Ched Evans

[drew]

I am sure that Drew will argue that he wets the bed regulary without any consuption of alcohol

Very good.

 

[drew]

That old cookie, answering a question with questions. No wonder you are in a spiral of arguments.

I am not here to judge her character or being “a sweet little teenager” or not but you can speculate what you don't know about her. At worst I would call her naive, anything else would be just for your arguments sake.

The jury at 12-0 found her to be telling the truth, and the documented account of events that led up to the offence confirms his intentions in my view, so I don’t have to doubt anything if it sounds right.

You're entitled to your view and equally I'm entitled to mine.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

I am sure that Drew will argue that he wets the bed regulary without any consuption of alcohol

A Classic NSC bed wetter?

 

[Steve.S]

Have you read Yoda's post? Even her friends admitted she was not particularly drunk. Do they know her better than you and I, I suspect so. She was also found to lie under oath about her cocaine use! After 4 hours of deliberation on a friday afternoon (after 3 weeks of jury service) the jury could not come to a unanimous verdict on both counts. What we don't know, and probably never will, is whether there was a dispute on both counts or just one and if the latter, which one. Apparently the Judge wouldn't allow a majority verdict so they went away and came back 50 minutes later with the unanimous decisions. Had they not done that then no doubt they would have had to come back on the Monday to start a fourth week! Maybe only one person was not happy, maybe it was two or three. However, your assumption that it was a clear cut decision by the jury is a little at odds with these circumstances.

What a waste of a post, you can only make assumptions about what the jury was doing when it was deliberating and have no evidence to back up any of it. So basically you have no idea what it involved, so you try and turn it to your favour, poor argument , come back when you can prove it.
As for the friends of the girl I had no idea that they were at the hotel, that's new evidence, maybe Evans should use that. As you have gone through this thread, you have done nothing but try and discredit the girl. I have faith in society and thankfully the vast majority of people can look at the evidence and agree with the verdict. I can see why you are defending him, it's like you can turn around (if he ever gets off),and say, I said all along that there was doubt.
You can keep on with the line about her drinking and how much she had drunk, but what you can't seem to do, is explain who gave evidence and what evidence they gave, what Macdonald, Evans and the women said in court and under cross examination, you have failed to set out clearly where the judge went wrong( since the case two judges backed his summing up)and exactly where and what evidence you have that when she entered that hotel that she was in any fit state to consent, tell me the time gap between leaving her friends and getting to the hotel, where is there any expert medical fact, that should suggest that alcohol acts the same way in everyone and that there is no way if she was seen to be sober, that 10 mins later she could be out of it. Do you have medical prove that a small amount of alcohol would have no effect on anyone.

 

[drew]

What a waste of a post, you can only make assumptions about what the jury was doing when it was deliberating and have no evidence to back up any of it. So basically you have no idea what it involved, so you try and turn it to your favour, poor argument , come back when you can prove it.
As for the friends of the girl I had no idea that they were at the hotel, that's new evidence, maybe Evans should use that. As you have gone through this thread, you have done nothing but try and discredit the girl. I have faith in society and thankfully the vast majority of people can look at the evidence and agree with the verdict. I can see why you are defending him, it's like you can turn around (if he ever gets off),and say, I said all along that there was doubt.
You can keep on with the line about her drinking and how much she had drunk, but what you can't seem to do, is explain who gave evidence and what evidence they gave, what Macdonald, Evans and the women said in court and under cross examination, you have failed to set out clearly where the judge went wrong( since the case two judges backed his summing up)and exactly where and what evidence you have that when she entered that hotel that she was in any fit state to consent, tell me the time gap between leaving her friends and getting to the hotel, where is there any expert medical fact, that should suggest that alcohol acts the same way in everyone and that there is no way if she was seen to be sober, that 10 mins later she could be out of it. Do you have medical prove that a small amount of alcohol would have no effect on anyone.

One minute you bang on about how a jury came to a unanimous decision as if it were cut and dried but now you know they weren't all as convinced as you seemed to hope! I can't prove what went on in the jury room and never said I could.

As for the friends of the girl, odd that you don't think their evidence is relevant. Or do you dismiss anything that might challenge your entrenched view. I never said they were at the hotel so why make that comment?

