Ched Evans

[Triggaaar]

People seem keen to suggest Evans might have had consent, but less keen to suggest it is actually MacDonald who has the miscarriage of justice of being acquitted.

So are you suggesting that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and that MacDonal should have been convicted?

 

[Da Man Clay]

What's interesting with this case is it appears that the legal definition rape is slowly being redefined before our eyes. Whilst this will be a GOOD thing in many cases, if taken too far it could pretty much mean that all drunken sex could be seen as rape, or at least worthy of an allegation. And that is VERY dangerous.

NB: None of the above means that I am a "rape apologist" nor that I am undermining the very serious crime of rape.

Has been the case for some considerable time - maybe since the change of the sexual offences act in 2003 if not earlier. The Ched Evans case isn't really a landmark for this sort of thing.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So are you suggesting that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and that MacDonal should have been convicted?

Nope, I've taken the jury decision on both of the accused in this case.

 

[drew]

Ched Evans - The Case For Defence

- She was wearing a short skirt.
- He was only doing what any lad wants to do on a Saturday night.
- Luke McCormack, Lee Hughes, Marlon King, wawawawawawa it's unfair.
- He can't make any sort of expression of regret about the girl being outed on twitter 5 times or Jessica Ennis-Hill recieving rape threats from people purporting to be his fans because it might affect an appeal that he might get, if he's extemely lucky.
- If he was a builder he wouldn't have any problem getting employed.
- Anyone who didn't go and watch football in the 80's when it was a man's game isn't entitled to an opinion. (mob rule)

Did I miss any?

Only the main point of the defence!!!

You may not mean it but frankly you're doing it - nice one.
I don't believe you'd be posting what you have in the last couple of days if you'd been on the thread since the beginning, I believe you're better than this lazy thoughtless crap

It's no different to the lazy biased posting of Spring Hall Convert. Neither really do the arguments for or against justice.

I'm not sure her request or her consent were in both their statements. In fact, their statements contradicted each other on certain key matters. So your first suggestion above I don't believe is true.

I find your statement on 'actual facts' a bit disturbing. There is no physical indication of a 'violent rape' would surely be a more appropriate statement? If you're looking for a bit of balance, rape is not defined by physical damage to a victim, the 'actual' evidence of rape is that sex occurred without consent, not whether the rape resulted in physical damage.

I think for balance, you should have stated in what way their statements contradict each other? From what I can tell, the difference is whether Evans asked to join in, which is McDonalds version, to which McDonald states she agreed to, or Evans who said the girl asked him to join in. Regardless, if one or other is true then that would be consent.

I do agree with you comments about reference to physical injury though. Rape is purely about whether or not there was consent. Physical injuries can merely serve to reinforce the case.

I believe he's been turned down for an appeal (twice?)

guilty, appeal, still guilty, appeal, denied, protest... I think this is the sequence so far.

The conviction was upheld rather than the original appeal refused I believe. A significant difference legally - not so much "I'm not looking" as "I looked and I agree" from an Appeal Judge.

He requested the right to appeal and that was turned down on the basis that there was no significant new evidence and the judge that considered the request didn't consider there was anything wrong with the procedure in the first case (including the summing up of the trial judge). They then appealed against that decision and three judges considered that there were no grounds to alter that decision. My understanding is that you will only be granted an appeal if a) there is new evidence that may have altered the view of the jury in the original trial or b) there was something wrong with the procedure in the original trial, eg the Judges summing up or guidance to the jury might have been incorrect.

Is it because an appeal cannot be granted or refused until the outcome of the review from the CCRC is known ?

Isn't it the CCRC that decide whether to send it back to the court of appeal or not?

Legal process hasn't been satisified he is on the sex offenders register and still has the other half of his sentence to serve if hes a naughty boy

It hasn't been satisfied because, as most people know, it has been referred the CCRC.

It isn't really different to how many rape cases have been for many many years. The majority of rape cases are not necessarily physically violent or involve assault, they involve 2 people who often already know each other, and might already be in a sexual relationship. The issue of consent is the reason there is such a low conviction rate in rape cases. The benefit of doubt is with the defendant not the victim.

A jury decided that as the girl got in a cab with MacDonald knowing she was going back to a hotel with him, the likelihood was that he may have had at the very least an implied consent. The jury decided that Evans, who never met the girl, Not strictly true. Evans and McDonald were at the kebab shop at the same time as the girl. They separated because of an alleged assault on Evans brother. McDonald left and CCTV footage showed the girl approach him. According to his statement, she said where are you going, he said to the hotel and she reportedly stated she was coming with him who surreptitiously gained entry to the room, who left by a back exit promptly afterward, did not.

People seem keen to suggest Evans might have had consent, but less keen to suggest it is actually MacDonald who has the miscarriage of justice of being acquitted.

