Speculation: Ched Evans, you decide

[Norfolk Royal]

Apologies, you're absolutely right I used INdeterminate when I meant exactly the opposite in this case. I can't get my head around the editing facility on these updated board and frankly couldn't be bothered to delete and retype! I am a Luddite

In a nutshell, what I am saying is that (imo) LIFE for a certain offence should mean LIFE.....and in almost every case it doesn't. Due to rules around supposed Human Rights. For me, you lose your right to Human Rights when convicted of the most appalling crimes.

Interesting though that - while I am consistent in my opinions on the matter - Liberals congratulate the application of Human Rights contrary to my own statement above.....and then many Liberals seem to have an issue with the likes of Ched Evans being able to take a well paid high profile job. You can't have it both ways. As a Democrat (as a opposed to a Liberal Democrat ) I respect that Human Rights (even if I disagree with the application of them in so many, many cases) MUST be applied equally.

I have no issue with not being allowed to lock people up forever with absolutely no hope of release. seems sensible. you need to at least keep up the pretence at a possibility of rehabilitation, and to remove all hope is completely inhumane.

also have no issue with evans taking a high profile footballing position anywhere that allows him to. he's done his time. if a club feels its a good idea then that's up to them

As a postscript to that it might be worth noting that since capital punishment was abolished in the 60s the actual tariff that lifers serve has actually gone up pretty much year by year. The Government at the time, and there was agreement on it, were of the view that a life sentence would see prisoners serving around ten years, or a maximum of 14, since it was the view that keeping a person incarcerated for longer than that was counter productive and inhumane. For younger prisoners the tariff was set lower than that in many cases.

In fact the tariffs have increased since then to the point where it is not uncommon now for tariffs of 20 or 30 years to be set. So that's the background. I'm not really clear on Floyde's point about the Human Rights Act. It may be a factor say if the British Government wanted life to really mean life, which I don't agree with except in exceptional cases where a prisoners' release would threaten the safety of the public in a real way, and that contravened a European ruling or the act itself.

In reality, politicians of all sides talk tough on law and order while realising that the justice system and prisons would be unworkable were life to really mean life.

[Snowball]

The woman in question did NOT say she was raped.

She says she simply "can't remember".

Not remembering (the next day) is NOT proof of incapacity at the time.

Evans and the other guy were interviewed by police. Had they replied "No Comment" there could be no charge.

Neither man ejaculated. No DNA evidence was put forward
There was no physical injury to the woman.
The woman, "having no memory of the events" is therefore not able to say that she had sex or was raped.

According to the Ched Evans site, if the two footballers had said "No Comment" the police could not prosecute, but, because they happily admitted to consensual sex, the question then only becomes, "Was the woman capable of giving consent?"


The woman was drunk, obviously, but the effects of alcohol subside over time. If she had no more alcohol in the hotel, then she should have been MORE drunk when she had sex with the first footballer, LESS drunk when she had sex with Evans.

Evans testified that the woman asked him to "lick her out"

In court she admitted under oath that this WAS her term for asking for oral sex.

[Norfolk Royal]

The woman in question did NOT say she was raped.

She says she simply "can't remember".

Not remembering (the next day) is NOT proof of incapacity at the time.

Evans and the other guy were interviewed by police. Had they replied "No Comment" there could be no charge.

Neither man ejaculated. No DNA evidence was put forward
There was no physical injury to the woman.
The woman, "having no memory of the events" is therefore not able to say that she had sex or was raped.

According to the Ched Evans site, if the two footballers had said "No Comment" the police could not prosecute, but, because they happily admitted to consensual sex, the question then only becomes, "Was the woman capable of giving consent?"


The woman was drunk, obviously, but the effects of alcohol subside over time. If she had no more alcohol in the hotel, then she should have been MORE drunk when she had sex with the first footballer, LESS drunk when she had sex with Evans.

Evans testified that the woman asked him to "lick her out"

In court she admitted under oath that this WAS her term for asking for oral sex.

Your point being?

[Snowball]

My point is that the verdict was

(a) Illogical

(b) unsafe



Which is one reason why the case is being fast-tracked as a possible miscarriage of justice.


