Ched Evans

[The_Viper]

When she reported it the next morning, she gave a sample which showed no alcohol at all, and experts estimate that she was about 2.5 times the legal drive limit (so, what, 3-4 large glasses of wine?) at the height of the evening (before she went with the defendants), which should not be enough to induce amnesia. All of the witnesses agree that she was slurring her speech and stumbling, but perfectly capable of talking to people.

Although possible, it's also slightly strange that the jury decided that one defendant was guilty and the other not, given that they each had sex with her within a relatively short period of time (during which she didn't get any more intoxicated). The case seems to have turned on whether or not she was too drunk to consent (rather than whether she actually said yes). It's therefore pretty odd that between one finishing and the next starting, she lost capacity. Very odd.

Read the case if you want to, and the appeal. It's a lot less clear-cut than you might think.

 

[beardy gull]

When she reported it the next morning, she gave a sample which showed no alcohol at all, and experts estimate that she was about 2.5 times the legal drive limit (so, what, 3-4 large glasses of wine?) at the height of the evening (before she went with the defendants), which should not be enough to induce amnesia. All of the witnesses agree that she was slurring her speech and stumbling, but perfectly capable of talking to people.

Although possible, it's also slightly strange that the jury decided that one defendant was guilty and the other not, given that they each had sex with her within a relatively short period of time (during which she didn't get any more intoxicated). The case seems to have turned on whether or not she was too drunk to consent (rather than whether she actually said yes). It's therefore pretty odd that between one finishing and the next starting, she lost capacity. Very odd.

Read the case if you want to, and the appeal. It's a lot less clear-cut than you might think.

She didn't go with both the defendants. Read the case if you want to, and the appeal.

 

[Acker79]

When she reported it the next morning, she gave a sample which showed no alcohol at all, and experts estimate that she was about 2.5 times the legal drive limit (so, what, 3-4 large glasses of wine?) at the height of the evening (before she went with the defendants), which should not be enough to induce amnesia. All of the witnesses agree that she was slurring her speech and stumbling, but perfectly capable of talking to people.

Although possible, it's also slightly strange that the jury decided that one defendant was guilty and the other not, given that they each had sex with her within a relatively short period of time (during which she didn't get any more intoxicated). The case seems to have turned on whether or not she was too drunk to consent (rather than whether she actually said yes). It's therefore pretty odd that between one finishing and the next starting, she lost capacity. Very odd.

Read the case if you want to, and the appeal. It's a lot less clear-cut than you might think.

One thing that is clear cut, and been mentioned time and again in this thread, is that it is perfectly reasonable for the jury to come to different decisions for each defendant. One met the girl in town and she went back to a hotel room with him - the sort of circumstances that lead to people consenting to sex up and down the country. The other lied to a porter to gain access to a room that was for someone else's use, disturbed them having sex - not so common a situation for sex.

Whether McDonald had her consent or not, the circumstances that resulted in him having sex make it reasonably believable that he genuinely believed he had her consent.

If Evans didn't have her explicit, conscious, consent, it is not reasonable for him to assume it given the circumstances that led to him having sex with her.

You may disagree with one or both of their decisions, but the fact they came to different decisions for each defendant is not even slightly strange when you actually look at the whole picture, that they are not just looking at if she consents, but if it is reasonable for the defendant to believe they have her consent, not just "well, they both had sex with her".

The alcohol thing has been covered in depth too, with plenty of anecdotal evidence in this thread of the various, inconsistent effects alcohol, the fact that the bottle of wine's worth of alcohol would have to be in her blood at the same time, which indicates more drinking that just a bottle of wine (i.e. if you spend 9 hours drinking a bottle of wine, at no point will your blood alcohol level be near 2.5, due to digestion and alcohol processing rates) and the various contributing factors that change how alcohol affects you, and how less alcohol than you're used to can have a stronger effect than your usual heavier drinking because of them.

 

[drew]

One thing that is clear cut, and been mentioned time and again in this thread, is that it is perfectly reasonable for the jury to come to different decisions for each defendant. One met the girl in town and she went back to a hotel room with him - the sort of circumstances that lead to people consenting to sex up and down the country. The other lied to a porter to gain access to a room that was for someone else's use, disturbed them having sex - not so common a situation for sex.

Whether McDonald had her consent or not, the circumstances that resulted in him having sex make it reasonably believable that he genuinely believed he had her consent.

If Evans didn't have her explicit, conscious, consent, it is not reasonable for him to assume it given the circumstances that led to him having sex with her.

You may disagree with one or both of their decisions, but the fact they came to different decisions for each defendant is not even slightly strange when you actually look at the whole picture, that they are not just looking at if she consents, but if it is reasonable for the defendant to believe they have her consent, not just "well, they both had sex with her".

The alcohol thing has been covered in depth too, with plenty of anecdotal evidence in this thread of the various, inconsistent effects alcohol, the fact that the bottle of wine's worth of alcohol would have to be in her blood at the same time, which indicates more drinking that just a bottle of wine (i.e. if you spend 9 hours drinking a bottle of wine, at no point will your blood alcohol level be near 2.5, due to digestion and alcohol processing rates) and the various contributing factors that change how alcohol affects you, and how less alcohol than you're used to can have a stronger effect than your usual heavier drinking because of them.

