Ched Evans

[Bold Seagull]

Dunno, can't remember.

Toxicology report 14 hours later didn't shed any light on it?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

And how much had you all had to drink to get into that state?

A fair bit, but then I wasn't a 7 stone, 19 year old girl.

 

[nwgull]

I've never had compete memory loss, even on 16 hour benders in Vegas. Have a few mates who will often 'lose' the last couple of hours of a 6-8 hour session though.

 

[Birdie Boy]

Well, seems that I am wrong or you were all embarrassed and didn't want to admit to anything!

 

[drew]

A fair bit, but then I wasn't a 7 stone, 19 year old girl.

Something else I missed then, her weight. However, she did admit in court that she regularly drunk more than she had done that night!!!

 

[symyjym]

Something else I missed then, her weight. However, she did admit in court that she regularly drunk more than she had done that night!!!

Shall we just relax the law on rape? Where do you want to draw the line in the night out of sex games grey area that Evans willingly slipped into?

The law is there to guard against the exploitation of fellow human beings, but if you believe it was nothing more than a normal night of fun, clearly no one will change your mind.

 

[Hillian1]

Shall we just relax the law on rape? Where do you want to draw the line in the night out of sex games grey area that Evans willingly slipped into?

The law is there to guard against the exploitation of fellow human beings, but if you believe it was nothing more than a normal night of fun, clearly no one will change your mind.

He reminds me of this Lawyer cross examining a Doctor.

 

[drew]

Shall we just relax the law on rape? Where do you want to draw the line in the night out of sex games grey area that Evans willingly slipped into?

The law is there to guard against the exploitation of fellow human beings, but if you believe it was nothing more than a normal night of fun, clearly no one will change your mind.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? This isn't about different interpretation of the law or changing the law, it is about whether you believe she was so drunk she had no clue as to what was going on or if there is enough doubt that despite not being stone cold sober she was still capable of making a decision.

 

[Steve.S]

How do you arrive at that conclusion? This isn't about different interpretation of the law or changing the law, it is about whether you believe she was so drunk she had no clue as to what was going on or if there is enough doubt that despite not being stone cold sober she was still capable of making a decision.

No we do not know how drunk she was as much as you do not know how sober she was. But we were not asked to listen to the evidence and make a judgement on it. Clearly 12 people who sat through the case watched videos and listened to witnesses and all parties involved came to a conclusion and that was that he was guilty. You keep saying there was doubt, unless you sat through all the case, how could you have any idea.if you do perhaps you can spend the rest of the evening writing every question ask by the barristers and all the answers given on here

 

[Bold Seagull]

He reminds me of this Lawyer cross examining a Doctor.

View attachment 60265

 

[Bold Seagull]

How do you arrive at that conclusion? This isn't about different interpretation of the law or changing the law, it is about whether you believe she was so drunk she had no clue as to what was going on or if there is enough doubt that despite not being stone cold sober she was still capable of making a decision.

I'll give you one thing [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION], you are truly unrelenting!

 

[Hotchilidog]

Is this still going on? Ched Evans is a convicted RAPIST. I am finding the straw clutching defence on here pretty offensive to be honest. A judge and jury have heard ALL the evidence and a comprehensive verdict has been delivered, and yet some are still seeking to get they guy off at the expense of his victim. Sums up a section of male opinion that women are basically just asking for it regardless. No respect for another person whatsoever. For me this has been a very unedifying discussion.

 

[drew]

No we do not know how drunk she was as much as you do not know how sober she was. But we were not asked to listen to the evidence and make a judgement on it. Clearly 12 people who sat through the case watched videos and listened to witnesses and all parties involved came to a conclusion and that was that he was guilty. You keep saying there was doubt, unless you sat through all the case, how could you have any idea.if you do perhaps you can spend the rest of the evening writing every question ask by the barristers and all the answers given on here

You're happy with the verdict, in fact the way you talk you are happy with any verdict. If you don't want to question the evidence then fine. There is enough evidence in the public domain to form an opinion, a lot of it included in the document from the judges who considered the right to appeal.

