Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[free spirit]

What "actions" did the victim take with regard to Evans? The evidence shows that she consented to sex with the other footballer (at a time when Evans wasn't even present), and she accepted that action,

no she didn't, she said she can't remember, and he was charged and prosecuted all the way to court, it was only the jury that didn't find him guilty.

 

[belboid]

no she didn't, she said she can't remember, and he was charged and prosecuted all the way to court, it was only the jury that didn't find him guilty.

you dont seem to understand what 'accepted' means

 

[belboid]

If you read the report somebody posted earlier, it mentions the fact that two men filmed the rape through the window. I remember reading at the time in a report on the case that this video was produced and the victim was judged to have been unconscious or nearly unconscious.

I may be remembering wrong, in which case my apologies. In any case the report shows that the two men left immediately after, at which point it would appear the victim was unable to leave the room, with them or on her own.

there were many reports of what was on the video. The court seemed ro decide that nothing was clear on it, and it wasnt key. afair

 

[free spirit]

The legislation talks about consent, and acknowledges that it, in turn, turns on the question of capacity. Capacity is a well established jurisprudential concept. The legislature knew this when framing the act.

You've completely misunderstood the effect of s.75. What it does is effectively reverse the burden of proof, by raising a rebuttable presumption of the absence of consent in a very narrowly drawn set of circumstances, which all, in and of themselves, indicate culpability on the part of the accused i.e. the victim was drugged or imprisoned.

No. The legislation specifically mentions that consent turns on capacity, and it is long settled that intoxication is relevant to capacity. This is not a case of the courts going beyond what parliament intended at all.

Really, so parliament intended to remove the ability of people to consent to sex at such relatively low levels of voluntary intoxication?

Sorry, but I call bollocks on that.

Also there has always previously been a very different view taken on voluntary intoxification vs involuntary intoxification in UK law, which presumably would be why involuntary intoxification was given it's own category in the legislation itself.

Judges don't give guidance based on CPS guidance; they do so based on the law (legislation and case law). Often courts decline to define terms which have an ordinary meaning, for fear that any attempt at doing so will fail to reflect the necessary nuance, preferring to leave that to a jury. Nothing odd about that, or about the acquittal in Bree.

OK that was clumsily put, what I was getting at was that they were both based on the same case law, and seemed to be worded very similarly though admittedly the CPS guidance may actually have been updated following this verdict.

Why do you claim that? And what of it?

because I can't find any other examples of it happening online, feel free to post up some other examples, and note that I said either the first, or one of the first, and that I'm talking about someone who was a bit pissed entirely of her own volition, not someone who was actually passed out or had been deliberately drugged or something.

There's no such thing as a standard rape case. But this is cut and dried insofar as the jury decided beyond reasonable doubt that she had not consented and that he did not reasonably believe that she had. The jury that heard all of the evidence, not merely selected extracts presented on the rapist's supporters' website.

They decided that she was incapable of giving her consent due to being drunk, which is a very different proposition.

 

[ViolentPanda]

well how is someone supposed to judge if the girl they've met on a night out is going to be judged at a later date to have been too drunk to consent?

It's fairly simple: If she's too drunk to speak coherently at the time you're about to have sex, then you should judge her to be incapacitated, and not have sex. Personally, I'd extend that to even if she's given prior sober consent.

She doesn't look too drunk on the cctv, and the blood alcohol levels, and the list of drinks she'd drunk that night given in court back that up.

Whether she "looks" drunk or not is absolutely irrelevant, and blood alcohol levels are a "guideline" to alcohol consumption, rather than an accurate gauge of what's been drunk.

As for the date rape drugs, well you've just made that up, it has nothing to do with this case.

You've missed my point, which is we can't know whether or not such drugs were used, and are what rendered her "paralytic" in the hotel, because at the time of the offence, the tests for such drugs in blood and urine weren't sensitive enough to show the presence of them after 8-12 hours. We now have tests that can trace such drugs up to 72 hours after ingestion, but not then. It has nothing to do with this case only insofar as tests the next day didn't show the presence of benzos or ketamine. They did show traces of coke and cannabis, but both of those have weeks-long half-lives, not hours-long.
And, of course, it doesn't do much for your "she wasn't paralytic" argument, that administration of any drug of the kind I've mentioned would have put her exactly in a situation where she would have little memory of events. But hey, she probably made all that stuff about not remembering up just to put Evans in prison. :faceplam:

the court is saying this, that is the legal precedent that has been set here, or at least reinforced from the earlier appeal court judgement that set the principle, but not the level at which someone would be judged to be incapacitated through alcohol. Do we have to carry breathalysers with us or something?

If it'd save you from a supposedly-false rape charge, then why the fuck not? All you'd be doing is taking responsibility for your own behaviour.

I'd seriously suggest that people might want to actually investigate this a bit more before passing judgement.

What you mean is that you think people should agree with you.

I'll put it another way, this is the first time anyone has ever been convicted of rape on this basis (as far as I can tell), so might be worthy of a bit more informed discussion than knee jerk 'rape apologist' bollocks.

or has urban really sunk to the level where it's actually impossible to have an informed debate about difficult subjects like this?

We're having an informed debate. The only person perceiving it as not being an "informed debate" is you. What does that tell you (and I should warn you that believing you're right and everyone else is wrong, is more often a sign of megalomania that it is a sign of the person actually being correct)?

 

[ViolentPanda]

no she didn't, she said she can't remember, and he was charged and prosecuted all the way to court, it was only the jury that didn't find him guilty.

