Ched Evans

[Tim Dawson 0]

There again the problem with the jury judging a person they know nothing about on the basis of what is put before them, let me just say its a good job the jury wasn`t 12 people who knew her, lets just say her reputation was somewhat dreadful and the situation she was in was a frequent occurence on drunken nights out.

An opportunist who snared a footballer, promising gifts and holidays to friends, Ched was a silly boy but probably never imagined the horror of what would unfold, an unpleasant girl who ruined someone`s career, for those of us that know of her, lets hope karma bites her on the bum...

[GJP 79]

It''s said to be very hard to secure a rape conviction. Yet they made the case against Ched stick. They presented it to a jury and they found him guilty.

 

I have little or no time for an unrepentant convicted rapist.

 

I guess people that do are a little more forgiving than I am. Or at least that''s the kindest way I can choose to look at it.

 

 

[Molly Windley 76]

[quote user="Tim Dawson"]There again the problem with the jury judging a person they know nothing about on the basis of what is put before them, let me just say its a good job the jury wasn`t 12 people who knew her, lets just say her reputation was somewhat dreadful and the situation she was in was a frequent occurence on drunken nights out.

An opportunist who snared a footballer, promising gifts and holidays to friends, Ched was a silly boy but probably never imagined the horror of what would unfold, an unpleasant girl who ruined someone`s career, for those of us that know of her, lets hope karma bites her on the bum...[/quote]

Juries must be impartial and base their verdicts on the evidence laid before them.The judge will give advice and guidance on matters of the law to the members of the juryEvans was found guilty by the jury and his appeal against the decision was turned downThe jury found McDonald not guilty, she did not dispute that she agreed to accompany him back to the Hotel.She did not snare a footballer, she was picked up by Kevin McDonald not the other way round.McDonald text Evans to tell him that he had "pulled", Evans and McDonald were not together at this stage.Evans invited himself back to the Hotel, she did not, she had no knowledge of Evans or that he was going to turn up.She had never seen or met Evans until he turned up uninvited in the hotel roomShe did not invite Evans to the Hotel Room, he blagged a key from the night porter and let himself into the room.Evans claimed he had booked the room for a friend who hadnt turned up to blag entrance to the room.Two other friends (invited by Evans) video`d the happenings in the room through the hotel windowMcDonald was concerned enough about how he left the girl to ask the porter to look out for her as she was unwell but not concerned enough to make sure personally that she was ok.Evans left the Hotel by the fire escape.The tweets she made about sharing a win with friends were made 6 months after the incident and before the trial. She has not received any monetary gain or sought to procure any monetary gain from the incidentShe has never claimed that she was raped, she believed that she may have been drugged as she passed out and woke up in a pool of her own urine and could not remember what happened that evening, the police pushed the rape prosecution.It matters not a jot if she went out every night, had a drink and had conceptual sex with men of her choice, it does not mean that men not of her choice can have sex with her.She did not ruin his career, she never made an allegation of rape, she did not invite Evans to the room, she did not ask him to have sex with her, she did not ask him be be unfaithful to his girlfriend or to get his friends to video him having sex with her.If Evans worked in 99% of any other workplaces then he would have been dismissed for gross miss conduct. Its standard in almost all contracts of employment that an employee convicted of a crime such as this would have broken the terms of that contract and would have been summarily dismissed. What he does now is not my concern, its a problem that faces many convicted criminals, however its safe to say that a career in football and many other professions is now no longer an option for him.

[T 190]

Very disturbing that there are some people on here that don''t seem to understand what rape is and seem to think it is in anyway justifiable.

[Tim Dawson 0]

Never ever implied rape is justifiable it certainly isn`t and if you think that she doesn`t know or know of Ched Evans and his family then you are a fool, a member of his family and im not saying which one lives in the next street to her.

And if she can`t remember anything " apparently" how does she or the police know she may have consented but can`t remember?

And another point if it was rape don`t you think the girl in question may be a bit hesitant going out or if she does maybe drink a bit more responsibly after what happened or does she go out still get blitzed and go off with anyone?

Some of us know the answer to the last question i`m sorry but no it does`nt all quite sit right

[splutcho 173]

Why should somebody that has been raped stay indoors and live in fear? To say she can''t go out and get drunk because she might get raped is ridiculous. Do you know what rape culture is Tim?

It is not her responsibility to "not get raped", it is men''s responsibility to not rape her.

