Ched Evans

The_Viper said:

When she reported it the next morning, she gave a sample which showed no alcohol at all, and experts estimate that she was about 2.5 times the legal drive limit (so, what, 3-4 large glasses of wine?) at the height of the evening (before she went with the defendants), which should not be enough to induce amnesia. All of the witnesses agree that she was slurring her speech and stumbling, but perfectly capable of talking to people.

Although possible, it's also slightly strange that the jury decided that one defendant was guilty and the other not, given that they each had sex with her within a relatively short period of time (during which she didn't get any more intoxicated). The case seems to have turned on whether or not she was too drunk to consent (rather than whether she actually said yes). It's therefore pretty odd that between one finishing and the next starting, she lost capacity. Very odd.

Read the case if you want to, and the appeal. It's a lot less clear-cut than you might think.

Click to expand...

The_Viper said:

When she reported it the next morning, she gave a sample which showed no alcohol at all, and experts estimate that she was about 2.5 times the legal drive limit (so, what, 3-4 large glasses of wine?) at the height of the evening (before she went with the defendants), which should not be enough to induce amnesia. All of the witnesses agree that she was slurring her speech and stumbling, but perfectly capable of talking to people.

Although possible, it's also slightly strange that the jury decided that one defendant was guilty and the other not, given that they each had sex with her within a relatively short period of time (during which she didn't get any more intoxicated). The case seems to have turned on whether or not she was too drunk to consent (rather than whether she actually said yes). It's therefore pretty odd that between one finishing and the next starting, she lost capacity. Very odd.

Read the case if you want to, and the appeal. It's a lot less clear-cut than you might think.

Click to expand...

Acker79 said:

One thing that is clear cut, and been mentioned time and again in this thread, is that it is perfectly reasonable for the jury to come to different decisions for each defendant. One met the girl in town and she went back to a hotel room with him - the sort of circumstances that lead to people consenting to sex up and down the country. The other lied to a porter to gain access to a room that was for someone else's use, disturbed them having sex - not so common a situation for sex.

Whether McDonald had her consent or not, the circumstances that resulted in him having sex make it reasonably believable that he genuinely believed he had her consent.

If Evans didn't have her explicit, conscious, consent, it is not reasonable for him to assume it given the circumstances that led to him having sex with her.

You may disagree with one or both of their decisions, but the fact they came to different decisions for each defendant is not even slightly strange when you actually look at the whole picture, that they are not just looking at if she consents, but if it is reasonable for the defendant to believe they have her consent, not just "well, they both had sex with her".

The alcohol thing has been covered in depth too, with plenty of anecdotal evidence in this thread of the various, inconsistent effects alcohol, the fact that the bottle of wine's worth of alcohol would have to be in her blood at the same time, which indicates more drinking that just a bottle of wine (i.e. if you spend 9 hours drinking a bottle of wine, at no point will your blood alcohol level be near 2.5, due to digestion and alcohol processing rates) and the various contributing factors that change how alcohol affects you, and how less alcohol than you're used to can have a stronger effect than your usual heavier drinking because of them.

Click to expand...

drew said:

The question of alcohol was apparently dealt with by expert witness on behalf of the defence and it would seem not disputed. He estimated she was 2.5 times over the drink drive limit. Furthermore she is also reported as saying she regularly drank more that she had that night. With regard to hours, just to clarify, she was probably drinking for maybe 3 hours. That is, she finished her shift at the hotel and went home sometime before 12. She left the club at at about 3 as she is reportedly spent an hour in the kebab shop before eventually arriving at the hotel with McDonald at 4:15. Also, her friends gave evidence that she wasn't particularly drunk that evening.

That said, without checking back, I think Viper is wrong in that she didn't provide a sample in the morning. It was later in the day after she had finished work (I stand to be corrected) hence the fact that the level of alcohol was not identified.

Click to expand...

Nibble said:

I guess the lesson is.....DON'T RAPE PEOPLE.

Click to expand...

vegster said:

Or rather if you are going to commit a crime choose the banking industry.

Click to expand...

spring hall convert said:

What does Jeff Stelling

Click to expand...

However, Moore added: "He has made a mistake and maybe he hasn't apologised in the right way - and I know he has an appeal case pending - but [I'm prepared to ignore all that, because] if he gets on the park, he would go a long way to getting us out of trouble."

Click to expand...

Leekbrookgull said:

What the issue here ?

Click to expand...

Blue Valkyrie said:

We don't need to be looking at strikers as poor as Evans even if wasn't a rapist.

We need to sign someone way better.

If BloomsA wants to stay up he needs to spend BIG.

Jordan Rhodes would be a start.

Click to expand...

pottert said:

we could sign ronaldo but it wouldn't make any difference.

Our manager is not good enough to play the system we are playing.

We always look likely to conceed but don't look like scoring.

Click to expand...