Incidentally, if the above happens, and the guilty verdict is overturned, will all those who love to chant "CONVICTED rapist" as if there are never, ever bad convictions, then say, "Not Guilty, because it's now deemed a miscarriage of justice."


Probably not. Then they'll no doubt say, "He's obviously guilty, just off on some technicality..."

[Norfolk Royal]

My point is that the verdict was

(a) Illogical

(b) unsafe



Which is one reason why the case is being fast-tracked as a possible miscarriage of justice.


Incidentally, if the above happens, and the guilty verdict is overturned, will all those who love to chant "CONVICTED rapist" as if there are never, ever bad convictions, then say, "Not Guilty, because it's now deemed a miscarriage of justice."


Probably not. Then they'll no doubt say, "He's obviously guilty, just off on some technicality..."

The case is not being fast tracked for the reasons you suggest. The spokesman for the Criminal Cases Review Board said this about it: He added: “The decision to prioritise the case simply brings forward the starting point of the investigations to decide whether or not there may be grounds for us to refer the case to the court of appeal. It does not in any way represent a judgment by the commission as to the merits of the case or its chances of being referred.”

You appear to think the verdicts of the jury were unsafe and illogical having read some details on the Ched Evans website, despite this already being referred to the Court of Appeal where three judges decided the convictions were safe.

Presumably you are aware that this website has been set up to put Ched Evans side of the case.

It may well be possible that Ched Evans will eventually be exonerated but on the statements you have made most sensible people would conclude that the verdict of the original trial jury is the best barometer of the evidence.

[Elm Park Pasty]

I will be quite happy to change my view if an Appeals Board decides it is an unsafe conviction, however, at this time he remains a convicted rapist. I am not exactly sure why there has to be some correlation between rape and physical injury, if that is what you are trying to say Snowball? Are we to presume from that, that a woman cannot have been raped if she has no physical injuries? A man does not have to ejaculate, it is the penetration itself that constitutes the rape, and the fact that no discernible DNA left does not mean that it did not happen. DNA evidence in these sort of cases does tend to be in terms of semen or pubic hair, it is not beyond the realms of belief for neither to be there, but this is a red herring anyway because both sides agree the sexual act took place.

I have seen that quite a few people on here seem to think you can't find McDonald not guilty but Evans guilty. Not correct, nor is it logical. As I have stated elsewhere on this thread, consent has to be given, OR AT LEAST A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT CONSENT WAS GIVEN. How many times do I have to say this? It is perfectly logical for one of these blokes to be found guilty, and the other one not. The jury would have taken into account the whole lead up to what took place between MacDonald and the girl in the hotel room. Given the interaction earlier on, they may have concluded that they could not find MacDonald guilty as there was enough evidence to conclude that even if he did not implicitly have consent HE HELD THE REASONABLE BELIEF HE HAD.

In Evans' case they would have reviewed the fact that Evans and the other two arrived at the hotel separately. Evans then lied to acquire a door card to enter the room, and after the act he legged it out of the fire escape. You could point to the fact that she used the term she uses for oral sex, but you're making the assumption that someone who is smashed out of site, is incapable of saying anything or only using gibberish. The jury probably also considered Evans' condition when he arrived, such as was he sober or mildly intoxicated.

I am not saying there is a convincing case for his guilt, and he may be the only person who absolutely 100% knows what went on in that room, but a jury sat and considered all the evidence presented to them, and they decided on his guilt. As far as his website goes, it's going to be skewed towards his innocence isn't it? Just as one, say hypothetically, produced by the girl would show her in sweetness and light. There is also the strong possibility that he actually didn't believe he had done anything wrong, hence him and MacDonald telling all. Certainly, there seem to be a few guys on here who think so. The problem many people seem unable to grasp, is that rape does not have to mean being dragged off or attacked at knifepoint.

[Norfolk Royal]

The oral sex point is an interesting one. He must have been really good friends with MacDonald to have gone down on her straight after he had had sex with her. I don't know what sort of dirty dogs inhabit this board but I wouldn't fancy that.

[Elm Park Pasty]

Cheers NR, that was a thought I probably didn't need!!!!

[Norfolk Royal]

Cheers NR, that was a thought I probably didn't need!!!!

Yeah sorry, it's a thought that's been troubling me for some time and just had to get it out.

