Ched Evans

[Uncle C]

Ask yourself this. If you were out with your mates and you came across a clearly pissed young woman falling down drunk in a kebab shop what would you do?

A. Put her in a taxi and make she got home safely
B. see her as an opportunity for group sex in a premier lodge whilst your mates filmed you through the window.

If you answered A then you are normal and decent. If you answered B you are Ched Evans.

C. Take her money and buy a Kebab.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Firstly: No,at the moment he has been found guilty by 12 of his peers, so he is not innocent in the eyes of the law and at this present time has to sign the sex offenders register, like it or not the jury has decided.

Secondly: you may want to brush over of some of the sordid events, but as you ask. Perhaps you think it's alright for someone one in a relationship to cheat on his girlfriend, yes or no has he nothing there to apologise for? Then he responded to a text from a friend offering sex with a girl on a plate and he was around there like a shot, again is that the right message to send out to young people. Then he finds the girl in a drunken state and out of it, let's face she could not remember much. Is it ok to take advantage of that situation and have sex with her. At best she was used like a piece of meat and at worst she was raped, I bet his parents are proud of him. Take aside the rape, as I have said that's for his conscience, but is that really a way to treat a women sharing her with a mate. If he could not give his girlfriend a second thought as he was having sex, do you think he put any thought into the victim. I do not think anyone on here really thinks,even if he eventually gets of the rape charge that on that night he didn't act in a despicable way with no regard to a young girl,
You and he just do not seem to get public opinion, he is being steered in the wrong direction on this.

Just to add to your point about his profession, yes I do think they need to act on his guilty verdict, he has to sign the sex offenders register which would preclude him from working with children and vulnerable people. I am sure in most football clubs you have youngsters under the age of 18 in Development squads etc, So yes clubs and the FA can take a moral stance on this, nothing in law that says a clubs has to give him a job.

Well put. At best he's a lying, cheating, advantage taking, abusing scumbag, at worst a rapist.

 

[nwgull]

Ask yourself this. If you were out with your mates and you came across a clearly pissed young woman falling down drunk in a kebab shop what would you do?

A. Put her in a taxi and make she got home safely
B. see her as an opportunity for group sex in a premier lodge whilst your mates filmed you through the window.

If you answered A then you are normal and decent. If you answered B you are Ched Evans.

I wouldn't do B, but I wouldn't do A either. Can we have an option C?

 

[drew]

Firstly: No,at the moment he has been found guilty by 12 of his peers, so he is not innocent in the eyes of the law and at this present time has to sign the sex offenders register, like it or not the jury has decided.

Secondly: you may want to brush over of some of the sordid events, but as you ask. Perhaps you think it's alright for someone one in a relationship to cheat on his girlfriend, yes or no has he nothing there to apologise for? Then he responded to a text from a friend offering sex with a girl on a plate and he was around there like a shot, again is that the right message to send out to young people. Then he finds the girl in a drunken state and out of it, let's face she could not remember much. Is it ok to take advantage of that situation and have sex with her. At best she was used like a piece of meat and at worst she was raped, I bet his parents are proud of him. Take aside the rape, as I have said that's for his conscience, but is that really a way to treat a women sharing her with a mate. If he could not give his girlfriend a second thought as he was having sex, do you think he put any thought into the victim. I do not think anyone on here really thinks,even if he eventually gets of the rape charge that on that night he didn't act in a despicable way with no regard to a young girl,
You and he just do not seem to get public opinion, he is being steered in the wrong direction on this.

Just to add to your point about his profession, yes I do think they need to act on his guilty verdict, he has to sign the sex offenders register which would preclude him from working with children and vulnerable people. I am sure in most football clubs you have youngsters under the age of 18 in Development squads etc, So yes clubs and the FA can take a moral stance on this, nothing in law that says a clubs has to give him a job.

We all know that, in the eyes of the law he is a convicted rapist but equally, the legal process has not yet run it's full course. You make an awful lot of assumptions in the second paragraph. Yes, he should apologise for his infidelity but not to you or me. He should apologise to his girlfriend and I thought he had in his video statement. He may well have already done so before that in private. As for the text, all it said was 'I'm with a girl' (as described on the Ched Evans site) or 'got a bird' (as described in the https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans ) both suggesting it was words to that effect. How do you read into that invitation to join them for sex?

