them and denied that they existed as well.

If the defence barrister is trying to say she is on the make, then why wouldn't she have named the two of them in her original statement? That makes no sense. I think the jury has been convinced that (whatever her reputation might be) her disorientation, panic and fear of what had happened to her the night before were real and that her statement didn't read like someone who was making it up, or looking to frame somebody. McDonald and Evan's on the other hand couldn't even get their versions to match up...

 

[hans kraay fan club]

[/B]

When did I write that? Please show me.

I'm not going to go right through the thread to quote all your posts, and obviously you haven't explicitly stated that - but sadly, to me at least, that is exactly the impression you have given - that you feel it can't be considered rape if she was the type of girl to be up for it, a girl who got in a taxi with a bloke she'd just met, etc.

 

[Beach Seagull]

I'm not going to go right through the thread to quote all your posts, and obviously you haven't explicitly stated that - but sadly, to me at least, that is exactly the impression you have given - that you feel it can't be considered rape if she was the type of girl to be up for it, a girl who got in a taxi with a bloke she'd just met, etc.

You are entitled to your opinion about me. The reason I haven't 'explicitily stated that' is because I don't believe it. I believe everyone regardless of gender / age etc is entitled to be protected by the law. I have stated I believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case and that consensual sex took place between Evans and the 'victim.' Obviously I can't (or indeed nobody can) 100% conclusively prove this but based on her conduct and what Evans and McDonald said rightly or wrongly I believe there version of events rather than hers. I realise my stance has annoyed a number of posters on here but it is a debating forum when all said and done. Miscarriages of justice do happen and those who believe they are the victim of one have every right to protest their innocence and don't have to 'apologise' when they know they have done nothing wrong. FWIW I believed Barry George the guy who was convicted and subsequently cleared of killing Jill Dando was innocent and if I had been a member of NSC back then I would've come and here and defended him, same principle with Ched Evans (acknowledge different crimes though).

I guess this debate coud run and run so I'm going to sign off now and watch with interest whether the CCRC believes there is sufficient likelihood of the conviction been quashed by the Court of Appeal to refer it to them.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

You are entitled to your opinion about me. The reason I haven't 'explicitily stated that' is because I don't believe it. I believe everyone regardless of gender / age etc is entitled to be protected by the law. I have stated I believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case and that consensual sex took place between Evans and the 'victim.' Obviously I can't (or indeed nobody can) 100% conclusively prove this but based on her conduct and what Evans and McDonald said rightly or wrongly I believe there version of events rather than hers. I realise my stance has annoyed a number of posters on here but it is a debating forum when all said and done. Miscarriages of justice do happen and those who believe they are the victim of one have every right to protest their innocence and don't have to 'apologise' when they know they have done nothing wrong. FWIW I believed Barry George the guy who was convicted and subsequently cleared of killing Jill Dando was innocent and if I had been a member of NSC back then I would've come and here and defended him, same principle with Ched Evans (acknowledge different crimes though).

I guess this debate coud run and run so I'm going to sign off now and watch with interest whether the CCRC believes there is sufficient likelihood of the conviction been quashed by the Court of Appeal to refer it to them.

Fair enough.

 

[Creaky]

If the defence barrister is trying to say she is on the make, then why wouldn't she have named the two of them in her original statement? That makes no sense. I think the jury has been convinced that (whatever her reputation might be) her disorientation, panic and fear of what had happened to her the night before were real and that her statement didn't read like someone who was making it up, or looking to frame somebody. McDonald and Evan's on the other hand couldn't even get their versions to match up...

Didn't her statement simply state that she couldn't remember anything of what happened the previous night? -

It was this that the defence argued was a lie. By saying she didn't remember anything of what happened, truthfully or not, she was unable to be cross examined over any of the alleged offences.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

I don't think the amount of compensation a crime victim receives is related to the income of the perpetrator of the crime. I believe it is paid from the public purse rather than from the pocket of the guilty person. You quoted 44k compensation which isn't a bad amount to be in receipt of, particularly when you can't even remember if a crime was committed against you or not.

As I said the tweets could well be relating to the euro millions or success in landing a well paid job, but I imagine a defence barrister would certainly relish questioning the victim as to what they were referring to.

yes but if you'd read all i said 44k is only if severe physical and mental trauma occurred so basically in the worst cases, a more normal amount appears to be circa 10k which isn't winning big and car buying amount therefore those tweets are more likely to be unrelated or perhaps if they are related she is trying to make a joke out of it to make herself feel better. People handle these things differently and not everyone breaks down and cries, some people ignore it and try and pretend it didn't happen, and others try and make light of the situation. Without knowing her you cannot make a judgement on how a person would react.

 

[drew]

Well this is the whole crux of the issue, isn't it? I don't think Ched Evans is lying when he says he is innocent, I believe that he genuinely thinks he is. That doesn't mean that he's right, though. He took advantage, of a girl, in no state to make decisions (in such a state that she lost her bag and didn't notice until the morning) to satisfy his own selfish urges. He doesn't think that constitutes rape though - so in his mind he's innocent. 12 of his peers have heard all the evidence and disagree.

