Ched Evans

[Scunner]

I think we may have got to a place where we know he's guilty. It's a question of whether he's technically guilty.

It'll need longer than 5 days I fear.

LOL, yes the verdict of NSC is that he is guilty...and stupid, but will it stand? Not sure...and there may yet be a twist in the tale...

 

[symyjym]

The common law precedent under discussion is here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-sex-is-still-consent-judge-rules-516722.html

Completely different circumstances, and it was between two people, not three.

 

[Scunner]

But the appeal judges were satisfied that the trail judge, whilst not using the explicit words 'drunken consent is still consent' did clearly make the jury aware of this distinction. We are talking about a technicality, and a technicality which Evan's team could pursue. Do you think this would result in a retrial, and if so, what chance would there be of securing a jury given the amount of publicity?

Well, this hones in on my main concern - you've spotted it - which is, did the trial judge deliberately omit the precedent from the Swansea rape, shown above, in order to not sway the jury? If he had included the precedent - hence the nuance I referred to in my original post - would Evans have been convicted? I think not. And as we have all agreed, he probably did it...

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

It's a circular argument, if she lacked capacity then that lack must follow through all of her actions including going back to the hotel with Macdonald.

I've already said I believe he was probably wrong, the point is there is a level of doubt here that, to me, indicates that the 99% certainty required for 'beyond reasonable doubt' would fail in the Appeal Court. Remember that the Appeal court hasn't even seen the case yet, and I think this is political under greater good thinking.

yes it is a circular argument however mcdonald was up on charges too and the jury didn't feel it was beyond reasonable doubt for him probably because of these actions whereas they may have felt Evans inviting himself in is dubious

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Not necessarily, I expect that they're on a fixed retainer with consideration given to the amount of publicity garnered by this sort of thing. Carter Ruck LLP (for example) are famed for taking on horrendously difficult cases at face value, benefiting all the time from the free publicity. If Evans' backers have any sense this case will have contingency built in.

ok fair enough, i know little about these things thankfully. However if that is the case then the longer it goes on then the more publicity it generates and therefore more future business so its in their interests to keep it going as long as possible

 

[Hamilton]

Well, this hones in on my main concern - you've spotted it - which is, did the trial judge deliberately omit the precedent from the Swansea rape, shown above, in order to not sway the jury? If he had included the precedent - hence the nuance I referred to in my original post - would Evans have been convicted? I think not. And as we have all agreed, he probably did it...

So, if we can deconstruct the trial judges remarks to prove that the term 'drunken consent is also consent' is inherent and that it could be clearly understood by the jury then the system is in the clear. Of course, we can still verify that Evans, unlike McDonald, arrived in the room uninvited by the girl in question.

 

[Frampler]

Lol! Are you actually trying to argue that the LCJ does not take into consideration wider opinion and consequence when making decisions, especially for the 'greater good'?

Bear in mind these are their own words with reference to why they were not perturbed by the omission of the direction 'drunken consent is still consent' from the summing up: 'On occasions when those words are used or the issue is put in that way, it causes umbrage and indeed distress'. So, they were certainly swayed by wider forces - possible distress - rather than the legal principle here weren't they?

I know that the CCRC can only refer, but their existence as a public, independent, body is in place for exactly this kind of debate especially where the LCJ's office are somewhat hamstrung by earlier decisions. Evans' legal team clearly think so too.

No, I'm not trying to argue that at all. You suggested that "It makes the case a matter of opinion and I think that as a result the LCJ really does not want this to go to appeal because Evans will be acquitted".

I'm arguing that in the specific context of this appeal, the question of wider public opinion and 'greater good' did not sway the judges' thinking - when it does, they tend to expressly say so. The full paragraph you partially quoted from reads thus:

"As it seems to us, those directions to the jury amply encapsulated the concept of the drunken consent amounting to consent. The judge did not use those express words; there was no obligation on him to do so. On occasions when those words are used or the issue is put in that way, it causes umbrage and indeed distress. But that he covered the concept of capacity and choice in his directions to the jury seems to us to be clear. The contrary is not arguable."