 

[drew]

This is an issue that has been covered many times in this thread, the only difference is that the post above yours that copied some of a summary of the case glosses over a key aspect: it wasn't simply whether she consented, or her intent or ability to consent, it was also Mcdonald's and Evans's belief about whether or not she consented.

This paragraph

The complainant, who was 19 years old, worked as a waitress in a restaurant attached to a hotel. The applicant and McDonald were close friends. There was no doubt that McDonald had sexual intercourse with the girl on the night of 29/30 May 2011. Equally, there was no doubt that the applicant also had sexual intercourse with her. The issues for the jury were: whether she may have consented, although she had consumed a large quantity of alcohol; and if she did not consent, whether the applicant (and McDonald in his case) may reasonably have believed that she had consented to the sexual activity which took place between her and McDonald and between her and the applicant. The complainant stated that she had no memory of any sexual activity with either of the two men.​

This aspect of it is glossed over further down

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."

He went on to direct the jury about the requirement relating to the individual defendant's belief about whether or not the complainant was consenting. He gave clear directions to the jury about how they should approach that issue in the context of the alcohol which had been consumed by the complainant.​

While the jury may have felt she was in no condition to consent, no condition to agree to go to the hotel with McDonald alone, they appear to have come to the conclusion that McDonald believed he had consent because she went along with him, that her getting into a taxi and going to a hotel alone with him was a circumstance that either made it reasonable for McDonald to assume consent, or that it was such a circumstance that they couldn't say beyond reasonable doubt that he was aware he didn't have it.

Evans sneaked into hotel room and had sex with a drunk woman who apparently went there without knowing Evans would be there. His friends watched and filmed it through a window until the curtains were closed.

But should Clayton assume consent just because she got in the taxi back to the hotel. If she was as drunk as she claimed then he should have been able to acknowledge she was not capable of giving consent. Secondly, just because someone gets into a taxi to go back to a hotel is it reasonable to presume from that they are a willing sex partner. Is that any different to someone inviting another in for coffee after a date and presuming that is consent. To me, there is too much doubt for it to be a safe conviction.

 

[drew]

I misread it too when looking back at the case notes because I thought that was where I had seen it. But it was mentioned on the thread here and maybe in earlier posts, not in the document.

I am aware it was mentioned in Scunner's post which is what prompted my post. I don't recall it coming up before unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[Steve.S]

We all know that, in the eyes of the law he is a convicted rapist but equally, the legal process has not yet run it's full course. You make an awful lot of assumptions in the second paragraph. Yes, he should apologise for his infidelity but not to you or me. He should apologise to his girlfriend and I thought he had in his video statement. He may well have already done so before that in private. As for the text, all it said was 'I'm with a girl' (as described on the Ched Evans site) or 'got a bird' (as described in the https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans ) both suggesting it was words to that effect. How do you read into that invitation to join them for sex?

You are really sad, it's not run its legal course yet. It has, he has been found guilty by a jury, then it's been looked at and still not given grounds to appeal. Houdini would have trouble getting out of this one.
As for the text, you are right how do you read it as an invitation for sex. Well you don't, unless you are Chad Evans I suppose. She was incapable of giving consent and was therefore raped, have you any experience in law? He will always be guilty in people's eyes, because most people can see his behaviour towards a woman was totally unacceptable. In court the woman could not remember anything about having sex with two men. Any self respecting human would be appalled by that statement,because most adults would know that she would have to be almost unconscious to not remember. Spin it anyway you want, but most people have formed an opinion which will be hard to change.
He could be found not guilty, but he had sex with someone who has no reconciliation of it.

 

[Acker79]

But should Clayton assume consent just because she got in the taxi back to the hotel. If she was as drunk as she claimed then he should have been able to acknowledge she was not capable of giving consent. Secondly, just because someone gets into a taxi to go back to a hotel is it reasonable to presume from that they are a willing sex partner. Is that any different to someone inviting another in for coffee after a date and presuming that is consent. To me, there is too much doubt for it to be a safe conviction.

I don't know. On the one hand my gut instinct is never assume consent.

On the other hand, what else do people go back to hotel rooms/homes with strangers late at night for? Men and women up and down the country regularly go out for drinks and to the club go out on the pull, you meet someone in that circumstance and they go back to a hotel room/home, it's not typical that it is for a deep discussion on the meaning of life or the politics of the middle east. It is usually for sex

Maybe he should have been able to tell she was too drunk, but not everyone acts the same way when they are drunk, and the jury would have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew she was unable to consent, was he in condition to look beyond the circumstances and analyse her ability to consent. They may believe he, too, took advantage of a drunk woman, but there was reasonable doubt due to the circumstances. Evans's circumstances did not provide the jury that same reasonable doubt.

