Ched Evans

[drew]

You miss the point completely, McDonald and the girl met and made the decision to go back to the hotel. The inference from that is that two consenting adults decided to maybe have sex. Most people know that drink takes a while to kick in, but the fact is that these two met. Evan let himself into a room, where one could ask, who invited him? What was he doing there and at that time what state was the girl in, did she know that Evans was even in the room? She has no recollection of sleeping with Evans, therefore after hearing the evidence, the jury decided that she could not give consent and therefore it was rape. Macdonald picked her up, therefore it was more of a grey area of doubt as she consented to get into the taxi and go back to the hotel.

If you read my post, you will see that I haven't missed the point. According to the evidence, it was over an hour from the time of her last drink to when she then went back to the hotel so the drinks she had had would have taken effect by then. She has no recollection of sleeping with Evans but you have also failed to mention that she has no recollection of sleeping with McDonald. In fact, she has no recollection of any conversation with McDonald!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Interesting line from Daniel Taylor today which I agree with

"but as someone who has worked in news, covered criminal trials and knows the meticulous detail of these events (and how little is reported) it is always baffling that anyone should presume their armchair verdict is better than the jury’s."

 

[dazzer6666]

Interesting line from Daniel Taylor today which I agree with

"but as someone who has worked in news, covered criminal trials and knows the meticulous detail of these events (and how little is reported) it is always baffling that anyone should presume their armchair verdict is better than the jury’s."

Perfect....

 

[Acker79]

If the law is stating that there is a difference between being drunk and being drunk and incapacitated then surely the point at which you are able to presume consent is at the point when you start having sex, not based on events leading up to that! If the jury decided that Evans could not presume consent because, as a reasonable man, he could see the condition the girl was in then so should the same level of judgement be applied to McDonald at the time he was about to engage in sex with her. It is double standards.

You cannot remove the circumstances around how they came to be having sex, it removes all context.

The moment of having sex is of course when the assumption takes place. You can't assume at 5.30 in the afternoon someone has consented, then have sex with them at 11 the next morning. The consent is when you have sex.

If the jury decided that, then perhaps your point might be valid, but we don't know that's what they decided. They could have decided that despite not remembering things, she was in a position to consent at the time, said yes to Macdonald, but said no to Evans. Or that because she was in a room with two men felt unable to say no to Evans so was coerced into consent (which I believe can be considered non-consent), or that they think she was in such a state it should have been obvious to both that she was too drunk and they wanted to find Macdonald guilty but due to the context of Macdonald's liaison with her there was reasonable doubt, which they didn't feel existed in the context of Evans' liaison with her. Chances are, different members of the jury had different reasons for the different decisions, perhaps some other explanation than I or anyone in this thread has suggested.

You are (or appear to be from this post) interpreting the decision in one way when there are various possible explanation, and deciding because the decision doesn't tally for you with the one explanation you are accepting it doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Triggaaar]

Even though the situations were different, was the condition of the the girl that different from the time McDonald had sex with her to the time Evans did?

No, her condition was the same.

Is the idea that McDonald could presume consent just because he knew she got in the cab and said a couple of things much different from someone presuming consent because they went to dinner with someone for first time they had a few drinks, he makes sure she gets home but then she makes the mistake, in a slightly slurred voice, of inviting him in for coffee.

He can't presume consent, but given that there's no indication she said no, it's not beyond doubt that a reasonable person may have thought he had consent. Given that she was getting in a taxi with him to go to a hotel room after 3 am, it seems fairly clear that she was agreeing to spend the night with him at least. In your new example, that woman hasn't yet agreed to spend the night with someone, but they have at least shown some interest in the person. That clearly doesn't give the man carte blanche to do what he likes, but if the woman later agrees to have sex without realising what she's doing, the man at least had some signals that she was interested.

In both of those examples, the men have had more signals than Ched had. Ched had nothing until he walked into that room, and there's no proof he got any indication of consent in the room, which is different to what McDonald had.

If the law is stating that there is a difference between being drunk and being drunk and incapacitated then surely the point at which you are able to presume consent is at the point when you start having sex, not based on events leading up to that!

Although it's the point when you start having sex that consent needs to be given, the events that lead up to that point will effect whether you think you have consent or not. Say for example you meet a girl, and like each other and arrange a date for the next day - the next day comes and you go out for a meal, and before you start drinking she tells you how she's going to take you home and smash you etc. She can of course change of course change her mind at any time. You both get drunk and head back, and go to the bedroom. She's now too drunk to give consent, she doesn't realise what's going on, but you don't notice and you have sex without her objecting. By the time you were ready to have sex, she couldn't and therefore didn't consent, but I would think it's reasonable that you thought you had consent.

