Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Ched Evans









nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,769
Manchester
I've never had compete memory loss, even on 16 hour benders in Vegas. Have a few mates who will often 'lose' the last couple of hours of a 6-8 hour session though.
 








symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
Something else I missed then, her weight. However, she did admit in court that she regularly drunk more than she had done that night!!!

Shall we just relax the law on rape? Where do you want to draw the line in the night out of sex games grey area that Evans willingly slipped into?

The law is there to guard against the exploitation of fellow human beings, but if you believe it was nothing more than a normal night of fun, clearly no one will change your mind.
 


Shall we just relax the law on rape? Where do you want to draw the line in the night out of sex games grey area that Evans willingly slipped into?

The law is there to guard against the exploitation of fellow human beings, but if you believe it was nothing more than a normal night of fun, clearly no one will change your mind.

He reminds me of this Lawyer cross examining a Doctor.

Lg9DHdl1.jpg
 


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,067
Burgess Hill
Shall we just relax the law on rape? Where do you want to draw the line in the night out of sex games grey area that Evans willingly slipped into?

The law is there to guard against the exploitation of fellow human beings, but if you believe it was nothing more than a normal night of fun, clearly no one will change your mind.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? This isn't about different interpretation of the law or changing the law, it is about whether you believe she was so drunk she had no clue as to what was going on or if there is enough doubt that despite not being stone cold sober she was still capable of making a decision.
 




Steve.S

Well-known member
May 11, 2012
1,833
Hastings
How do you arrive at that conclusion? This isn't about different interpretation of the law or changing the law, it is about whether you believe she was so drunk she had no clue as to what was going on or if there is enough doubt that despite not being stone cold sober she was still capable of making a decision.

No we do not know how drunk she was as much as you do not know how sober she was. But we were not asked to listen to the evidence and make a judgement on it. Clearly 12 people who sat through the case watched videos and listened to witnesses and all parties involved came to a conclusion and that was that he was guilty. You keep saying there was doubt, unless you sat through all the case, how could you have any idea.if you do perhaps you can spend the rest of the evening writing every question ask by the barristers and all the answers given on here
 
Last edited:




Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,798
Hove
How do you arrive at that conclusion? This isn't about different interpretation of the law or changing the law, it is about whether you believe she was so drunk she had no clue as to what was going on or if there is enough doubt that despite not being stone cold sober she was still capable of making a decision.

I'll give you one thing [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION], you are truly unrelenting!
 




Hotchilidog

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2009
8,708
Is this still going on? Ched Evans is a convicted RAPIST. I am finding the straw clutching defence on here pretty offensive to be honest. A judge and jury have heard ALL the evidence and a comprehensive verdict has been delivered, and yet some are still seeking to get they guy off at the expense of his victim. Sums up a section of male opinion that women are basically just asking for it regardless. No respect for another person whatsoever. For me this has been a very unedifying discussion.
 


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,067
Burgess Hill
No we do not know how drunk she was as much as you do not know how sober she was. But we were not asked to listen to the evidence and make a judgement on it. Clearly 12 people who sat through the case watched videos and listened to witnesses and all parties involved came to a conclusion and that was that he was guilty. You keep saying there was doubt, unless you sat through all the case, how could you have any idea.if you do perhaps you can spend the rest of the evening writing every question ask by the barristers and all the answers given on here

You're happy with the verdict, in fact the way you talk you are happy with any verdict. If you don't want to question the evidence then fine. There is enough evidence in the public domain to form an opinion, a lot of it included in the document from the judges who considered the right to appeal.

As for her level of drunkenness, you're right, we don't know because no blood sample was taken at the time. However, evidence has been submitted to suggest how much she had had to drink, evidence from the defence but there is no suggestion on record that it is disputed by the prosecution. I'm not sure you've formed an opinion on that because all you harp on about is the jury. In my opinion and from my experience, the equivalent of one bottle of wine is not normally enough to put a girl or women into a drunken stupor so as they haven't a clue as to what is happening. Maybe your experience is different.
 


symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
How do you arrive at that conclusion? This isn't about different interpretation of the law or changing the law, it is about whether you believe she was so drunk she had no clue as to what was going on or if there is enough doubt that despite not being stone cold sober she was still capable of making a decision.

If she was drunk and unconscious she wouldn’t remember anything. So do you believe her when she said that she couldn’t remember or was just lying about it?

And why don't you believe her?

Don't forget that she had cocaine and cannabis in her system as well.
 




coagulantwolf

New member
Jun 21, 2012
716
In my opinion and from my experience, the equivalent of one bottle of wine is not normally enough to put a girl or women into a drunken stupor so as they haven't a clue as to what is happening. Maybe your experience is different.

I've seen girls/women in pretty bad ways after drinking a bottle of wine. Just because YOU have never experienced it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
 


Aug 23, 2011
1,864
Something else I missed then, her weight. However, she did admit in court that she regularly drunk more than she had done that night!!!

i have drunk more and been fine. Alcohol doesn't always affect you the same way each time. I went to Magaluf and spent a week drinking chronically and didn't particular suffer certainly not compared to what i drank. I have also been out at other times and been quite reserved with my drinking and felt very rough.
 


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,067
Burgess Hill
I'll give you one thing [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION], you are truly unrelenting!

It's a debate about one case in which I expressed an opinion about the element of doubt. Perhaps if rent a mob didn't keep twisting what I have said or posting stuff I have never said then maybe it we could sit back and await the review by the CCRC.
 


Aug 23, 2011
1,864
You're happy with the verdict, in fact the way you talk you are happy with any verdict. If you don't want to question the evidence then fine. There is enough evidence in the public domain to form an opinion, a lot of it included in the document from the judges who considered the right to appeal.

As for her level of drunkenness, you're right, we don't know because no blood sample was taken at the time. However, evidence has been submitted to suggest how much she had had to drink, evidence from the defence but there is no suggestion on record that it is disputed by the prosecution. I'm not sure you've formed an opinion on that because all you harp on about is the jury. In my opinion and from my experience, the equivalent of one bottle of wine is not normally enough to put a girl or women into a drunken stupor so as they haven't a clue as to what is happening. Maybe your experience is different.

her blood level was equivalent to drinking a bottle of wine all in one go not just having a bottle of wine, it isn't quite the same thing. When you drink a bottle of wine, you do so over a period of time and some will be processed immediately, some will be processed before you've finished the bottle and some will still be in your digestive system not being absorbed yet. In order to get near to having a bottle of wine level alcohol in your blood then you'd have to down it in one go and even then that wouldn't quite get you to that level as again the body wouldn't absorb it all in one go
 




dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
52,479
Burgess Hill
You're happy with the verdict, in fact the way you talk you are happy with any verdict. If you don't want to question the evidence then fine. There is enough evidence in the public domain to form an opinion, a lot of it included in the document from the judges who considered the right to appeal.

As for her level of drunkenness, you're right, we don't know because no blood sample was taken at the time. However, evidence has been submitted to suggest how much she had had to drink, evidence from the defence but there is no suggestion on record that it is disputed by the prosecution. I'm not sure you've formed an opinion on that because all you harp on about is the jury. In my opinion and from my experience, the equivalent of one bottle of wine is not normally enough to put a girl or women into a drunken stupor so as they haven't a clue as to what is happening. Maybe your experience is different.

There may be enough to form an opinion, but it isn't the same (all) the evidence the jury and judges saw and heard, so you're quite likely to come to a different conclusion.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here