Would you have Ched Evans?

[Canaryboy]

I'm just glad that we can discuss this here, when other "more popular" forums are deleting threads about the subject.

Can't see the problem discussing until the retrial date is published, at which point will probably need to lock for a while. 

 

[ZLF]

I just find it difficult to comprehend how she could have been any drunker when sleeping with Evans than she was when sleeping with McDonald a few minutes earlier,

Its not about when she had sex with donaldson;   its about when she agreed to;  from memory her evidence was that she could recall agreeing to have sex with donaldson and accepts she wanted to;  as such she was of "sound mind" so donaldsons actions were legally fine.   Its not just drink but drugs too.

the jury, based on the original (incomplete) evidence,  found that was  not the case for evans - i agree its a fine but complicated stance;   but legally it stacks up even if its not always easy to differentiate. 

Rape cases are always difficult to bring and succeed with - this one started from the most difficult end of the scale to win from a prosecution point of view so you have to question the CPSs decision to proceed.

 

[Canaryboy]

I guess its all a moot point anyway because the new trial will be decided on a new set of evidence from the defense, which is the basis for the retrial, so the prior decision is now irrelevant / chalked off. 

I do have to remind myself that all 12 jury members actually decided that he was guilty first time around, pretty damning. 

 

[Bill and ben]

Looking back I think the story was: she woke up confused about why she was in the hotel. She wonders if her drink was spiked.

She later goes to the police and mentions that something must have occurred as she wouldn't have lost her handbag otherwise. She has no idea about the 'activity' and makes no claim in regard to it. It is the police investigation that leads to the charge.

there were two questions for the jury 1) was she,by reason of drink or drugs, incapable of giving consent and 2) did those charged reasonably believe that there was consent? 

It it is perfectly possible for a victim to be so drunk as to be incapable of giving consent but for no offence to have occurred if the defendant reasonably thinks the victim is capable and has consented.

it may be easier to make this claim if the victim has come back with you than if you just turn up uninvited.

 

[Indy_Bones]

    It it is perfectly possible for a victim to be so drunk as to be incapable of giving consent but for no offence to have occurred if the defendant reasonably thinks the victim is capable and has  consented.

Apparently it's not.

The mere fact that someone is deemed incapable of giving consent, automatically removes said consent regardless of the circumstances (even if it's a married couple).

The problem comes about in deeming what is 'too drunk' for this to happen, which is why many could not understand how she can have been sober enough during sex with McDonald (as even if prior consent has been given, this consent is then considered defunct if she then becomes too drunk to continue giving consent), but suddenly was not when Evans asked to partake (again, regardless of any previous intent or consent she had with McDonald).

Unless there is clear and genuine evidence to prove that her state of sobriety (or not) was insufficient to deem acceptable consent as being given, then I fail to see how a conviction can be made. She can't remember the situation, she apparently hasn't claimed rape, and it all seems to boil down to who the jury wants to believe - regardless of what evidence or not may back this decision up.

I still maintain that the conviction was incorrect, but also maintain that I find Evans behaviour as being pretty seedy and reprehensible, but until that in itself becomes a crime then I don't see how charges can be made. I also fully appreciate that others will not share my opinion, and I fully respect and understand that - even if I personally don't agree with it.

 

[Gorlestongirl]

No. Even if the conviction is being questioned, it appears that he cannot see that his behaviour was at the best squalid. So no on moral grounds.

 

[Canaryboy]

than if you just turn up uninvited.

Uninvited to your own hotel room.

(I'm just being facetious, because obviously we know that Evan was prompted by a text saying "I have a bird" or something).

 

[Canaryboy]

No. Even if the conviction is being questioned, it appears that he cannot see that his behaviour was at the best squalid. So no on moral grounds.

Agreed he wouldn't pass a test of good character, although that hasn't stopped us before, we once signed Chris Brown of Sunderland 'roasting' video fame. He'd also once driven around Sunderland shooting at random civilians with a ball bearing gun.

 

[Gorlestongirl]

Agreed he wouldn't pass a test of good character, although that hasn't stopped us before, we once signed Chris Brown of Sunderland 'roasting' video fame. He'd also once driven around Sunderland shooting at random civilians with a ball bearing gun.

Didn't want him either tbh.  

 

[Bill and ben]

1Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his *bleep*,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

 

[Bill and ben]

I'd maintain that drunkeness is only one factor. That's how I read the law. Consent is one factor, belief as to consent is another. Both must be lacking for there to be a conviction.  The reasonableness of belief is dependant on the circumstances. Different circumstances may give rise to a different opinion as to reasonableness.

the jury were required to give consideration as to the two, different, sets of circumstances of the two defendants. 