If the jury decided that Evans could not presume consent because, as a reasonable man, he could see the condition the girl was in then so should the same level of judgement be applied to McDonald at the time he was about to engage in sex with her. It is double standards.

No it isn't, as I've explained. All Evans had to go on was what happened in the few seconds he was in the room, whereas McDonald had more to go on, and more indication that she was interested in him. She saw him and chose to go and speak to him - he may have thought she fancied him etc - Evans had none of that.

 

[dazzer6666]

You cannot remove the circumstances around how they came to be having sex, it removes all context.

The moment of having sex is of course when the assumption takes place. You can't assume at 5.30 in the afternoon someone has consented, then have sex with them at 11 the next morning. The consent is when you have sex.

If the jury decided that, then perhaps your point might be valid, but we don't know that's what they decided. They could have decided that despite not remembering things, she was in a position to consent at the time, said yes to Macdonald, but said no to Evans. Or that because she was in a room with two men felt unable to say no to Evans so was coerced into consent (which I believe can be considered non-consent), or that they think she was in such a state it should have been obvious to both that she was too drunk and they wanted to find Macdonald guilty but due to the context of Macdonald's liaison with her there was reasonable doubt, which they didn't feel existed in the context of Evans' liaison with her. Chances are, different members of the jury had different reasons for the different decisions, perhaps some other explanation than I or anyone in this thread has suggested.

You are (or appear to be from this post) interpreting the decision in one way when there are various possible explanation, and deciding because the decision doesn't tally for you with the one explanation you are accepting it doesn't make sense at all.

100% right on the coercion point, can be considered as removal of capacity to give consent.

 

[drew]

No, her condition was the same.
He can't presume consent, but given that there's no indication she said no, it's not beyond doubt that a reasonable person may have thought he had consent. Given that she was getting in a taxi with him to go to a hotel room after 3 am, it seems fairly clear that she was agreeing to spend the night with him at least. In your new example, that woman hasn't yet agreed to spend the night with someone, but they have at least shown some interest in the person. That clearly doesn't give the man carte blanche to do what he likes, but if the woman later agrees to have sex without realising what she's doing, the man at least had some signals that she was interested.

On the basis that her evidence is that she can't remember anything after leaving the night club apart from some vague recollection of a kebab shop then there isn't even an indication that she knew she was even going back to a hotel other than McDonalds testimony. You seem willing to believe McDonald's testimony up to the point he said Evans and the girl had consensual sex but you don't believe Evans!

In both of those examples, the men have had more signals than Ched had. Ched had nothing until he walked into that room, and there's no proof he got any indication of consent in the room, which is different to what McDonald had. There is also no evidence that he didn't get consent from the girl

Although it's the point when you start having sex that consent needs to be given, the events that lead up to that point will effect whether you think you have consent or not. Say for example you meet a girl, and like each other and arrange a date for the next day - the next day comes and you go out for a meal, and before you start drinking she tells you how she's going to take you home and smash you etc. She can of course change of course change her mind at any time. You both get drunk and head back, and go to the bedroom. She's now too drunk to give consent, she doesn't realise what's going on, but you don't notice and you have sex without her objecting. By the time you were ready to have sex, she couldn't and therefore didn't consent, but I would think it's reasonable that you thought you had consent. [/B]

No it isn't, as I've explained. All Evans had to go on was what happened in the few seconds he was in the room, whereas McDonald had more to go on, and more indication that she was interested in him. She saw him and chose to go and speak to him - he may have thought she fancied him etc - Evans had none of that.

Where did this 'few seconds' come into evidence? We could also conjecture that she met McDonald and 15 minutes later was having sex with him. Evans got a text that McDonald had a 'girl/bird' and went straight to the hotel, got access to the room and watched them having sex. He could have been watching for 15 minutes with the girl well aware he was there (I suspect the length of time he was watching probably came out in court but we don't know for sure) and when McDonald had finished (or decided he couldn't), she wanted to continue and got Evans to carry on! Thing is, we don't know other than the testimony of Evans and McDonald and that is what allows for the reasonable doubt.

 

[symyjym]

100% right on the coercion point, can be considered as removal of capacity to give consent.