As for her level of drunkenness, you're right, we don't know because no blood sample was taken at the time. However, evidence has been submitted to suggest how much she had had to drink, evidence from the defence but there is no suggestion on record that it is disputed by the prosecution. I'm not sure you've formed an opinion on that because all you harp on about is the jury. In my opinion and from my experience, the equivalent of one bottle of wine is not normally enough to put a girl or women into a drunken stupor so as they haven't a clue as to what is happening. Maybe your experience is different.

 

[symyjym]

How do you arrive at that conclusion? This isn't about different interpretation of the law or changing the law, it is about whether you believe she was so drunk she had no clue as to what was going on or if there is enough doubt that despite not being stone cold sober she was still capable of making a decision.

If she was drunk and unconscious she wouldn’t remember anything. So do you believe her when she said that she couldn’t remember or was just lying about it?

And why don't you believe her?

Don't forget that she had cocaine and cannabis in her system as well.

 

[coagulantwolf]

In my opinion and from my experience, the equivalent of one bottle of wine is not normally enough to put a girl or women into a drunken stupor so as they haven't a clue as to what is happening. Maybe your experience is different.

I've seen girls/women in pretty bad ways after drinking a bottle of wine. Just because YOU have never experienced it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Something else I missed then, her weight. However, she did admit in court that she regularly drunk more than she had done that night!!!

i have drunk more and been fine. Alcohol doesn't always affect you the same way each time. I went to Magaluf and spent a week drinking chronically and didn't particular suffer certainly not compared to what i drank. I have also been out at other times and been quite reserved with my drinking and felt very rough.

 

[drew]

I'll give you one thing [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION], you are truly unrelenting!

It's a debate about one case in which I expressed an opinion about the element of doubt. Perhaps if rent a mob didn't keep twisting what I have said or posting stuff I have never said then maybe it we could sit back and await the review by the CCRC.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

You're happy with the verdict, in fact the way you talk you are happy with any verdict. If you don't want to question the evidence then fine. There is enough evidence in the public domain to form an opinion, a lot of it included in the document from the judges who considered the right to appeal.

As for her level of drunkenness, you're right, we don't know because no blood sample was taken at the time. However, evidence has been submitted to suggest how much she had had to drink, evidence from the defence but there is no suggestion on record that it is disputed by the prosecution. I'm not sure you've formed an opinion on that because all you harp on about is the jury. In my opinion and from my experience, the equivalent of one bottle of wine is not normally enough to put a girl or women into a drunken stupor so as they haven't a clue as to what is happening. Maybe your experience is different.

her blood level was equivalent to drinking a bottle of wine all in one go not just having a bottle of wine, it isn't quite the same thing. When you drink a bottle of wine, you do so over a period of time and some will be processed immediately, some will be processed before you've finished the bottle and some will still be in your digestive system not being absorbed yet. In order to get near to having a bottle of wine level alcohol in your blood then you'd have to down it in one go and even then that wouldn't quite get you to that level as again the body wouldn't absorb it all in one go

 

[dazzer6666]

You're happy with the verdict, in fact the way you talk you are happy with any verdict. If you don't want to question the evidence then fine. There is enough evidence in the public domain to form an opinion, a lot of it included in the document from the judges who considered the right to appeal.

As for her level of drunkenness, you're right, we don't know because no blood sample was taken at the time. However, evidence has been submitted to suggest how much she had had to drink, evidence from the defence but there is no suggestion on record that it is disputed by the prosecution. I'm not sure you've formed an opinion on that because all you harp on about is the jury. In my opinion and from my experience, the equivalent of one bottle of wine is not normally enough to put a girl or women into a drunken stupor so as they haven't a clue as to what is happening. Maybe your experience is different.

There may be enough to form an opinion, but it isn't the same (all) the evidence the jury and judges saw and heard, so you're quite likely to come to a different conclusion.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Well, seems that I am wrong or you were all embarrassed and didn't want to admit to anything!

i'm generally not embarrassed by my actions, apologetic maybe but there was at least one time when i was disappointed i couldn't remember as it was an amusing night