That is not an example of public opinion swaying the law. It is an example of the court holding that the specific words used did not matter if the trial judge had correctly conveyed the meaning of a law, which he had.

 

[Birdie Boy]

"As it seems to us, those directions to the jury amply encapsulated the concept of the drunken consent amounting to consent. The judge did not use those express words; there was no obligation on him to do so."

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 know, how can the jury know beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[Scunner]

No, I'm not trying to argue that at all. You suggested that "It makes the case a matter of opinion and I think that as a result the LCJ really does not want this to go to appeal because Evans will be acquitted".

I'm arguing that in the specific context of this appeal, the question of wider public opinion and 'greater good' did not sway the judges' thinking - when it does, they tend to expressly say so. The full paragraph you partially quoted from reads thus:

"As it seems to us, those directions to the jury amply encapsulated the concept of the drunken consent amounting to consent. The judge did not use those express words; there was no obligation on him to do so. On occasions when those words are used or the issue is put in that way, it causes umbrage and indeed distress. But that he covered the concept of capacity and choice in his directions to the jury seems to us to be clear. The contrary is not arguable."

That is not an example of public opinion swaying the law. It is an example of the court holding that the specific words used did not matter if the trial judge had correctly conveyed the meaning of a law, which he had.

Fair points, but the words 'seems to us to be clear' leave me uncomfortable. The interpretation is left to the Jury, and the precedent is not expressly stated by the Judge, I think it's fair comment (I choose those words advisedly ) to say that this was deliberate.

 

[Scunner]

Completely different circumstances, and it was between two people, not three.

Not at all, it's a simple question 'did the complainant consent to penetration?' yes or no? Context is taken into consideration as compelling argument of course, but the nub of the argument is this.

 

[Frampler]

Fair points, but the words 'seems to us to be clear' leave me uncomfortable. The interpretation is left to the Jury, and the precedent is not expressly stated by the Judge, I think it's fair comment (I choose those words advisedly ) to say that this was deliberate.

"Seems to us to be clear" is a common judicial expression when there is more than one judge. I wouldn't read too much into it: it's a very British euphemism for saying "it is clear".

 

[Scunner]

"Seems to us to be clear" is a common judicial expression when there is more than one judge. I wouldn't read too much into it: it's a very British euphemism for saying "it is clear".

Understood, you seem to be certain that due process was followed here and are convicted that the verdict will hold. I am questioning it because I think the Judge was influenced by the very particular nature of the case and rare nuances that it contains - I tend to agree with him - but feel that leaves it open to debate. We shall see...

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Saw an interview with Clough yesterday, He didnt strike me as wanting him at the club.

 

[Steve.S]

The only person that can change opinion of Chad Evans, is Chad Evans.
He has to stop this appeal and man up. Be honest with people, I would think at the time he probably did not think he was doing any harm. It would be far better for him to explain that he was a selfish self centred human being, who thought young women would take one look at him and want to sleep with him. He thought being a footballer with a lot of money gave him the power and the pick of the girls.
Just maybe if he comes out and apologises to his girlfriend and family. Then if he made a public apology to the victim and took full responsibility for his behaviour offered to have counselling to help him understand and also offered to go and talk to young footballers about his experiences and how he thought he was invincible because he had money and an attitude. He may one day be able to play again.

At the moment this case has helped no one, the girl has had threats and abuse and he is facing a second trial by media and other celebrities who are threatening to withdraw their support for the club. People who speak against him are being abused on social media, can anybody tell me how this will help other victims come forward. Football needs to change and the FA and clubs are letting this girl down. Surely rather then sit in silence, they could use this as a platform to insist that as long as Evans refuses to acknowledge responsibility for his actions then there is no place for him in football. Surely whether you think he is guilty or not, his behaviour towards a women was totally unacceptable and has no place in the modern game.

 

[dazzer6666]

The only person that can change opinion of Chad Evans, is Chad Evans.
He has to stop this appeal and man up. Be honest with people, I would think at the time he probably did not think he was doing any harm. It would be far better for him to explain that he was a selfish self centred human being, who thought young women would take one look at him and want to sleep with him. He thought being a footballer with a lot of money gave him the power and the pick of the girls.
Just maybe if he comes out and apologises to his girlfriend and family. Then if he made a public apology to the victim and took full responsibility for his behaviour offered to have counselling to help him understand and also offered to go and talk to young footballers about his experiences and how he thought he was invincible because he had money and an attitude. He may one day be able to play again.

