Ched Evans

[Yoda]

Just to stop people whining and bickering about the amount of alcohol drunk, taken directly from http://www.chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts so even his legal team agree with these as facts.

"It was accepted at the trial that this amount of consumption would have placed her at approximately 2.5 times the legal drink drive limit. The complainant submitted in evidence that she would normally and regularly drink well in excess of what she had consumed on this particular night out."

"The complainant then left the nightclub at approximately 3:00am. There was no evidence that she had consumed any more alcohol over and above that which she stated she had consumed, nor was there any evidence that she had taken drugs in the nightclub or after leaving the nightclub. The friends who were with her on the night all testified that she was not particularly drunk."

 

[drew]

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.

You won't like it but why do you believe her? What do you know about her that makes her any more credible than Evans. Fact is we know very little about her other than that she went back to a hotel with someone she had just met (I'm still not sure Scunner is right that she and McDonald knew each other as I don't think there has been any evidence to that effect). She admitted that she regularly drunk more than she had done that night. As for the cannabis and cocaine, that had been taken a few days before. None of this means she is entitled to be raped, far from it, but it paints a slightly different picture than the sweet little teenager that some are trying to imply. If you don't know who is telling the truth then isn't that an element of doubt?

 

[Steve.S]

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.

You still do not get, you did not here all the evidence and you certainly were not in court to hear Evans and the girl explain. Witnesses testified to her state on the night. I do not believe every guilty verdict, like most people you here or see these cases in the news. Of course I talk about the jury, like you I have served on a jury and they are made up of people from all walks of life. Both sides have a say on the jury, so it would have had balance. These 12 people listened first hand to the evidence and were privy to a lot more information then you or me and they all found him guilty since then it's been looked at and found that as far as they are concerned the conviction was safe. I agree that in the past there have been miscarriages of justice, but the process that is gone through these days makes that more less likely, not impossible I agree. You bring it back to the same thing every time about her state of drunkenness, and again you did not hear what all of the witnesses said in court or how the defendants answered. What did Evans say under cross examination or what macdonald said. You are making an opinion having only half of the facts. 12 people made it with all the facts. He has a slim chance of getting his cased reviewed, but the damage is down. John Leslie never recovered his carer and he was found not guilty. Macdonald is also struggling. So even if he wins, I doubt many clubs will touch him add to that, this could go on for a few years.

 

[nwgull]

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

Her blood alcohol level was estimated at 2.5x the drink drive limit (based on the fact that there was no alcohol in her system when she went to the police). Whatever she drank to get to this blood alcohol concentration would be dependent on her size: if she was an average sized woman, that would be about 7-8 units; if she was a 7st waif, then that would be more like 5-6 units.

 

[Yoda]

John Leslie never recovered his carer and he was found not guilty. Macdonald is also struggling. So even if he wins, I doubt many clubs will touch him add to that, this could go on for a few years.

Tend to agree with that.

 

[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.

Just done some reading up on blackouts and although there is a link between amount of alcohol and occurrence, there is a bigger link between the speed of drinking and blackouts. Binge drinking or downing drinks/shots has a higher tendency to cause blackouts when compared to people who drank far more but slower.

 

[symyjym]

This guy couldn't remember anything, so he must have consented to being drawn on.

 

[drew]

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.

Can't necessary argue with that but I would have thought the judges that considered the application for appeal would have made reference to the relevant evidence.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Her blood alcohol level was estimated at 2.5x the drink drive limit (based on the fact that there was no alcohol in her system when she went to the police). Whatever she drank to get to this blood alcohol concentration would be dependent on her size: if she was an average sized woman, that would be about 7-8 units; if she was a 7st waif, then that would be more like 5-6 units.

England has a drink drive limit of 0.08%. 2.5x that is 0.2% which has the side effects of:
Stupor
Loss of understanding
Impaired sensations
Possibility of falling unconscious
Severe motor impairment
Loss of consciousness
Memory blackout

according to wiki here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_...by_country_.28BrAC:_Breath_Alcohol_Content.29

and if you look at the chart, a bottle of wine is 5 drinks, and a 45kg woman has a BAC of 0.23

 

[drew]

Just done some reading up on blackouts and although there is a link between amount of alcohol and occurrence, there is a bigger link between the speed of drinking and blackouts. Binge drinking or downing drinks/shots has a higher tendency to cause blackouts when compared to people who drank far more but slower.

Does it say they blackout just after drinking or over an hour later? Also, how does that tie in with the fact that after she finished drinking she spent about an hour at the kebab shop? Based on the evidence from the defence expert, she had drunk the equivalent of a bottle of wine, ie 3 large glasses between the time she left work just before midnight and 3am when she left the club. Is that your definition of binge drinking?

 

[goldstone]

He committed a crime, has been found guilty, has served his sentence. People who have been through this process are then permitted to try and resume their lives and that includes returning to their career.

 

[Hillian1]

He committed a crime, has been found guilty, has served his sentence. People who have been through this process are then permitted to try and resume their lives and that includes returning to their career.

Yes they are, and nobody is disputing this.

Wether or not anyone will be willing to hire him is another question, Employers are allowed to favour NON RAPISTS over RAPISTS.

 

[drew]

You still do not get, you did not here all the evidence and you certainly were not in court to hear Evans and the girl explain. Witnesses testified to her state on the night. I do not believe every guilty verdict, like most people you here or see these cases in the news. Of course I talk about the jury, like you I have served on a jury and they are made up of people from all walks of life. Both sides have a say on the jury, so it would have had balance. These 12 people listened first hand to the evidence and were privy to a lot more information then you or me and they all found him guilty since then it's been looked at and found that as far as they are concerned the conviction was safe. I agree that in the past there have been miscarriages of justice, but the process that is gone through these days makes that more less likely, not impossible I agree. You bring it back to the same thing every time about her state of drunkenness, and again you did not hear what all of the witnesses said in court or how the defendants answered. What did Evans say under cross examination or what macdonald said. You are making an opinion having only half of the facts. 12 people made it with all the facts. He has a slim chance of getting his cased reviewed, but the damage is down. John Leslie never recovered his carer and he was found not guilty. Macdonald is also struggling. So even if he wins, I doubt many clubs will touch him add to that, this could go on for a few years.