You ask a lot of questions about evidence but have you read anything? She left the club at 3 and there is no evidence either from the defence or the prosecution that she had any more drinks after that (otherwise surely it would have been referred to by the judges looking at the appeal application!). She arrived at the hotel at 4.15, I assume you can do the maths.

You would do well to take a look at the ched evans site with the key and undisputed facts section. It is of course written with a bias but for very obvious reasons they can't put on there anything that is not true. You come out with holier than thou comments about people looking at evidence and agreeing with the verdict but I doubt you will because you haven't got an open mind. Still, at least I tried.

 

[Hamilton]

One minute you bang on about how a jury came to a unanimous decision as if it were cut and dried but now you know they weren't all as convinced as you seemed to hope! I can't prove what went on in the jury room and never said I could.

As for the friends of the girl, odd that you don't think their evidence is relevant. Or do you dismiss anything that might challenge your entrenched view. I never said they were at the hotel so why make that comment?

You ask a lot of questions about evidence but have you read anything? She left the club at 3 and there is no evidence either from the defence or the prosecution that she had any more drinks after that (otherwise surely it would have been referred to by the judges looking at the appeal application!). She arrived at the hotel at 4.15, I assume you can do the maths.

You would do well to take a look at the ched evans site with the key and undisputed facts section. It is of course written with a bias but for very obvious reasons they can't put on there anything that is not true. You come out with holier than thou comments about people looking at evidence and agreeing with the verdict but I doubt you will because you haven't got an open mind. Still, at least I tried.

Drew, you are in the Ched Evans is innocent camp. God knows why, but you are. I'd back out of this thread now, because you're just failing to cut the mustard every time with every argument you put forward. Why? Why are you so on this toe-rag's side? I know you'll say you are on the side of justice, but you are just taking it too far with your support for the guy.

 

[drew]

Drew, you are in the Ched Evans is innocent camp. God knows why, but you are. I'd back out of this thread now, because you're just failing to cut the mustard every time with every argument you put forward. Why? Why are you so on this toe-rag's side? I know you'll say you are on the side of justice, but you are just taking it too far with your support for the guy.

I have said all along that I don't know whether he is innocent or not so please don't assume you know what I think.

 

[Bold Seagull]

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.

For what it's worth, I think you've made some good points. I also understand you've never said you think he's innocent, merely you're not convinced the evidence was sufficient to convict. However, where you have argued with just every poster with a different view, your viewpoint has come across in a really fragmented way at times. The twisting seems to occur naturally when you take up multiple conversations at once, I felt you did it to me a few times, not saying it was intentional but a point specific to one person can be very different to someone else.

I don't think it's rent a mob, just that your position goes against the current court verdict so you're always going to be in a minority, and it is an emotive subject.

 

[aolstudios]

For what it's worth, I think you've made some good points. I also understand you've never said you think he's innocent, merely you're not convinced the evidence was sufficient to convict. However, where you have argued with just every poster with a different view, your viewpoint has come across in a really fragmented way at times. The twisting seems to occur naturally when you take up multiple conversations at once, I felt you did it to me a few times, not saying it was intentional but a point specific to one person can be very different to someone else.

I don't think it's rent a mob, just that your position goes against the current court verdict so you're always going to be in a minority, and it is an emotive subject.

& repeatedly banging on about the victim being "not an innocent little teenager" does his credibility no good at all

 

[Scunner]

I think the level of debate on this thread, elsewhere on the internet and among some highly intelligent and legally qualified people that I know, indicates that my instincts are probably correct. This is that by the test of 'balance of probability' he would be convicted 9/10 times, but on 'beyond reasonable doubt' this number would fall considerably.

Here's a question for the pro-verdict, anti-Evans camp: hypothetically, if the girl said '**** me' after he made her wet from performing oral sex on her (no 'force' injuries were found indicating that she was wet, if penetration were forced we could assume bruising or scarring on the labia), given that the conviction centres around her capacity to have been able to mean that phrase, do you think he should still have been convicted? Because, in essence, that's what this case is about.

My thoughts are that she probably didn't say that, he assumed that...which is why I feel that the verdict is probably right. But if she did say that, I don't think it is.

 

[Hamilton]

I think the level of debate on this thread, elsewhere on the internet and among some highly intelligent and legally qualified people that I know, indicates that my instincts are probably correct. This is that by the test of 'balance of probability' he would be convicted 9/10 times, but on 'beyond reasonable doubt' this number would fall considerably.