The other thought that I've had is that bearing in mind that the girl can remember nothing of it, doesn't that leave it open for Evans to pretty much say what he likes, it can't be challenged by her.

It then occurred to me that Evans might have made up this oral sex line to imply that the girl had at least given consent for extended foreplay and this might exonerate him in the sense that if she consented to that then he would have a reasonable belief that she would consent to full intercourse.

But I think that would be too clever for him to come up with unless his lawyers put him up to it.

[Elm Park Pasty]

Norfolk Royal wrote:Yeah sorry, it's a thought that's been troubling me for some time and just had to get it out.

The other thought that I've had is that bearing in mind that the girl can remember nothing of it, doesn't that leave it open for Evans to pretty much say what he likes, it can't be challenged by her.

It then occurred to me that Evans might have made up this oral sex line to imply that the girl had at least given consent for extended foreplay and this might exonerate him in the sense that if she consented to that then he would have a reasonable belief that she would consent to full intercourse.

But I think that would be too clever for him to come up with unless his lawyers put him up to it.

I honestly wonder if he actually thought/realised what he was doing was illegal, or thought it was just part of a standard lads night out. When you read the Criminal Review Board blurb it does seem that they wanted to introduce a witness that would illustrate that it was perfectly possible for the girl to make rational decisions and then remember nothing about it, this seems to be more about introducing an element of doubt rather than whether it actually pertains to what happened that night. Probably, my biggest problem with him if I am honest is his website/videos. Everything he has said has been issued by videos on the site, I couldn't find an interview with him that wasn't on his site or issued by his people. Now, if I was innocent of such an awful crime I would be screaming from the rooftops on any media outlet that would have me (and there are probably no shortage of them!). I did ponder whether it was something to do with the terms of his release, but then thought so why is he allowed to produce his own videos? Seems (and I may be wrong!!!) that this screams of 'his people' not wanting to put him in front of someone who will ask awkward questions or probe this great miscarriage of justice. Reporters love to get their teeth into cases like this, so where are they?

[Snowball]

I will be quite happy to change my view if an Appeals Board decides it is an unsafe conviction, however, at this time he remains a convicted rapist. I am not exactly sure why there has to be some correlation between rape and physical injury, if that is what you are trying to say Snowball?

(NO - the point was about evidence of sex IN THIS INSTANCE.)



Are we to presume from that, that a woman cannot have been raped if she has no physical injuries?

(NO - the point was about evidence of sex IN THIS INSTANCE.)

A man does not have to ejaculate, it is the penetration itself that constitutes the rape, and the fact that no discernible DNA left does not mean that it did not happen.

What happened or did not happen is CONJECTURE. The point of no sperm/no DNA is nothing to do with anything except that, IN THIS CASE, it means there was no independent evidence of sex occurring

DNA evidence in these sort of cases does tend to be in terms of semen or pubic hair, it is not beyond the realms of belief for neither to be there, but this is a red herring anyway because both sides agree the sexual act took place.

And THAT was my point. The men were only able to be charged if sex was proven (or they admitted it) and THEN, afterwards, lack of consent was proven.


If she didn't consent and they didn't have sex = no problem.
If she didn't consent but they ADMIT sex they have created a problem for themselves.


You, in your post, are missing my basic point and suggesting thoughts of mine that I do not have. To be clear, I do NOT think rape must involve injury or force, or threat of force, nor do I think it must require male ejaculation. For that matter, using an object instead of a penis, is, to my eyes, rape. NOTHING of my comments were "about what rape is". They were only about the so-called "proof" that sex took place IN THIS CASE.


BTW "Both Sides" admit? She said she couldn't remember! It's pretty damn obvious that the prosecution will agree that a sexual act occurred, otherwise there could BE a rape.

On the issue of injury/DNA, my point was NOTHING to do with other rapes, or what constitutes rape. It had only to do with the fact that if Evans and the other guy had refused to speak they could not have been charged with rape.

I have seen that quite a few people on here seem to think you can't find McDonald not guilty but Evans guilty. Not correct, nor is it logical.

It is at least "a stretch" and MacDonald was present WITH Evans for part of the time. IMO if Evans DID rape, MacDonald is guilty of perjury, and very probably conspiracy to rape and/or aiding and assisting a rape.