He thinks he is innocent because he says she agreed to have sex.

....but he didn't have sex with a 'consenting' stranger! The jury, who heard all of the evidence, acquitted the man with whom she returned to the hotel but convicted Evans after he turned up part way through what was going on. The difference between the two verdicts is perfectly understandable. This isn't a moral indiscretion this is rape.

Neither you nor the jury were there so they don't know for certain whether or not it was consensual. Also, did the jury hear all the evidence or did they only hear what was admissible in Court? At the end of the day, they have formed an opinion. You still don't answer the question as to how she is capable of agreeing to sex with MacDonald and not with Evans. And don't just repeat the fact she went back to the hotel in a cab and therefore MacDonald could consider that as consent because, if as she claims the has no memory, then how do you know that she agreed to go to a hotel rather than just be taken home!

Precisely. Evans and his entire supporters group have failed to grasp that the issue is whether his belief was reasonable. In circumstances where the victim was too intoxicated to have the capacity to make a decision, the jury rejected his version. The considerations for his co-defendant were markedly different and to conflate the issues in the respective cases demonstrates why they will never understand how one man can be acquitted and one convicted. He has exhausted two avenues of appeal only the review by the CCRC left.....

Was the victim too intoxicated then? Have you seen the video of her entering the hotel and if so, does that look like someone who is too intoxicated?

OMG! Listen I'm 33, and I am very much a 21st century man - nah I'm sorry but the age of chivalry is far from dead at Kosh towers. Obviously I'm out of my depth here, by this I mean the water's too shallow, I'd prefer to swim away, alas I've got to wade through this kind of dirge to find an escape.

The age of chilvary isn't dead but just as in years gone by, not everyone lives to the same standards.

....she did not get in a cab with Evans. He responded to a text from McDonald saying 'I've got a bird' and went to the hotel with two others who filmed Evans' first involvement from a viewpoint outside the bedroom window. I don't think her decision to go back in a taxi with one man, entitles another man to think he has a transferred consent.

Where has it been said that Evans believed the consent had 'transferred' to him? You're very quick to criticize the ched evans website but seem to quick yourself to put your own spin on comments.

Its not quite as straightforward as her being promiscous though is it. How common is it for people to turn up where their mates are having sex with a girl and invite themselves in? He admitted he persuaded the porter to give him access to the room, thats a bit dubious. She went to the hotel with Mcdonald so there's inferred consent however she may have felt pressured/vunerable when another guy turns up in the hotel room with no warning at 4am?

If, in a similar case, you had evidence that the complainant regularly got drunk every weekend and ended up at hotels having sex with strangers, sometimes in a threesome, would that affect your view of her evidence?

The victim is still somebody's kid.

Not sure how that adds to the debate? Everyone is someone's kid whether they be a victim, an alleged victim, a convicted felon or a wrongly convicted felon!

Read on....

Would help if you quoted the post you keep referring to!!!!!

Please quit with quoting from the convicted rapist's propaganda site. How are you expecting people to take your side of this debate seriously when your only supporting source is the accused and his family??

Sorry, but what is your problem with the website? Of course it is biased because it is seeking to overturn the conviction but if the information it was posting was factually incorrect then wouldn't that leave them open to prosecution? You might not like it because you seem to have an entrenched view of the whole case and I wonder whether you have even looked at some of the information there?

Very interesting that the IPC have made a statement to the effect that Oscar Pistorius will not be allowed to compete for 5 years regardless of whether he is released early or not.

The FA should be doing the same or very similar in my opinion with the Evans case.

Are you suggesting the FA should arbitrarily rewrite their rules for this case? They didn't for Marlon King, Lee Hughes etc.

1. They were 'aired' five months BEFORE the trial.

2. They would have made no difference at all. SHE was not the one on trial. Even if the court were to accept your GUESS that it is compensation money she is referring to in those disputed tweets, its still a totally distinct issue from the case itself. Remember that she did not concoct this whole story in an attempted money grab - as you are trying to ininsuate. The CPS brought this case, based on information the accused provided to the police under interview. She did not make up and report a rape.

She may not have gone to the Police on the basis of seeking compensation but once she was aware of the statements from Evans and McDonald then she might have seen teh pound signs flashing. Also, the CPS would not have been able to pursue the case without her cooperation.

Isn't it clear?

The fact that she did not make the accusations is massively relevant, to how important (or otherwise) these disputed tweets are. Because she did not, all you could say about the tweets is to allege that she was expecting to profit from a subsequent payout (and why should she not enjoy some compensation if she has been wronged?) - not that any potential payout was actually the motive for bringing the case in the first place - which is pretty much the only way they could be used to discredit her account.

See my post above.

The only way to appeal a conviction is to show it is unsafe, that is the test. The court of appeal then decide, if they have ruled the conviction to be unsafe, whether he is to stand trial. Any issue, as marginal as these tweets, would never lead to a ruling that he shouldn't be tried again.