Here's a question for the pro-verdict, anti-Evans camp: hypothetically, if the girl said '**** me' after he made her wet from performing oral sex on her (no 'force' injuries were found indicating that she was wet, if penetration were forced we could assume bruising or scarring on the labia), given that the conviction centres around her capacity to have been able to mean that phrase, do you think he should still have been convicted? Because, in essence, that's what this case is about.

My thoughts are that she probably didn't say that, he assumed that...which is why I feel that the verdict is probably right. But if she did say that, I don't think it is.

You're forgetting McDonald in this scenario.

 

[drew]

For what it's worth, I think you've made some good points. I also understand you've never said you think he's innocent, merely you're not convinced the evidence was sufficient to convict. However, where you have argued with just every poster with a different view, your viewpoint has come across in a really fragmented way at times. The twisting seems to occur naturally when you take up multiple conversations at once, I felt you did it to me a few times, not saying it was intentional but a point specific to one person can be very different to someone else.

I don't think it's rent a mob, just that your position goes against the current court verdict so you're always going to be in a minority, and it is an emotive subject.

I can't really disagree with what you say. I've been accused of being all sorts of things just because I don't see that the evidence that is available is convincing. However, there are probably only three views, guilty, not proven and innocent. There are clearly some who haven't looked at some of the issues as they are just content to stand by the jury's verdict. That's their prerogative. There will of course be others that look at what is available and still support the verdict. That's their opinion.

It is emotive but I can't do anything about that. Perhaps those that find it too emotional should steer clear of the thread! As Scunner stated in a post, as emotive as it is, you have to try and put that aside when considering the evidence. That might sound harsh but surely you agree you can't run a justice system based on emotion!

 

[Scunner]

You're forgetting McDonald in this scenario.

Have to, the direction from the judge was to consider both 'separately'. In creating the scenario you have to ignore him.

 

[Scunner]

I can't really disagree with what you say. I've been accused of being all sorts of things just because I don't see that the evidence that is available is convincing. However, there are probably only three views, guilty, not proven and innocent. There are clearly some who haven't looked at some of the issues as they are just content to stand by the jury's verdict. That's their prerogative. There will of course be others that look at what is available and still support the verdict. That's their opinion.

It is emotive but I can't do anything about that. Perhaps those that find it too emotional should steer clear of the thread! As Scunner stated in a post, as emotive as it is, you have to try and put that aside when considering the evidence. That might sound harsh but surely you agree you can't run a justice system based on emotion!

Correct, emotion has zero relevance here really.

The maxim to apply, is that it is morally, but not legally, wrong to shag your best mate's wife...but it is legally, but not morally, wrong to drive at 31 mph in a 30 zone at 2am...

A speed limit is an example of 'strict liability' and so is penetrating a woman (or man) without her consent.

As one of my friends put it on FB (and he's a radical left wing Guardian reader): 'No means No', but does: 'hic, burp, blow job, go down on me and make me come?'

Well, I disagree with him, because No in that circumstance still means No (i have been there more than once and respected it!) however the lingering doubt here is that the jury was asked to hypothesise about the following matters:

- How drunk she was (no evidence available either way, only conjecture)
- whether or not she indicate yes or no, and was she able to indicate either and mean it (her capacity to give consent)
- whether or not, even if she did indicate yes, that Evans should have been able to discern whether or not she had the capacity to mean it. (reasonable belief of consent)

Quite a high tariff of hypothesis, and the reason for the lingering doubt.

 

[Scunner]

Having argued for doubt, I have had some further thought and recollected the following...

In a far off galaxy a long time ago, I escorted a good friend back to her hotel room as she was considerably worse for wear after a huge session. We had cavorted naked prior to this point some years before that, so she had no issue with me clearing the vomit from the bathroom floor and toilet while she showered in front of me. We collapsed on the bed and fumbled for a while and I performed oral sex on her (well, she had showered!), she enjoyed it, I got neck ache. When I indicated it might be my turn (after many groans of appreciation) she said no, this wasn't something I welcomed it has to be said, given my um 'state' but she told me the reason why, I respected that and she then proceeded to give me a very nice blow-job. Now, she was drunk, and it is entirely conceivable that she may have said yes as a result or her lack of inhibition (thus forgetting the existence of our then respective partners momentarily, well I had, oops), that being the case would I now be a rapist? Well, according to the Jury in the Evans case, no, because my story is parallel to Macdonald not Evans, and this is the nub here...no means no at ALL times, irrespective of context and could Evans reasonably have believed she would have said yes were she not drunk?