They cross-referenced each other's defence. That is, BOTH argued that she was clearly willing and BOTH stated that she was asked if a threesome was OK and said yeah.

IF (for the sake of argument) Evans is guilty, then the other guy is surely at least guilty of perjury!

As I have stated elsewhere on this thread, consent has to be given, OR AT LEAST A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT CONSENT WAS GIVEN. How many times do I have to say this? It is perfectly logical for one of these blokes to be found guilty, and the other one not.

Yes, but the statements made by the first footballer INCLUDED evidence exonerating Evans. So, to find Evans guilty you must say MacDonald is lying or mistaken. But "mistaken" would mean that either/both/ & Evans DID have reasonable belief that consent had been given.

The jury would have taken into account the whole lead up to what took place between MacDonald and the girl in the hotel room. Given the interaction earlier on, they may have concluded that they could not find MacDonald guilty as there was enough evidence to conclude that even if he did not implicitly have consent HE HELD THE REASONABLE BELIEF HE HAD.

But he stated he had EXPLICIT consent. He also stated that the threesome was also agreed to. Thus to find Evans guilty you have to say MacDonald is not-guilty but lying.

In Evans' case they would have reviewed the fact that Evans and the other two arrived at the hotel separately. Evans then lied to acquire a door card to enter the room, and after the act he legged it out of the fire escape. You could point to the fact that she used the term she uses for oral sex, but you're making the assumption that someone who is smashed out of site, is incapable of saying anything or only using gibberish. The jury probably also considered Evans' condition when he arrived, such as was he sober or mildly intoxicated.

It is undisputed that Evans had become separated from MacDonald and was in a second taxi with two other men en route to the Police Station. I don't believe Evans' story about the second taxi has been discounted.

BTW the point about the oral sex is that Evans quoted her and she admitted that was her normal term. You think he just made a lucky guess? If he had said "She requested Cunnilingus" and in Court she said "What the oxf*rd is that?" that would have been suggestive of him inventing. At the very least him "getting her terminology right" is evidence that she spoke AND consented.

[Norfolk Royal]

Norfolk Royal wrote:Yeah sorry, it's a thought that's been troubling me for some time and just had to get it out.

The other thought that I've had is that bearing in mind that the girl can remember nothing of it, doesn't that leave it open for Evans to pretty much say what he likes, it can't be challenged by her.

It then occurred to me that Evans might have made up this oral sex line to imply that the girl had at least given consent for extended foreplay and this might exonerate him in the sense that if she consented to that then he would have a reasonable belief that she would consent to full intercourse.

But I think that would be too clever for him to come up with unless his lawyers put him up to it.

I honestly wonder if he actually thought/realised what he was doing was illegal, or thought it was just part of a standard lads night out. When you read the Criminal Review Board blurb it does seem that they wanted to introduce a witness that would illustrate that it was perfectly possible for the girl to make rational decisions and then remember nothing about it, this seems to be more about introducing an element of doubt rather than whether it actually pertains to what happened that night. Probably, my biggest problem with him if I am honest is his website/videos. Everything he has said has been issued by videos on the site, I couldn't find an interview with him that wasn't on his site or issued by his people. Now, if I was innocent of such an awful crime I would be screaming from the rooftops on any media outlet that would have me (and there are probably no shortage of them!). I did ponder whether it was something to do with the terms of his release, but then thought so why is he allowed to produce his own videos? Seems (and I may be wrong!!!) that this screams of 'his people' not wanting to put him in front of someone who will ask awkward questions or probe this great miscarriage of justice. Reporters love to get their teeth into cases like this, so where are they?

They would need some sort of convincing new evidence, as will the review board, to proclaim his innocence and that is a bit thin on the ground on my reading of it. They seem to be going for the 'lurking doubt' line, but that is a rare winner in a situation where a jury has already made their decision as judges don't like that process being disrupted without completely new evidence coming forward.

He's putting out his own stuff obviously to avoid awkward questions as you say and to put his unhindered view when he'd actually be better served by getting on with his life and sucking it up.

It's his girlfriend's father who is paying and campaigning. No doubt he doesn't like the fact that his daughter will effectively be marrying a rapist.
.