To your second point, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Either the woman who has been on a date is not as drunk as someone who has been out drinking all night and would be more able to make clear her lack of consent, in which case he has no reasonable belief of consent just because she invited him in for coffee, or if she is so drunk that the circumstances (that cliche of being invited in for "coffee") would probably provide reasonable doubt for that hypothetical jury.

 

[drew]

You are really sad, it's not run its legal course yet. It has, he has been found guilty by a jury, then it's been looked at and still not given grounds to appeal. Houdini would have trouble getting out of this one.
As for the text, you are right how do you read it as an invitation for sex. Well you don't, unless you a8re Chad Evans I suppose. She was incapable of giving consent and was therefore raped, have you any experience in law? He will always be guilty in people's eyes, because most people can see his behaviour towards a woman was totally unacceptable. In court the woman could not remember anything about having sex with two men. Any self respecting human would be appalled by that statement,because most adults would know that she would have to be almost unconscious to not remember. Spin it anyway you want, but most people have formed an opinion which will be hard to change.
He could be found not guilty, but he had sex with someone who has no reconciliation of it.

Ok, if I'm sad then you must be stupid. What is the CCRC if it not part of the legal process?

Out of interest then what legal profession do you belong to or are you going to insist that only barrister's and judges are allowed to post on this thread!

As for the text, first you claim it was an invite from McDonald offering sex and now you claim it was Evans misinterpreting it. Try and be consistent.

 

[Steve.S]

Ok, if I'm sad then you must be stupid. What is the CCRC if it not part of the legal process?

Out of interest then what legal profession do you belong to or are you going to insist that only barrister's and judges are allowed to post on this thread!

As for the text, first you claim it was an invite from McDonald offering sex and now you claim it was Evans misinterpreting it. Try and be consistent.

Let's deal with the first point. Has he been found guilty?
The answer is yes, so the legal process is over. The verdict is not put on hold pending an appeal, he is guilty.
Let's deal with your second point, I ask not because you have to be part of the profession to post on here. I ask because he was found guilty, so ok miscarriages happen, so they decided to appeal the decision, which was looked at by a judge, who decided that the verdict was good, then another judge looked at it and said the same. Are we to assume that all the judges are incompetent, as some seem to be suggesting that he has grounds to appeal, well Two judges didn't, so yes I will question what experience you have, as you seem to think you know it all.

Let's take your last point, that was a joke about the text and Evans interpreting as an invite to have sex, because obviously he went to the hotel and didn't have sex with the girl did he. As you say the text only invited him around, no mention of sex. But sex did happen did it not.

 

[drew]

Let's deal with the first point. Has he been found guilty?
The answer is yes, so the legal process is over. The verdict is not put on hold pending an appeal, he is guilty.
Let's deal with your second point, I ask not because you have to be part of the profession to post on here. I ask because he was found guilty, so ok miscarriages happen, so they decided to appeal the decision, which was looked at by a judge, who decided that the verdict was good, then another judge looked at it and said the same. Are we to assume that all the judges are incompetent, as some seem to be suggesting that he has grounds to appeal, well Two judges didn't, so yes I will questions what experience you have, as you seem to think you know it all.

Let's take your last point, that was a joke about the text and Evans interpreting as an invite to have sex, because obviously he went to the hotel and didn't have sex with the girl did he. As you say the text only invited him around, no mention of sex. But sex did happen did it not.

Stupid. I'll ask again, what is the CCRC if it is not part of the legal process?

Also, where did I say that my understanding was that the text was an invite to go to the hotel.

 

[Steve.S]

Stupid. I'll ask again, what is the CCRC if it is not part of the legal process?

Also, where did I say that my understanding was that the text was an invite to go to the hotel.

The short answer is no, it's a independent body, it's not part of the process. You are found guilty in a court of law and sentenced.
Guilty verdicts do not always mean someone is guilty, in the same sense not guilty verdicts do not always mean you are innocent. The public have judged Chad, not because he might of or not raped a girl, because nobody was there. But because he is the type of bloke to go to a hotel and with a mate have sex with the same girl who was so drunk that she could not remember having sex with two man. Most people can see what a vulnerable position this young girl was put in by two men and however he wants to spin it, people will not believe him, he used her and abused her and that's what a jury and two judges thought and now public opinion as well.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

He raped her. He is a convicted rapist. He was tried and found guilty.