Yep, it makes sense that the jury would consider the manipulation of the whole event. They came to their decision looking at all the evidence, not just the one point of consent or not. The coercion is a massive factor in this, and to focus on one point is naive.

 

[dazzer6666]

Where did this 'few seconds' come into evidence? We could also conjecture that she met McDonald and 15 minutes later was having sex with him. Evans got a text that McDonald had a 'girl/bird' and went straight to the hotel, got access to the room and watched them having sex. He could have been watching for 15 minutes with the girl well aware he was there (I suspect the length of time he was watching probably came out in court but we don't know for sure) and when McDonald had finished (or decided he couldn't), she wanted to continue and got Evans to carry on! Thing is, we don't know other than the testimony of Evans and McDonald and that is what allows for the reasonable doubt.

I think not knowing all the facts on which the verdict was determined leads to the 'reasonable doubt' being expressed on here.

 

[Hillian1]

Interesting line from Daniel Taylor today which I agree with

"but as someone who has worked in news, covered criminal trials and knows the meticulous detail of these events (and how little is reported) it is always baffling that anyone should presume their armchair verdict is better than the jury’s."

Pretty much the way I see it, it's incredible how much more you get to see as a Juror that doesn't get reported.

And yet people on hre still seem to think they know enough to question the verdict.

 

[Hamilton]

There's only one way to settle all this. He should be tried by a judge and jury. And then, to make certain, we should have a couple of other high court judges examine whatever verdict they reach to make sure it is safe.

Give me strength!

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Gordon Bennett, Gordon!

http://news.sky.com/story/1404696/pfa-boss-sorry-for-ched-evans-comparison

 

[drew]

Yep, it makes sense that the jury would consider the manipulation of the whole event. They came to their decision looking at all the evidence, not just the one point of consent or not. The coercion is a massive factor in this, and to focus on one point is naive.

Somebody mentions coercion and all of a sudden you know make it out to be a massive factor. There has been no evidence of coercion whatsoever. No suggestion that he forced himself on her, no evidence that he spent time trying to persuade her or evidence that she felt coerced because of the presence of McDonald in the room.

 

[symyjym]

Gordon Bennett, Gordon!

http://news.sky.com/story/1404696/pfa-boss-sorry-for-ched-evans-comparison

He doesn't deserve to hold his influential position for using a flawed comparison to prove a point. To just apologise is a hollow statement in order to save his role within the PFA, but really a genuine apology would be for him to retire/resign.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Suggest people who think he should not be allowed to work again in a high profile role look to change the rule of law by getting an MP to propose a change to the law. Simple. Otherwise it is what it is, or at least should be. Mob seem to be ruling

 

[symyjym]

Somebody mentions coercion and all of a sudden you know make it out to be a massive factor. There has been no evidence of coercion whatsoever. No suggestion that he forced himself on her, no evidence that he spent time trying to persuade her or evidence that she felt coerced because of the presence of McDonald in the room.

There is no all of a sudden response from me because someone mentions coercion. I have talked many times on here about manipulation, so it’s a different word meaning the same thing. I did not go "Oh yeah, didn't think about the coersion bit, but now I will use it because the word came up"

For you to say that there has been no evidence of coercion whatsoever, is laughable.

You are always pedantic in your arguments and if someone uses a casual word, then your argument then becomes about the word. I know how you work this, so do you really think that I am going to entertain you?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

There's only one way to settle all this. He should be tried by a judge and jury. And then, to make certain, we should have a couple of other high court judges examine whatever verdict they reach to make sure it is safe.

Give me strength!

Why not "Trial by a few goons on NSC armed with a handful of press and Ched website snippets"?

 

[Acker79]

Why not "Trial by a few goons on NSC armed with a handful of press and Ched website snippets"?

It would end up like the world's hardest creature where the Mantis Shrimp won fair and square, but the perennial loser the honey badger's supporters still claim there was something wrong with it, and try to suggest there was a miscarriage of justice because their attempts to cheat the poll were thwarted by the honest support for the shrimp.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It would end up like the world's hardest creature where the Mantis Shrimp won fair and square, but the perennial loser the honey badger's supporters still claim there was something wrong with it, and try to suggest there was a miscarriage of justice because their attempts to cheat the poll were thwarted by the honest support for the shrimp.

Very much this. The suggestion that people were using double accounts to vote was utterly ludicrous.

 

[Pork Knuckle Pete]

Very much this. The suggestion that people were using double accounts to vote was utterly ludicrous.

As usual, HT is bang on the money. How do you do it oh wise one?