I don't know what I would have decided had I been in the position of juror but I find it perfectly possible that I would have come to two different conclusions.

 

[Gaffer]

Innocent man wrongly deprived of his freedom and career for years.

If he's the top scorer in his league by Christmas I'd have him back.

 

[Canaryboy]

Innocent man wrongly deprived of his freedom and career for years.

If he's the top scorer in his league by Christmas I'd have him back.

It was the bit where she was boasting on social media about her forthcoming windfall, and the matching MIni Cooper's she was going to buy for her and her best friend which convinced me she was no 'victim'. Presumably the same friend who gave evidence about her arriving at her house crying?

But he's still of highly questionable character and I'm not sure I'd want him at our club. I suppose we do have an obvious gap for a striker, but not sure the city needs a player down Prince of Wales Road at 3am looking for easy girls in kebab shops to take back to Holiday Inn on Duke Street. We've been very good at picking the right characters at our club in recent years, whereas Sheffield United seem to be adept at picking the wrong ones. At the time Ched Evans stopped playing for Sheffield United they also had Jose Baxter the cokehead, and Callum McFadzean the player who headbutts women, and Marlon King the woman groper with a long history of violence.

Must have been the complete opposite to the culture we want here, and mostly have got here.

 

[ZLF]

I still dont want him here,  conviction free but morally repugnant but even more crucially simply not as good as we have. 

There was a case and enough evidence for multiple courts to decide it needed hearing,  the court of appeal and criminal review board did not bar a retrial,  which they could have done;  so it doesnt seem the police / cps have done much wrong and she wasnt the one looking for a a rape prosecution.    

On the evidence of the first trial the jury who are a few people to hear all the evidence and the way it was given decided he was given.    He appealed, having sought and found word perfect supporting witness (cynical, me - surely not)  and the second jury decided he wasnt guilty.   The only difference between the trials appears to be the amount of media coverage between them & those two witnesses. 

Quite how that equates to her giving Evans consent when his own evidence is he hadnt spoken to her "before during or after sex" is another thing all together and is the bit that puzzles me.  However I accept that the jury heard the evidence and I respect their decision. 

Its crucial to realise that whatever we read or hear only the jury have heard everything,  down to the sighs, pauses and body language that is never reported accurately. The jury have not found him innocent,  nor her guilty,  simply decided that there is not enough evidence & sufficient doubt in their mind to mean that they could not find him guilty so he walks out a free man and hopefully the circus dies down.  

None of us will ever know the truth one way or another.  The jury have made their choice based on being the only people to hear and feel it all.  Both of their lives have been permanently affected by their own and each other actions;  they will have to live with that and neither gets sympathy from me.  

Hopefully that is the last of what is one of the most tawdry shameful indictments on both the youth drink culture and untouchable arrogance of far too many in football, whether young players or managers at the very top level.   I would be happy if all involved crawled back under their respective rocks.  

 

[Canaryboy]

Worth just acknowledging that nobody has 'won' here. Ched Evans, Clayton McDonald, and the girl have all experienced a hugely detrimental effect to their lives as a result of the whole debacle.

If it all boils down to Ched Evans believing he had implied consent, and the victim genuinely not being able to remember anything, then the whole thing is a bit sad really. Its two people who feel they've done nothing wrong but who have both had their lives turned upside down. That's the likely reality of the whole thing. 

But Ched Evans still comes out of this with a justified loss of respect in my opinion, when you consider the fact that the girl made no rape accusation then the website they had going and the hounding of her by a mob led by Evan's relatives is enough to not want him at Norwich, even if they were understandably angry and Evans held a genuine belief that he'd not committed any crime. 

People forget about Clayton McDonald don't they. He believes that this whole thing has destroyed his career, maybe he is just sh*te and Redditch United in the Southern League is his natural level, but it does look like he has a point. 

Also, I wouldn't want Evans here because of the baggage that he'd bring with him with the Adam Johnson case. Now that one really is open and shut, he groomed a child over a period of time and knew exactly what he was doing. But Johnson's ex-girlfriend and sister are claiming this Evans case as a victory and jumping all over it as a precedent. If I were Evans I'd consider pursuing some sort of stop order on Johnson's family ever publicly mentioning his name or the case again before he starts to think about his £500k in lost earnings! 

 

[lyb]

Quite how that equates to her giving Evans consent when his own evidence is he hadnt spoken to her "before during or after sex" is another thing all together and is the bit that puzzles me.  However I accept that the jury heard the evidence and I respect their decision. 

MacDonald testified that MacDonald asked her if it was okay for Evans to join them when Evans arrived, to which she replied yes apparently. That was in the original trial as well. Why the original jury chose not to accept this at the first trial is a mystery to me.