The question of alcohol was apparently dealt with by expert witness on behalf of the defence and it would seem not disputed. He estimated she was 2.5 times over the drink drive limit. Furthermore she is also reported as saying she regularly drank more that she had that night. With regard to hours, just to clarify, she was probably drinking for maybe 3 hours. That is, she finished her shift at the hotel and went home sometime before 12. She left the club at at about 3 as she is reportedly spent an hour in the kebab shop before eventually arriving at the hotel with McDonald at 4:15. Also, her friends gave evidence that she wasn't particularly drunk that evening.

That said, without checking back, I think Viper is wrong in that she didn't provide a sample in the morning. It was later in the day after she had finished work (I stand to be corrected) hence the fact that the level of alcohol was not identified.

 

[Acker79]

The question of alcohol was apparently dealt with by expert witness on behalf of the defence and it would seem not disputed. He estimated she was 2.5 times over the drink drive limit. Furthermore she is also reported as saying she regularly drank more that she had that night. With regard to hours, just to clarify, she was probably drinking for maybe 3 hours. That is, she finished her shift at the hotel and went home sometime before 12. She left the club at at about 3 as she is reportedly spent an hour in the kebab shop before eventually arriving at the hotel with McDonald at 4:15. Also, her friends gave evidence that she wasn't particularly drunk that evening.

That said, without checking back, I think Viper is wrong in that she didn't provide a sample in the morning. It was later in the day after she had finished work (I stand to be corrected) hence the fact that the level of alcohol was not identified.

I didn't mean to suggest he was wrong about her blood alcohol level, merely pointing out how little it actually tells us about her condition definitively.

 

[vegster]

I guess the lesson is.....DON'T RAPE PEOPLE.

Or rather if you are going to commit a crime choose the banking industry.

 

[Nibble]

Or rather if you are going to commit a crime choose the banking industry.

Quite.

 

[Acker79]

Everyone ready to rehash their arguments?... again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30563782

Hartlepool boss Ronnie Moore would like to sign convicted rapist Ched Evans.
...
Moore, who took charge of the Football League's bottom club this week, has confirmed his interest in Wales and ex-Sheffield United striker Evans.

"It's a possibility. If it could happen, I'd want it to," he said after Saturday's 1-1 home draw with Oxford.

"He is a proven scorer; he's served his time and the boy wants to play football."

Sheffield United retracted an offer to allow Evans to train with them last month following strong local opposition, but 61-year-old Moore insists he is willing to offer the forward a route back into football.

"If there is a chance he might come here, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't," he continued.
...
However, Moore added: "He has made a mistake and maybe he hasn't apologised in the right way - and I know he has an appeal case pending - but if he gets on the park, he would go a long way to getting us out of trouble."

The draw in the Liverpudlian's first game as Hartlepool manager ended a run of four successive defeats for the club, but they are seven points adrift at the bottom of League Two.

Moore had been out of football since being dismissed by Tranmere Rovers in April after he admitted breaching Football Association betting rules.

His appointment by Hartlepool came on the same day as TMH 2014 Limited completed their takeover of the north-east club from previous owner Ken Hodcroft.

[removed the bit's summarising the Evans case]​

Personally I am less opposed to this than Sheffield Utd. My position has always been he needs to pay his dues again, re-earn the position he had when he went away, and so should drop at least a division, and this would be that. I'm still not entirely comfortable with the idea that he hasn't apologised for even his general behaviour that night even if his appeal stops him apologising for the rape, his supporters have acted appallingly bad and he hasn't even tried to make a token gesture towards stopping them and so would rather he didn't get back into league football just yet, but it's a slightly more acceptable (to me) position than going right back to Sheffield Utd.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Still no.

 

[spring hall convert]

What does Jeff Stelling think?

I'd feel pretty awkward as a fan knowing that the reason that we stayed up was because we were the only club opportunistic and cynical enough to sign a convicted rapist.

 

[spence]

Never liked Ronnie Moore

 

[Driver8]

If you employ Ronnie Moore you don't have too many morals so why stop there?

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

What does Jeff Stelling

Don't know about Jeff but Chris Kamara would probably thinks its unbelievable

 

[hans kraay fan club]

However, Moore added: "He has made a mistake and maybe he hasn't apologised in the right way - and I know he has an appeal case pending - but [I'm prepared to ignore all that, because] if he gets on the park, he would go a long way to getting us out of trouble."

 

[Leekbrookgull]

What the issue here ?

 

[Bombadier Botty]

What the issue here ?

It's NSC, bollocks must be debated over and over and over and over and over.......

 

[smudge]

Got a very good friend who's a Monkey Hanger. He didn't think their season could possibly get any worse; he is absolutely disgusted with Moore.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

We don't need to be looking at strikers as poor as Evans even if wasn't a rapist.

We need to sign someone way better.

If Blooms wants to stay up he needs to spend BIG.

Jordan Rhodes would be a start.

 

[pottert]

We don't need to be looking at strikers as poor as Evans even if wasn't a rapist.

We need to sign someone way better.

If BloomsA wants to stay up he needs to spend BIG.

Jordan Rhodes would be a start.

we could sign ronaldo but it wouldn't make any difference.

Our Full backs & midfield are not good enough to play the system we are playing.

We always look likely to conceed but don't look like scoring.

 

[aolstudios]

we could sign ronaldo but it wouldn't make any difference.

Our manager is not good enough to play the system we are playing.

We always look likely to conceed but don't look like scoring.

Corrected for you...