Have you read Yoda's post? Even her friends admitted she was not particularly drunk. Do they know her better than you and I, I suspect so. She was also found to lie under oath about her cocaine use! After 4 hours of deliberation on a friday afternoon (after 3 weeks of jury service) the jury could not come to a unanimous verdict on both counts. What we don't know, and probably never will, is whether there was a dispute on both counts or just one and if the latter, which one. Apparently the Judge wouldn't allow a majority verdict so they went away and came back 50 minutes later with the unanimous decisions. Had they not done that then no doubt they would have had to come back on the Monday to start a fourth week! Maybe only one person was not happy, maybe it was two or three. However, your assumption that it was a clear cut decision by the jury is a little at odds with these circumstances.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Does it say they blackout just after drinking or over an hour later? Also, how does that tie in with the fact that after she finished drinking she spent about an hour at the kebab shop? Based on the evidence from the defence expert, she had drunk the equivalent of a bottle of wine, ie 3 large glasses between the time she left work just before midnight and 3am when she left the club. Is that your definition of binge drinking?

i would assume the blackout would happen when the blood alcohol level in the brain reaches that level which won't be immediately after drinking it. How long it lasts for is also another matter. a bottle of wine in 3 hours seems ok to me, i wouldn't probably class it as binge drinking however the accepted definition of binge drinking is 4 or more drinks for a woman and a large glass of wine is nearly 2 drinks. i am merely pointing out information but unfortunately without a subscription i can't buy the relevant scientific papers to read the details of the research

Did someone also mention that she'd wet herself whilst asleep? that isn't usual for people unless they are very drunk

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Have you read Yoda's post? Even her friends admitted she was not particularly drunk. Do they know her better than you and I, I suspect so. She was also found to lie under oath about her cocaine use! After 4 hours of deliberation on a friday afternoon (after 3 weeks of jury service) the jury could not come to a unanimous verdict on both counts. What we don't know, and probably never will, is whether there was a dispute on both counts or just one and if the latter, which one. Apparently the Judge wouldn't allow a majority verdict so they went away and came back 50 minutes later with the unanimous decisions. Had they not done that then no doubt they would have had to come back on the Monday to start a fourth week! Maybe only one person was not happy, maybe it was two or three. However, your assumption that it was a clear cut decision by the jury is a little at odds with these circumstances.

4 hours of deliberation isn't a lot when you have mounds of evidence to go through and discuss so the fact they then came back as unanimous means that the others couldn't have been far from the fence.

 

[Hillian1]

Have you read Yoda's post? Even her friends admitted she was not particularly drunk. Do they know her better than you and I, I suspect so. She was also found to lie under oath about her cocaine use! After 4 hours of deliberation on a friday afternoon (after 3 weeks of jury service) the jury could not come to a unanimous verdict on both counts. What we don't know, and probably never will, is whether there was a dispute on both counts or just one and if the latter, which one. Apparently the Judge wouldn't allow a majority verdict so they went away and came back 50 minutes later with the unanimous decisions. Had they not done that then no doubt they would have had to come back on the Monday to start a fourth week! Maybe only one person was not happy, maybe it was two or three. However, your assumption that it was a clear cut decision by the jury is a little at odds with these circumstances.

Unbelieveable Drew.

Are you seriously suggesting that 1, possibly 2 of the Jury were that devoid of their sense of Civic Duty they changed their decision so they could all go home?

 

[symyjym]

You won't like it but why do you believe her? What do you know about her that makes her any more credible than Evans. Fact is we know very little about her other than that she went back to a hotel with someone she had just met (I'm still not sure Scunner is right that she and McDonald knew each other as I don't think there has been any evidence to that effect). She admitted that she regularly drunk more than she had done that night. As for the cannabis and cocaine, that had been taken a few days before. None of this means she is entitled to be raped, far from it, but it paints a slightly different picture than the sweet little teenager that some are trying to imply. If you don't know who is telling the truth then isn't that an element of doubt?

That old cookie, answering a question with questions. No wonder you are in a spiral of arguments.

I am not here to judge her character or being “a sweet little teenager” or not but you can speculate what you don't know about her. At worst I would call her naive, anything else would be just for your arguments sake.

The jury at 12-0 found her to be telling the truth, and the documented account of events that led up to the offence confirms his intentions in my view, so I don’t have to doubt anything if it sounds right.

 

[symyjym]

Did someone also mention that she'd wet herself whilst asleep? that isn't usual for people unless they are very drunk

I am sure that Drew will argue that he wets the bed regulary without any consuption of alcohol

 

[drew]

Unbelieveable Drew.

Are you seriously suggesting that 1, possibly 2 of the Jury were that devoid of their sense of Civic Duty they changed their decision so they could all go home?

Are you suggseting it isn't a possibility then. Are you so certain. We know it is a cross section of society and there are some with no civic responsibility. May be some self employed decided that for the sake of their vote they didn't want to lose more income. Maybe none of the above and all 12 were eventually convinced. I think you might be a bit deluded if you think everyone, with no exceptions, sits on a jury motivated purely by civic pride.

 

[goldstone]

Yes they are, and nobody is disputing this.

Wether or not anyone will be willing to hire him is another question, Employers are allowed to favour NON RAPISTS over RAPISTS.

Of course they are. But why this endless debate?