[Elm Park Pasty]

My apologies Snowball if you feel I have misrepresented you. Your post earlier up the thread was

Snowball wrote:

Neither man ejaculated. No DNA evidence was put forward
There was no physical injury to the woman.The woman, "having no memory of the events" is therefore not able to say that she had sex or was raped.

Thus, the implication being that there has to be physical proof of a rape, either in terms of physical evidence or physical injury. If I have misunderstood the implication then I am sorry, however, seeing how you placed the link, you should see how the mistake was made.

Why is evidence of sex important, when both sides agreed it occurred, consentually or not? You are right if they had said nothing, it would have been reliant on the witnesses. However, (without knowing exact dates of interview etc) I would wonder at what point physical evidence would have been available to the prosecution anyway. Did the two of them admit to what occurred because they thought the evidence would show what occurred anyway? The point is that is that she maintains she wasn't in a condition to give consent, they say she was.

I am not disputing the term she used for oral sex was spoken, what I am saying is that you cannot assume that someone has to be unconscious to be considered not capable of giving consent. I understand the position is that you have to be capable of understanding you are giving consent, not just in a position not to be able to. So she could presumably have said yes on the basis of god knows what, rather than the fact of whether she actually wanted to have sex with Evans. Sorry if I did not make this clear. I should imagine this is probably why the jury found Evans guilty, that it was thought she was not in a mental capable position to know what she was saying yes to. It also leads onto the possibility (this is conjecture i know!!!) that MacDonald was not so much proved to be innocent, just not proved to be guilty (the evidence of earlier that night supporting his case).

I got to be honest MacDonald's role in this is what I find troubling. Firstly, he can be found not guilty and Evans guilty. The charge was rape, so if the jury felt she had consented to intercourse with him (or evidence to reasonably suggest he could think she did) he has to be found not guilty. This was the only charge from what I am aware, hence no other verdict. This is not illogical or ridiculous, it was the charge that was laid. The finding of Evans guilty has then pointed the finger at MacDonald, if not of abetting then standing by and letting it happen. However, as they were both charged with rape, no other charges could be brought against MacDonald at that trial. You can't accuse him of assisting with something he is accused of. The question then moves onto why there has been no subsequent action, only the CPS can properly answer that. Given the complete caning the girl got on Twitter etc afterwards maybe they didn't want to put her through it? Maybe they didn't see it was worth pursuing the case as the only witness had just been found guilty of rape, and had a vested interest in backing up his mate.

[Norfolk Royal]

The 'lick her out' part of the Ched is innocent campaign seems pretty worthless to me for many reasons. Say you believe that oral sex actually happened, it doesn't mean she necessarily consented to what happened afterwards.

Also, 'lick her out' is an ancient term still in common usage and it seems thoroughly plausible that both would have used it colloquially to describe the act of cunnilingus in any circumstances.

[semtex1871]

You're clutching at straws now boys.....this old slapper clearly asked him to lick her out. If thats not giving someone the green light I don't know what is.

This bloke has been stitched up good and proper.

[Martin41]

You're clutching at straws now boys.....this old slapper clearly asked him to lick her out. If thats not giving someone the green light I don't know what is.

This bloke has been stitched up good and proper.

What a charmer you are............

[semtex1871]

You're clutching at straws now boys.....this old slapper clearly asked him to lick her out. If thats not giving someone the green light I don't know what is.

This bloke has been stitched up good and proper.

What a charmer you are............

Are you asking me to lick you out?

[Martin41]

You're clutching at straws now boys.....this old slapper clearly asked him to lick her out. If thats not giving someone the green light I don't know what is.

This bloke has been stitched up good and proper.

What a charmer you are............

Are you asking me to lick you out?

idiot!!!!!

[AthleticoSpizz]

explanations yet to come but...............

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30054475

(deliberate edit....bbc updated their original strapline with their "half of an explanation" half an hour after their initial announcement)...awww forget it!

[Mr Optimist]

What reason was given for his old mate staying in a premier inn? If you lived in a lovely big house with several bedrooms and bathrooms and your mate invites you over to his home town for a night out, wouldn't you suggest he stays with you rather than in a cheap hotel a few miles out of the town centre?

Unless it was their idea to go out and get hammered and bring some birds back to the hotel all along, rather than back to his pad with his loving girlfriend ironing his shirts.

Exiting the hotel via the fire escape was also not a good move Chedwyn.