I don't think this case does go right down the line of what rape is at all. I think it is reasonably straight forward decision on whether or not Evans had consent. There are far more significant cases like the wife who asked her husband to stop half way through intercourse who was subject to a controlling brutal relationship, or the boyfriend who tricked his girlfriend into having sex with him after she broke up by sending a fake text blackmailing her into it. They are defining the issue of consent because in both of those consent was initially given even if for very different reasons, and in both cases the accused were convicted.

 

[Mellotron]

I don't think this case does go right down the line of what rape is at all. I think it is reasonably straight forward decision on whether or not Evans had consent.

Well all we know is that;

Evans said she gave him consent.
She says she cannot remember.

From those two pieces of information, how can he be guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT? As I said, I think he probably is guilty, however I don't see how "beyond reasonable doubt" is possible, as there simply isn't the evidence there.

 

[The Camel]

I keep meaning to ask, but bottle out as I don't want to be misconstrued.
But it's an itch that won't go away.

For what reason are people actually upset:-

- The crime.
- The sentence.
- The time served.
- The lack of remorse.
- All of the above.

A genuine question, that is meant in no way to belittle such an abhorrent crime.
But would the uproar be so loud if Ched had served 6 of 8 years and apologised for his actions?

For me, it's not only the lack of remorse, but the chance that if he had held his hands up and admitted what he did, he could have done some good in the area of teaching boys from say 14-18 some of the issues about respecting women and the sanctity of consent.

 

[Triggaaar]

I do agree with you comments about reference to physical injury though. Rape is purely about whether or not there was consent. Physical injuries can merely serve to reinforce the case.

Of course rape is about consent, I don't think anyone said otherwise, and I'm not sure Bold Seagull has interpreted what Mellotron said accurately.

(Actual facts)
She didn't go to the police to complain of rape.
There was no physical evidence of rape whatsoever.

I find your statement on 'actual facts' a bit disturbing. There is no physical indication of a 'violen rape' would surely be a more appropriate statement? If you're looking for a bit of balance, rape is not defined by physical damage to a victim, the 'actual' evidence of rape is that sex occurred without consent, not whether the rape resulted in physical damage.

It seemed to me that Mellotron was saying that there wasn't any physical evidence that there had been any sex, nothing to do with violence - eg, there was no DNA evidence. Not that I think it matters, as we know there was sex from the defendants statements, but I'm just saying I don't think Mellotron was referring solely to physical damage / violent rape.

For me, it's not only the lack of remorse, but the chance that if he had held his hands up and admitted what he did...

You don't know for a fact that he hasn't admitted to what he did. It is very possible that he's lying, and he's not remorseful, and doesn't want to tell the truth because he doesn't want people to know what he did. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that he is telling the truth.

 

[dazzer6666]

Excellent interview on talksport late last night with the commercial director of one of the club's main sponsors. Very calm and rational, but the stated lack of communication from the club, if true, is quite astonishing.......the decision they appear to be making looks bad enough (imho) but they seem to be alienating the vast majority of people connected with them. Wonder where the club will be in a few months time if they go ahead with this.

Re Evans, I accept he can't show remorse for rape if he claims he didn't do it, but he could and should show remorse for his behaviour which on any level was pretty abhorrent.

My understanding of the process is that the CCRC are engaged if there is new evidence, whereas the Court of Appeal are engaged if it's believed there has been a miscarriage based on the original evidence but I am no lawyer.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Well all we know is that;

Evans said she gave him consent.
She says she cannot remember.

From those two pieces of information, how can he be guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT? As I said, I think he probably is guilty, however I don't see how "beyond reasonable doubt" is possible, as there simply isn't the evidence there.

You have to trust that 12 of your peers asked themselves exactly the same question, and debated this exact point, but based upon the evidence they heard they felt unanimously that it was beyond reasonable doubt he raped her.

Now I'm not saying juries don't get it wrong, but I'd rather trust their instinct and judgement having sat through all the legal proceedings and discussed it in a jury room, than believe in a doubt just because of what I've picked up in the press.

If we want to give opinions, I think they are both probably guilty. I think they were in control enough to realise they had a girl who was on her own, drunk, pissing in doorways, staggering around, who was easily impressionable. Sure she asked to get in a cab with MacDonald, but so what? It is about knowing when someone is drunk enough to have a great time and a lot of fun, and when someone is drunk enough beyond any kind of decision making or control. It's not that fine a line really. Most of us know even if completely drunk ourselves.

They knew what they were doing and were in complete control. They were able to text and organise, get mates outside etc. She woke up in a bed of her own urine alone and confused not knowing what had happened - if she remembered and was out for revenge or a pay off, why on earth wouldn't she mention she remembered being with a man at some point? or that two men might have been with her. Her statement doesn't appear to have any motivation whatsoever to implicate anyone. MacDonald in my opinion can consider himself a lucky boy for being acquitted. Both have serious issues with women, especially Evans who is supposedly in a loving relationship. Trust and respect, yeah right.