At the moment this case has helped no one, the girl has had threats and abuse and he is facing a second trial by media and other celebrities who are threatening to withdraw their support for the club. People who speak against him are being abused on social media, can anybody tell me how this will help other victims come forward. Football needs to change and the FA and clubs are letting this girl down. Surely rather then sit in silence, they could use this as a platform to insist that as long as Evans refuses to acknowledge responsibility for his actions then there is no place for him in football. Surely whether you think he is guilty or not, his behaviour towards a women was totally unacceptable and has no place in the modern game.

I agree with you, but it won't happen because he continues to believe he is innocent and his advisers (presumably on several thousand pounds a day) think he has a case

 

[Scunner]

The only person that can change opinion of Chad Evans, is Chad Evans.
He has to stop this appeal and man up. Be honest with people, I would think at the time he probably did not think he was doing any harm. It would be far better for him to explain that he was a selfish self centred human being, who thought young women would take one look at him and want to sleep with him. He thought being a footballer with a lot of money gave him the power and the pick of the girls.
Just maybe if he comes out and apologises to his girlfriend and family. Then if he made a public apology to the victim and took full responsibility for his behaviour offered to have counselling to help him understand and also offered to go and talk to young footballers about his experiences and how he thought he was invincible because he had money and an attitude. He may one day be able to play again.

At the moment this case has helped no one, the girl has had threats and abuse and he is facing a second trial by media and other celebrities who are threatening to withdraw their support for the club. People who speak against him are being abused on social media, can anybody tell me how this will help other victims come forward. Football needs to change and the FA and clubs are letting this girl down. Surely rather then sit in silence, they could use this as a platform to insist that as long as Evans refuses to acknowledge responsibility for his actions then there is no place for him in football. Surely whether you think he is guilty or not, his behaviour towards a women was totally unacceptable and has no place in the modern game.

So, just to boil your argument down, you are suggesting that a civilian convicted of any crime which he honestly believes to be unjust, should admit guilt to serve the purpose of his wider profession, a profession not implicated in any way by way of that individual's conduct? This is truly nuts.

 

[symyjym]

Not at all, it's a simple question 'did the complainant consent to penetration?' yes or no? Context is taken into consideration as compelling argument of course, but the nub of the argument is this.

Did she consent to being filmed having sex that night? No but she still was. That is devious and calculating in its own right so it is hard to be forgiving to what came later.

Evans’s intentions that night were clear, whereas she didn't have a clue to what was really going on.

 

[drew]

So, just to boil your argument down, you are suggesting that a civilian convicted of any crime which he honestly believes to be unjust, should admit guilt to serve the purpose of his wider profession, a profession not implicated in any way by way of that individual's conduct? This is truly nuts.

As you implied previously, too many people are making emotional rather than subjective comments.

With regard to one of your comments, I wasn't aware that the girl supposedly knew McDonald. As he was friends with Evans who was from that area, is it possible, or even probably, that she knew Evans as well? The other thing is what happened between 2005 with the 'drunken consent' case and the Evans case that made the judges in the latter not rule on the same basis?

 

[drew]

Did she consent to being filmed having sex that night? No but she still was. That is devious and calculating in its own right so it is hard to be forgiving to what came later.

Evans’s intentions that night were clear, whereas she didn't have a clue to what was really going on.

Was it Evans that filmed her?

 

[symyjym]

As you implied previously, too many people are making emotional rather than subjective comments.

With regard to one of your comments, I wasn't aware that the girl supposedly knew McDonald. As he was friends with Evans who was from that area, is it possible, or even probably, that she knew Evans as well? The other thing is what happened between 2005 with the 'drunken consent' case and the Evans case that made the judges in the latter not rule on the same basis?

Give it a rest Drew, if you didn't know that she knew McDonald you clearly haven't taken the time to even read the case and timeline of the event.

And what has knowing someone got to do with being entitled to have sex with them?