by Norfolk Royal »
19 Nov 2014 21:29
andrew1957 I know that some will be offended by my view but this case seems an odd one to me.
I had a look at Ched Evans website and the CCTV footage of the players arriving at the hotel with the young lady. She showed little sign of being incapably drunk. She left the hotel on her own without help to go back to the taxi to collect something and then of her own free will went back into the hotel to join the players.
Another odd factor is that the co accused Clayton McDonald admitted having sex with the same girl and yet was acquitted. How could he be innocent if Evans was guilty? From the trail details the difference was that he was confident in the witness stand whilst Evans was nervous.
So it seems to me the facts are that the two players had sex with a women who did not appear to be very drink but who regretted it the next day. Were they immoral - yes of course. But is this rape? The same thing no doubt happens a dozen of times each Friday and Saturday evening across Reading where drunk girls have sex with guys and regret it the next day. In fact a serving Police Officer said exactly that to me last week. From what he said they get fed up with having to deal with this issue all the time. He said most of the women make an accusation and then withdraw it a day or two later.
So unless we make it illegal to have a one night stand I don't see how society deals with this issue. Because otherwise how does any guy know whether it is ok to have sex with a woman or whether she is just a little too drunk to give consent. One has to wonder if the Police took this case on because the guys were footballers - whereas normally they would not have bothered.
And if Evans was guilty it is beyond belief that McDonald got acquitted for doing exactly the same thing. If one was guilty they must BOTH be guilty. It seems the only difference was Evans was nervous on the witness stand.
So is Evans a cheating dirt bag. Undoubtedly yes - but is rapist a fair description?
So I think he should be able to continue his career.
You are being extremely selective in picking parts of the evidence to suit your view and plain wrong in some of it. You fail to mention that the girl had collapsed insensible in a kebab house moments before she agreed to go to the hotel. She did not go into the hotel with the players, as you said, she went into the hotel with MacDonald alone. Evans arrived later after MacDonald had texted him to say he had 'got a bird,' then lied to the night porter to gain access to the room where MacDonald was having sex with the girl. After MacDonald had sex with the girl he left via the front entrance of the hotel stopping to tell the night porter to keep an eye on the girl because she was ill. By contrast, Evans left the hotel via the emergency exit at the rear, later joining up with MacDonald
You ask how can it be that MacDonald was cleared but Evans was guilty. We don't really know because we are not party to the jury's deliberations but the obvious answer is that the jury, having heard all the evidence, decided that it was likely the girl had consented in some way to sex with MacDonald, but not to sex with Evans.
It should also be noted that both the judge at his trial and three appeal court judges later, decided that there was no inconsistency in the jury decisions, despite that being put as grounds for appeal by Evans' legal team.
There is one point in your rudimentary analysis, ignoring the more provocative statements you made, that does have some traction though, and great play has been made of this by Evans' legal team. Most people would find it odd probably that the girl could be seen on TV going into the hotel unaided given her inability to stand up moments earlier. However, the court heard expert medical evidence on her likely state of inebriation at the material times and also expert evidence on her apparent amnesia. One must assume the jury gave that evidence due consideration.
It might be helpful if people read this summary of why the original Ched Evans appeal was turned down. It also provides a decent summary of the evidence in the case.
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-che ... dwyn-evans
) I respect that Human Rights (even if I disagree with the application of them in so many, many cases) MUST be applied equally.