 

[Mr Banana]

Well all we know is that;

Evans said she gave him consent.
She says she cannot remember.

From those two pieces of information, how can he be guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT? As I said, I think he probably is guilty, however I don't see how "beyond reasonable doubt" is possible, as there simply isn't the evidence there.

Christ. Is there reasonable doubt that she gave consent?

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

It seemed to me that Mellotron was saying that there wasn't any physical evidence that there had been any sex, nothing to do with violence - eg, there was no DNA evidence. Not that I think it matters, as we know there was sex from the defendants statements, but I'm just saying I don't think Mellotron was referring solely to physical damage / violent rape.

Just had a thought, is this important? Why was there no DNA? Why didn't they ejaculate? Did they suddenly think they were doing something wrong and then left by the back entrance? Or perhaps i'm reading too much into it

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think for balance, you should have stated in what way their statements contradict each other? From what I can tell, the difference is whether Evans asked to join in, which is McDonalds version, to which McDonald states she agreed to, or Evans who said the girl asked him to join in. Regardless, if one or other is true then that would be consent.

I do agree with you comments about reference to physical injury though. Rape is purely about whether or not there was consent. Physical injuries can merely serve to reinforce the case.

Well, I thought there were a couple of other inconsistencies, but to be fair I'm not sure what they were without looking. But to the inconsistency you have pointed out, don't you think that it is a pretty fundamental difference? The jury is supposed to believe consent was given, even though they both have different versions on how that consent was gained?

 

[Chicken Run]

If this guy was in any other mundane job he would have a right to rehabilitation, a right I might add that many of the "the bleeding hearts" on here support, Why should he be denied the opportunity to earn a living and go some way to repair the enormous amount of emotional damage he has done!

 

[Withdean11]

What exactly is meant be "giving consent"? Does someone have to ask and have a verbal response of "Yes, you can"?

If so, I would bet over 50% of this posters on this thread are guilty of the same thing.

 

[Ernest]

Far too much hypocrisy about him, I wonder if he signs for Oldham and scores 30 goals in the next season how many clubs will be in for him ?

 

[stripeyshark]

Just had a thought, is this important? Why was there no DNA? Why didn't they ejaculate? Did they suddenly think they were doing something wrong and then left by the back entrance? Or perhaps i'm reading too much into it

And I don't think you need to ejaculate to leave DNA evidence

 

[Theatre of Trees]

If this guy was in any other mundane job he would have a right to rehabilitation, a right I might add that many of the "the bleeding hearts" on here support, Why should he be denied the opportunity to earn a living and go some way to repair the enormous amount of emotional damage he has done!

For the rehabilitation process to work means the person who committed the crime has to acknowledge he did wrong, something Evans has not done at all - even down to his plan of action that night. Hypothetically, if an ex-con tried to get a job in a company run by myself and failed to acknowledge past misdemeanours then i'd be asking questions of whether he could be trusted within the company or whether he'd repeat offend.

Evans is also in a different situation to those in a mundane job as his profession is one within the public spotlight, as he is finding out now.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

And I don't think you need to ejaculate to leave DNA evidence

true however that would be from hairs etc that would get removed as soon as she had a shower which no doubt she did after waking up in a puddle of urine

 

[Bold Seagull]

If this guy was in any other mundane job he would have a right to rehabilitation, a right I might add that many of the "the bleeding hearts" on here support, Why should he be denied the opportunity to earn a living and go some way to repair the enormous amount of emotional damage he has done!

He does have the right to rehabilitation and to return to work. Who has a divine right to just one specific line of work? What about all the medical professionals, teachers, other professionals etc. etc. who wouldn't be able to return to work, because their professional bodies would basically ban them from rejoining their previous profession? They protect the integrity and reputation of their professions by excluding those how have serious criminal convictions.

I appreciate the FA/PFA can't retrospectively introduce a new code of conduct to exclude Evans, but they really need to think about whether being a Professional Footballer should come with a responsibility to maintain a standard of behaviour to uphold the reputation of the sport.

 

[aolstudios]

If this guy was in any other mundane job he would have a right to rehabilitation, a right I might add that many of the "the bleeding hearts" on here support, Why should he be denied the opportunity to earn a living and go some way to repair the enormous amount of emotional damage he has done!

As has been mentioned many times, there any plenty of 'mundane jobs' where he wouldn't have the slightest chance of ever, let alone immediately returning to his previous employment. I have no problem with him working (although I don't believe he should be anywhere near out of prison yet but that's another issue), just with him coming straight back into his privileged, high profile position, where like it or not he will be idolized by impressionable young kids.

Btw, how on earth do you think his immediately playing professional football will "go some way to repair the enormous amount of emotional damage he has done"