[Hairy Canary 668]

Can''t agree with that Tim. Quite rightly somebodies reputation does not count as evidence either for or against them incourt. In fact anyone who knows any witness or expert cannot remain on the jury.

I''ve sat on two juries and I can say without doubt that the whole process was thorough and taken very seriously by everyone. There is no way that anyone reading websites or media content can possibly be in a position to make a judgement as well informed as a jury that has sat through days of testimony. I''m not saying it''s impossible for the jury to get it wrong, just that it''s much more likely they will get it right compared to an outsider without all the facts.

[Sox 1 0]

[quote user="splutcho"]Why should somebody that has been raped stay indoors and live in fear? To say she can''t go out and get drunk because she might get raped is ridiculous. Do you know what rape culture is Tim?

It is not her responsibility to "not get raped", it is men''s responsibility to not rape her.[/quote]Spot on Splutcho; I can''t believe the lengths some people are going to on this thread to defend a convicted rapist!!

[Stone 0]

This whole case against Evans seems so questionable.

Yes, he''s been convicted and you have to give the verdict some credence but having read various articles describing the case, and considered Evans stance it''s still hard to be 100% convinced by the outcome.

Perhaps I''m biased after a close friend of mine spent a night in the cells after being accused of rape. Only to be released the following morning when the girl in question seemed to realise she couldn''t ruin his life because she felt a bit dirty and regretted (consensually) sleeping with him. the Evans case just makes you wonder what would have happened if the process was to have run its course.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Sox"][quote user="splutcho"]Why should somebody that has been raped stay indoors and live in fear? To say she can''t go out and get drunk because she might get raped is ridiculous. Do you know what rape culture is Tim?

It is not her responsibility to "not get raped", it is men''s responsibility to not rape her.[/quote]Spot on Splutcho; I can''t believe the lengths some people are going to on this thread to defend a convicted rapist!![/quote]

We are all entitled to an opinion.  For the police and criminal justice service to set on a course that led a

jury to convict in this case was a waste of resources.  They have taken

a moral high ground stance on a case, inflicted their own prejudices on

it and ignored certain inconsistencies that put the whole thing in

question.  Justice seen to be done?  Questionable in my opinion - in

this case. 

The point at which it is decided whether it is rape or not is down to what the girl said to the footballers when in the room.  But she can''t remember.   If she said in a drunken slurry voice "yeah, its fine" then the case is over.  If she said "no" - then yes, its rape.   BUT SHE CAN''T REMEMBER!!  That is her fault for getting so legless.

I''m not defending Evans because I don''t know what happened, any more than the rest of you, but the whole thing is undoubtedly questionable and open to interpretation, on the grounds the girl claimed to have been incapable and can''t remember.  In law as I understand it, being drunk and incapable does not make you less responsible for what happens to you.   If she can''t remember whether she said "yes" or "no", that is her look out.

[Molly Windley 76]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Sox"][quote user="splutcho"]Why should somebody that has been raped stay indoors and live in fear? To say she can''t go out and get drunk because she might get raped is ridiculous. Do you know what rape culture is Tim?

It is not her responsibility to "not get raped", it is men''s responsibility to not rape her.[/quote]Spot on Splutcho; I can''t believe the lengths some people are going to on this thread to defend a convicted rapist!![/quote]

We are all entitled to an opinion.  For the police and criminal justice service to set on a course that led a

jury to convict in this case was a waste of resources.  They have taken

a moral high ground stance on a case, inflicted their own prejudices on

it and ignored certain inconsistencies that put the whole thing in

question.  Justice seen to be done?  Questionable in my opinion - in

this case. 

The point at which it is decided whether it is rape or not is down to what the girl said to the footballers when in the room.  But she can''t remember.   If she said in a drunken slurry voice "yeah, its fine" then the case is over.  If she said "no" - then yes, its rape.   BUT SHE CAN''T REMEMBER!!  That is her fault for getting so legless.

I''m not defending Evans because I don''t know what happened, any more than the rest of you, but the whole thing is undoubtedly questionable and open to interpretation, on the grounds the girl claimed to have been incapable and can''t remember.  In law as I understand it, being drunk and incapable does not make you less responsible for what happens to you.   If she can''t remember whether she said "yes" or "no", that is her look out.

[/quote]

There is a difference between what is law and what is your own moral code and opinions, this case as with all case was judged by the law, not by individuals own personal standards and beliefs.

Sexual Offences Act 1956

The Sexual offences Act 1956 contains no statutory definition of

''consent''. Juries must be told that the word should be given its

ordinary meaning, and that there is a difference between ''consent'' and

''submission''.

Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:

• The complainant''s assertion of force or threats;
• Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental
  disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or
  incapable of giving valid consent; or
• Evidence that the complainant was deceived as to the identity of the person with whom (s)he had intercourse.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

[quote user="splutcho"]Molly Windley has it absolutely spot on.

He had sex with her, she didn''t say he could. That is rape. How drunk she was is a total irrelevance.[/quote]

He disputes this though. He wasn''t to know the complete level of drunkness she was claiming to be. If she "enthusiastically agreed" as they both put it then that''s her fault. If she was too drunk, she wouldn''t have been able to "enthusiastically agree"

I think the key is how blinding drunk she was on my scale she sounds like she was either an 8 out of 10 (In control of her functionality to a coherent level but would still get the memory loss thing the next day etc) or a 9 out of 10 (at this point, you lose the ability to speak coherently and stand up, probably a level similar to being spiked).

It appears the guys thought she was at an 8 out of 10 level and therefore she made the call coherently (allbeit drunkenly). She and the court/jury have her as more of a 9 out of 10.

We will never know the true story. If she was a 9 out of 10, I agree it''s rape, not violent rape but still serious rape. If she was an 8 out of 10 I agree with Ched and Clayton.

It''s an oft played game on a night out by many, get steaming drunk and take advantage of young people of the opposite sex (yes and sometimes same sex) losing their inhibitions and deciding to go along with a one nighter. I''m willing to bet most people have had a drunken one night stand. Where the line draws in my book is when people go from a coherent severe drunk to an incoherent severe drunk (8-9 out of 10).

It''s a dangerous game to play for many a reason and most people grow out of it for that reason.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Molly, but that is where the law is unclear, the part you highlighted, it''s her word against theirs as to how drunk she was. It appears the jury and court sided with her.

It''s hard to put the law together on subjective matters. Perhaps everyone could carry breathalysers around in future and we could have a drink/sex limit! It''d solve a lot of problems!

[Tetteys Jig 830]

[quote user="Tim Dawson"]Never ever implied rape is justifiable it certainly isn`t and if you think that she doesn`t know or know of Ched Evans and his family then you are a fool, a member of his family and im not saying which one lives in the next street to her.

And if she can`t remember anything " apparently" how does she or the police know she may have consented but can`t remember?

And another point if it was rape don`t you think the girl in question may be a bit hesitant going out or if she does maybe drink a bit more responsibly after what happened or does she go out still get blitzed and go off with anyone?

Some of us know the answer to the last question i`m sorry but no it does`nt all quite sit right[/quote]

Not going to go name digging Tim but do you know her? can you say anymore how you know her?

[Hairy Canary 668]

There is no way that anyone reading websites or media content can possibly be in a position to make a judgement. Only a jury that has sat through days of testimony are in a position to do that. They are also directed by a Judge that if there is reasonable doubt they should not convict.

I''m not saying it''s impossible for the jury to get it wrong, just that it''s much more likely they will get it right compared to an outsider without all the facts.

[Molly Windley 76]

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Molly, but that is where the law is unclear, the part you highlighted, it''s her word against theirs as to how drunk she was. It appears the jury and court sided with her.

It''s hard to put the law together on subjective matters. Perhaps everyone could carry breathalysers around in future and we could have a drink/sex limit! It''d solve a lot of problems![/quote]I appreciate what you are saying Jimmy, the jury listened to the evidence and came to a subjective opinion. My main issue here is with those that are saying that "she asked for it" or "got what she deserved" by getting drunk.Im finding it difficult to see how any reasonable person would think that way and cannot square their morals with mine.I

see a drunken or incapable fellow human and think of their safety and well

being, they see an opportunity to take advantage for their own sexual

gratification in whatever form that may take.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Molly, but that is where the law is unclear, the part you highlighted, it''s her word against theirs as to how drunk she was. It appears the jury and court sided with her.

It''s hard to put the law together on subjective matters. Perhaps everyone could carry breathalysers around in future and we could have a drink/sex limit! It''d solve a lot of problems![/quote]

Perhaps if people could ween themselves off getting out of their faces when they went out and then thinking they had a good time in the process, then things like this wouldn''t happen so much.  Getting drunk, letting your hair down is one thing, getting intoxicated to the point you don''t know what you''re doing and can''t remember it the next day is something else.    The problem in this case appears to be the level of intoxication of this woman.  She may have appeared just a bit drunk, but was maybe more out of her face than had been apparent to the footballers.  How drunk is "drunk"??     How were they to tell?    