Evans' late entry to the scenario robs the scene of any context in his favour and this is why he has served a prison term.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I can't really disagree with what you say. I've been accused of being all sorts of things just because I don't see that the evidence that is available is convincing. However, there are probably only three views, guilty, not proven and innocent. There are clearly some who haven't looked at some of the issues as they are just content to stand by the jury's verdict. That's their prerogative. There will of course be others that look at what is available and still support the verdict. That's their opinion.

It is emotive but I can't do anything about that. Perhaps those that find it too emotional should steer clear of the thread! As Scunner stated in a post, as emotive as it is, you have to try and put that aside when considering the evidence. That might sound harsh but surely you agree you can't run a justice system based on emotion!

But you have not seen all of the evidence have you? Neither have I. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that a jury and two judges have seen all the available evidence and deemed Evans guilty. If there is fresh evidence, or a conspiracy against Evans is shown, then I'll reconsider. Until then I am putting my faith in the system. I am certainly not putting my faith in Evans self-serving and selective website.

 

[Steve.S]

But you have not seen all of the evidence have you? Neither have I. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that a jury and two judges have seen all the available evidence and deemed Evans guilty. If there is fresh evidence, or a conspiracy against Evans is shown, then I'll reconsider. Until then I am putting my faith in the system. I am certainly not putting my faith in Evans self-serving and selective website.

To back this up more, it was the trail judge, then it went to appeal with one judge. That was not successful so they took a further appeal where 3 judges on a panel looked at it. I am no expert and I do not think anyone else is, take the first judge out of it, how many judges do you need to go through to get the verdict you want. My point being that 4 judges have looked at it since and still feel that the verdict was good. Rape is always going to be hard to prove, in most cases it will be one word against another.

 

[drew]

But you have not seen all of the evidence have you? Neither have I. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that a jury and two judges have seen all the available evidence and deemed Evans guilty. If there is fresh evidence, or a conspiracy against Evans is shown, then I'll reconsider. Until then I am putting my faith in the system. I am certainly not putting my faith in Evans self-serving and selective website.

That's your choice, bit like putting your fingers in your ears and going ding a ling a ling! Of course it is a self serving website but they still wouldn't be able to post anything on there that was contrary to what evidence was presented in court as I would suspect they would leave themselves open to a charge of contempt of court and possible libel from the people whose evidence they corrupted. (I'm talking about the key and undisputed fact section, not the various statements which don't really add anything).

 

[keaton]

That's your choice, bit like putting your fingers in your ears and going ding a ling a ling! Of course it is a self serving website but they still wouldn't be able to post anything on there that was contrary to what evidence was presented in court as I would suspect they would leave themselves open to a charge of contempt of court and possible libel from the people whose evidence they corrupted. (I'm talking about the key and undisputed fact section, not the various statements which don't really add anything).

Ok why have you read the whole of that website and not the full court transcript?

 

[Steve.S]

I think the level of debate on this thread, elsewhere on the internet and among some highly intelligent and legally qualified people that I know, indicates that my instincts are probably correct. This is that by the test of 'balance of probability' he would be convicted 9/10 times, but on 'beyond reasonable doubt' this number would fall considerably.

Here's a question for the pro-verdict, anti-Evans camp: hypothetically, if the girl said '**** me' after he made her wet from performing oral sex on her (no 'force' injuries were found indicating that she was wet, if penetration were forced we could assume bruising or scarring on the labia), given that the conviction centres around her capacity to have been able to mean that phrase, do you think he should still have been convicted? Because, in essence, that's what this case is about.

My thoughts are that she probably didn't say that, he assumed that...which is why I feel that the verdict is probably right. But if she did say that, I don't think it is.

The prosecution was about her being to drunk to consent. If she was over the drink drive limit and you had her car keys and she asked for them because she wanted to drive. Would you give them to her? Or would you do the responsible thing and not let her drive. This next appeal can go two ways, they can send it back to the appeal court to look at it again, or it would go to a retrial. At the moment public opinion is very much against Evans, would not be surprised if this went back,that it would be dragged out for another few years.