Search results

She was drunk, we know that. [I]Yes, that's what the judge had to say based on the verdict given by the jury. But I've not seen proof beyond reasonable doubt that it's correct. I've been sick from alcohol many times, but I'm still able to decide who I want to have sex with. I'm not saying...

Correct.

Why? Clearly he went there for sex but that doesn't mean that she said no or she was too intoxicated to say yes/no. There is too much element of doubt for me to ruin someone's life when there is a chance that he could be innocent.

He was going to the police station where his brother was, due to another incident. He then received a text from MacDonald saying he had a bird. Evans then told the taxi driver to go to the hotel. This is what is bad from my point of view, morally. I still think that there is reasonable doubt...

Evans is claiming that the vase was never broken and there is no evidence to suggest the vase was broken, i.e. broken pieces/dna. He has admitted to handling the vase but that the owner consented to that. The jury have decided he is lying about the consent and that vase was broken even though...

Well, seems that I am wrong or you were all embarrassed and didn't want to admit to anything! :)

How many people do you know that drink, even seriously heavy, on a night out and cannot remember what happened days, weeks, months later? I sometimes forget but as soon as someone mentions something that happened, I remember. I can honestly say that I only know of one person that says...

Is this saying that the judge directed the jury in the direction that drunken consent amounts to consent but he did not specifically say that? In which case, as the girl stated that she cannot remember a thing about the night and still can't, how can she know if she consented? If she doesn't...

^^^

If a doctor was found guilty of abuse/rape/molesting etc. he will be struck off. He would then have to find a job as a painter and decorator or go back to India or something. The FA should have rules which state that any player found guilty of a crime (specific serious crimes) is forbidden from...

Why do they feel they should or need to take him back on? Is there not another player within Europe of equal or better ability than Evans that they can buy? Or is it just because they can get him cheap? I.e. "mate you've been inside, the going rate for your ability is £10k a week but as you have...