What part of this do some people not understand?

 

[drew]

The short answer is no, it's a independent body, it's not part of the process. You are found guilty in a court of law and sentenced.
Guilty verdicts do not always mean someone is guilty, in the same sense not guilty verdicts do not always mean you are innocent. The public have judged Chad, not because he might of or not raped a girl, because nobody was there. But because he is the type of bloke to go to a hotel and with a mate have sex with the same girl who was so drunk that she could not remember having sex with two man. Most people can see what a vulnerable position this young girl was put in by two men and however he wants to spin it, people will not believe him, he used her and abused her and that's what a jury and two judges thought and now public opinion as well.

This gets better. Now you can be found guilty not because you did something but because you are the type to have done it.

 

[Steve.S]

This gets better. Now you can be found guilty not because you did something but because you are the type to have done it.

People like you really worry me, maybe it's because does not matter what people say, you will change it to suit your own agenda.

So let's deal with it, he was found guilty on evidence and not by my opinion or anyone else's. I made a point that I idid not know if he was guilty as I was not there( you on the other hand are so sure of his innocence) my point about being the type of person, is after the evidence has been heard and not based purely on him going to the hotel. A jury and two judges have seen fit to look at the evidence and find him guilty. My point although clumsy was that public opinion would find him guilty even if he was to be cleared not because he was the type of person. He was the person who had sex along with his mate with a girl who was drunk and incapable of given consent and could not remember having sex with them. None of that is in dispute, he is arguing over the technicality of her consent. My point was that most people will still find that indefensible,and as a repeat not because he is the type of man. He was the man who did this.
I can see why he thinks he is innocent. But he has to take responsibility. He was invited to a hotel by a friend who had slept with this girl who was drunk and then he has to answer what was going through his mind. Did he think she was sober? Was he sure she was in any fit state to have sex ?

 

[Hillian1]

Drew, you are a very, very odd person.

Carry on.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This gets better. Now you can be found guilty not because you did something but because you are the type to have done it.

For your own sake I think it might be time to turn the computer off now.

 

[The Fifth Column]

He raped her. He is a convicted rapist. He was tried and found guilty.

What part of this do some people not understand?

Some bombs went off in Guildford in the 70s, four people were convicted, they were tried and found guilty.

I think this is the basic argument of those suggesting Evans is not guilty.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Some bombs went off in Guildford in the 70s, four people were convicted, they were tried and found guilty.

I think this is the basic argument of those suggesting Evans is not guilty.

An overturned conviction should be treated as somethint separate. For a start, the convictions were sought under duress.

I'm not sure why I am bothering. Different case under different times. They bear no relevance to the Evans trial.

 

[drew]

People like you really worry me, maybe it's because does not matter what people say, you will change it to suit your own agenda.

So let's deal with it, he was found guilty on evidence and not by my opinion or anyone else's. I made a point that I idid not know if he was guilty as I was not there( you on the other hand are so sure of his innocence) my point about being the type of person, is after the evidence has been heard and not based purely on him going to the hotel. A jury and two judges have seen fit to look at the evidence and find him guilty. My point although clumsy was that public opinion would find him guilty even if he was to be cleared not because he was the type of person. He was the person who had sex along with his mate with a girl who was drunk and incapable of given consent and could not remember having sex with them. None of that is in dispute, he is arguing over the technicality of her consent. My point was that most people will still find that indefensible,and as a repeat not because he is the type of man. He was the man who did this.
I can see why he thinks he is innocent. But he has to take responsibility. He was invited to a hotel by a friend who had slept with this girl who was drunk and then he has to answer what was going through his mind. Did he think she was sober? Was he sure she was in any fit state to have sex ?

You really take the effing biscuit. If you could be bothered to read any of my posts you will know that I've never said I'm convinced of his innocence only that, in my opinion the evidence does not convince me beyond all reasonable doubt of his guilt. Most certainly two different things. You on the other hand put your own emotional spin in every post. Rape is a very emotive subject, but scunner is right that in a court you need to leave emotion behind and then consider the evidence as impassionately as you can. I've been on a jury in a rape case and know how hard that is to do.