That Evans was stupid is not questioned.   But the woman - in this case - was her own worst enemy.   Get yourself incapable and you may find yourself in situations out of your control.    That applies to both sexes.

[Daz Sparks 1,151]

LDC, I am going to ask a question. Please take it on face value.

Do you believe that someone who is drunk deserves any less protection from the law?

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Daz,

looking at that question, imagine she''d gone back with Clayton sober, she''d had her fun with him and then Ched appears and "wants a go" at which point she "enthusiasically agrees" as she didn''t deny.

Is that rape?

[Daz Sparks 1,151]

No Jimmy, of course not, but the inference is that because someone is drunk, bad things can happen to them, and I raise the question to provoke debate.

My opinion is that whatever state of intoxication anyone is in, they still deserve the full protection of the law. Their reliability as a witness may however, be called into question, and it is from that point that the waters become muddy.

[......and Smith must score. 1,336]

Having done two stints of jury service I''m pleased we have the system in place in Britain. Yes, it''s not perfect but the principle of laymen/women deciding an accused''s fate is as fair as it can ever get. To be on a jury and hear all the arguments sway back and forth shows how incredibly thorough  the court process is and it gives the jurors the best possible chance of reaching the correct verdict. I wouldn''t think that in a '' no jury '' country such as South Africa the verdict is reached by a judge alone is as safe but do I wonder whether the same verdicts would have been reached had the Evans case occurred  there and the Pistorious case been tried here.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Daz Sparks"]LDC, I am going to ask a question. Please take it on face value.

Do you believe that someone who is drunk deserves any less protection from the law?[/quote]

No.  But being drunk is generally down to the person who gets drunk.  People expect the law to be upheld - but if they want that, they also

have a responsibility to be responsible for their own actions.  Being

totally incapable through alcohol is not behaving responsibly.  If you are incapable through drink it is your own fault.  The law can be clumsy and it can only guess at the level of your intoxication the day afterwards, or take evidence from witnesses.   The camera footage shows a certain ability of the woman to be able to walk and control what she is doing, picking up a pizza, walking unaided through the hotel.  So was she drunk to the extent she didn''t know what she was doing?   Open to question imo. 

[Moosheep 0]

Ched Evan was convicted of rape. He was handed a sentence which, under English law, is deemed appropriate punishment for this crime. The safety of his conviction is not relevant and neither is the fact that he continues to maintain his innocence. If we have faith in the criminal justice system we must accept both the verdict and the punishment. In doing this however we must also accept that once sentence has been served a convicted criminal has a right to put their past behind them and to move forward living a crime free life as a productive member of society (the fact that many choose not to also irrelevant). Should Ched Evans play football again? Yes, absolutely. In supporting his return we do not condone his past actions but are accepting that he has been appropriately punished for his crime. Will this set a bad example? Not really. Its not as if he ''got away with it'' or ''got off easy''. In fact it might show others who have broken the law that it is possible to successfully reintegrate into society.Finally, one thing to remember is that Ched is only half way through his sentence. On his release he will most likely be sent to a hostel where he will be subject to some very restrictive conditions and a strict curfew. It is highly unlikely that he would able to to play football professionally whilst resident there. Once he is allowed home (usually after 3 months or so) he will still be under the supervision of the probation service who will ultimately be the ones who say whether he can return to football prior to the end of his sentence.Moo

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Moosheep"]The safety of his conviction is not relevant and neither is the fact that he continues to maintain his innocence.[/quote]I''d say that it''s COMPLETELY relevant in cases whereby there is only circumstantial evidence which lead to the conviction. [quote]If we have faith in the criminal justice system we must accept both the verdict and the punishment.[/quote]I personally have a high degree of faith in the system overall, but do feel that have been numerous cases where the evidence seemed very flimsy (even highly questionable), and either a potentially innocent man was convicted or a guilty man was acquitted despite committing the crime.NO system is infallible, but I''m very strongly of the belief that you need overwhelming evidence in order to gain a conviction (e.g. a video of the guy committing a murder, or 30 witnessess who saw a car collision where one of the drivers was clearly drunk and driving erratically), and certainly in the Evans case, I don''t think the evidence was anywhere near strong enough to prove a guilty verdict - especially not when McDonald was acquitted for basically doing the exact same thing (supposedly having sex with a woman who is too drunk to make a genuinely consensual choice)...