He ran four grounds of appeal, all of which were rejected out of hand by the first Lord Justice of Appeal and then rejected again by the full court who heard oral submissions. It must be something fresh for the CCRC to be considering it.

Once again though - SHE is not the one on trial. She may very well be exactly as you wish to paint her - promiscuous and money grabbing, and not at all traumatised - but that isn't what this trial was about. Unless - and you wont like this, but its what I'm reading in your posts so I'm going to write it - you feel that promiscuous young girls deserve no legal protection from rape.

You do put your own spin on things? No one has said anything of the sort. This case is purely about whether or not she had consensual sex with Evans. The point with rape i that in the vast majority of cases it is one word against another with no witnesses. The credibility of each party would have a major bearing on how a jury would form an opinion on who is right.

I'm not going to go right through the thread to quote all your posts, and obviously you haven't explicitly stated that - but sadly, to me at least, that is exactly the impression you have given - that you feel it can't be considered rape if she was the type of girl to be up for it, a girl who got in a taxi with a bloke she'd just met, etc.

Your own spin on things again. Seems you see it as a black and white case with no grey area. In British Law, you can only be convicted of a criminal prosecution if the evidence convinces the jury beyond all reasonable doubt!

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

If, in a similar case, you had evidence that the complainant regularly got drunk every weekend and ended up at hotels having sex with strangers, sometimes in a threesome, would that affect your view of her evidence?

Just because someone does something before doesn't mean they can't decide not to again. If a husband and wife have sex everyday for a year and then one particular day the wife turns round and says no i don't want to tonight but the husband carries on, does that mean its ok? Is that any different from your argument?

 

[nwgull]

Just because someone does something before doesn't mean they can't decide not to again. If a husband and wife have sex everyday for a year and then one particular day the wife turns round and says no i don't want to tonight but the husband carries on, does that mean its ok? Is that any different from your argument?

It would certainly add a large degree of reasonable doubt.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

In British Law, you can only be convicted of a criminal prosecution if the evidence convinces the jury beyond all reasonable doubt!

Indeed. And a jury of 12 randomly selected men and women, UNANIMOUSLY decided that it DID.

 

[Barry Stir]

Drew, a previous post did set out the law on consent. You ask how can she be fit to consent to one but not the other but that is plainly not the test. It maybe, as is so often the case with rape allegations, that the jury decided that she consented to neither but that McDonald's belief in her consent was reasonable and Evans' belief was not.

That is a perfectly plausible way in which the jury arrived at different verdicts. I'm not putting a spin on it, I'm suggesting ways in which the jury arrived at the verdicts they did. Verdicts that have been scrutinised by four lord justices of appeal. The convictions are safe unless and until further evidence undermines that safety.

Also, the test 'beyond reasonable doubt' has been replaced by 'sure'.

 

[Husty]

So @Husty you disagree with the sentiment of one of my sane and lucid messages herein to the extent you thumb me down hmmmmmm?!? if You want to make a similarly well thought out and considered reply then do it, don't hide behind childlike thumbs especially in a debate of this nature. Utterly pathetic in my eyes, how can anyone disagree with to that extent what I was saying there?!? that you thumb it down and offer no riposte?!? Behave like an adult; the thumbs down button isn't really relevant when a poster is presenting a set of reasonable comments - yet if your judgement is clouded by the fact you deem me to be an a r s e, I would imagine your only real retort is to press the button and move on. I'd be embarrassed if I were you - hence I've made a point of highlighting it. Note other posters arguing the counterpoint, have done it in an adult and responsible way, not resorting to the 'thumbs down' which should be reserved for the inane or ridiculous.

Kosh

Jesus Christ man it's the internet, I thought you were talking bollocks so I clicked a

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

It would certainly add a large degree of reasonable doubt.

So a wife can't refuse sex with her husband because they've done it many times before so consent is not required? What about a prostitute, could they not be raped as it's their job?

 

[drew]

Drew, a previous post did set out the law on consent. You ask how can she be fit to consent to one but not the other but that is plainly not the test. It maybe, as is so often the case with rape allegations, that the jury decided that she consented to neither but that McDonald's belief in her consent was reasonable and Evans' belief was not.

That is a perfectly plausible way in which the jury arrived at different verdicts. I'm not putting a spin on it, I'm suggesting ways in which the jury arrived at the verdicts they did. Verdicts that have been scrutinised by four lord justices of appeal. The convictions are safe unless and until further evidence undermines that safety.

Also, the test 'beyond reasonable doubt' has been replaced by 'sure'.

I'm aware that the law was set out and that the basis was whether the two defendants could reasonably have presumed that consent had been given. In the case of McDonald, the consent is presumed because she got in a cab to go to the hotel with him however, the point I'm making is that if this women was as paralytic as she claims then how did she know she was even going to a hotel and therefore how can they take that as consent.

With regard to your comment regarding reasonable doubt, when did that change? Are you just confusing how a judge describes the meaning to a jury?

 

[drew]

So a wife can't refuse sex with her husband because they've done it many times before so consent is not required? What about a prostitute, could they not be raped as it's their job?

He didn't say that and I think you probably know that!!!