Yes, she stated that she couldn't remember. She accepted that she may have consented to sex with him. That's pretty much the basis of why the jury acquitted him - her acceptance of possible consent. In Evans' case, that didn't exist.

 

[free spirit]

It's fairly simple: If she's too drunk to speak coherently at the time you're about to have sex, then you should judge her to be incapacitated, and not have sex. Personally, I'd extend that to even if she's given prior sober consent.

Whether she "looks" drunk or not is absolutely irrelevant, and blood alcohol levels are a "guideline" to alcohol consumption, rather than an accurate gauge of what's been drunk.

blood alcohol levels are sufficient to get people done for drink driving on a regular basis, but not sufficient to determine someone's level of drunkness in this case?

right, well what would you suggest?

You've missed my point, which is we can't know whether or not such drugs were used, and are what rendered her "paralytic" in the hotel, because at the time of the offence, the tests for such drugs in blood and urine weren't sensitive enough to show the presence of them after 8-12 hours. We now have tests that can trace such drugs up to 72 hours after ingestion, but not then. It has nothing to do with this case only insofar as tests the next day didn't show the presence of benzos or ketamine. They did show traces of coke and cannabis, but both of those have weeks-long half-lives, not hours-long.

And, of course, it doesn't do much for your "she wasn't paralytic" argument, that administration of any drug of the kind I've mentioned would have put her exactly in a situation where she would have little memory of events. But hey, she probably made all that stuff about not remembering up just to put Evans in prison. :faceplam:

no you've missed my point - you have made this up, it has nothing to do with this case, so bringing it up is bullshit.

If it'd save you from a supposedly-false rape charge, then why the fuck not? All you'd be doing is taking responsibility for your own behaviour.

seriously.

you seriously think everyone on a night out should be carrying a breathalyser and breathalysing anyone they might be considering asking to come home with them prior to popping the question?

get your lips around this breathlyser tube love you've pulled.....

ah I'm sorry love, but you seem to have had one too many of those voddie and cokes, so I'm going to have to decline your invitation for a night of passion on the basis that you're too drunk to make that decision rationally.

We're having an informed debate. The only person perceiving it as not being an "informed debate" is you. What does that tell you (and I should warn you that believing you're right and everyone else is wrong, is more often a sign of megalomania that it is a sign of the person actually being correct)?

really? an informed debate in which one side is calling me rape apologist cunt and the like, despite mostly not having bothered to actually do any research beyond the tabloid headlines?

Have a look at what you just proposed above, then maybe think if that seems like a sound law that you really support. fucking breathalysers.

 

[free spirit]

Yes, she stated that she couldn't remember. She accepted that she may have consented to sex with him. That's pretty much the basis of why the jury acquitted him - her acceptance of possible consent. In Evans' case, that didn't exist.

did she?

where?

the only report of her court statement I've seen shows her saying 'I don't remember' in answer to every question (the bbc one Iinked to earlier)

 

[belboid]

blood alcohol levels are sufficient to get people done for drink driving on a regular basis, but not sufficient to determine someone's level of drunkness in this case?

you claim to have read the reports of the case, so why are you ignoring the fact that blood alcohol couldnt e measured because it was too late, and all the alcohol had left her body by the time the tests were done. So what is your point?

did she?

where?

the only report of her court statement I've seen shows her saying 'I don't remember' in answer to every question (the bbc one Iinked to earlier)

Yes she did.

"Did you consent to sex with him?"

"I cant remember"

"So you may have done, then?"

It's quite straightforward.


A jury saw all the relevant footage, not just the few seconds that are most helpful to the defense that have been linked to. They have a far better idea of how pissed she was than the few MRA shits claiming now that those few seconds prove positively that Evans is innocent.

 

[Cid]

Really, so parliament intended to remove the ability of people to consent to sex at such relatively low levels of voluntary intoxication?

Sorry, but I call bollocks on that.

You keep coming back to the blood alcohol level, which is simply an expert witness for the defence reconstructing an estimate. Let have a look at what the appeals report says:

The CCTV footage, which we have not seen because it is accepted that this
was accurately summarised by the judge in his summing-up, showed that while she was inside
the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet. At one point she fell over and landed on the floor.
On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box,
although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she
left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very
drunk.

The night porter (Mr Burrough) described her as "extremely drunk"

I.e she was outwardly drunk. She looked drunk. She was drunk enough for McDonald to ask the night porter to look out for her the following morning because she was sick. She was drunk enough to piss herself. It is not your case of someone looking fairly normal but actually being drunk.

Also there has always previously been a very different view taken on voluntary intoxification vs involuntary intoxification in UK law, which presumably would be why involuntary intoxification was given it's own category in the legislation itself.

Yes. Are you saying that there should be a presumption of consent when you voluntarily 'intoxificate' yourself? Because otherwise perhaps it would be sensible for a jury with the evidence to decide on that.

 

[free spirit]

You keep coming back to the blood alcohol level, which is simply an expert witness for the defence reconstructing an estimate. Let have a look at what the appeals report says:

I.e she was outwardly drunk. She looked drunk. She was drunk enough for McDonald to ask the night porter to look out for her the following morning because she was sick. She was drunk enough to piss herself. It is not your case of someone looking fairly normal but actually being drunk.

So anyone that has fallen over wearing heels on a night out, or looks like they might be a bit drunk is now automatically out of bounds?

well at least that's one step up from having to breathalyse anyone you might be considering asking to come home with you, but it would tend to rule out a good proportion of all the women who're out at the end of most friday / saturday nights in most city centres. And I worked in the night time economy for over a decade, so have a pretty good idea of what state people are regularly in, and probably a damn site more so than the jury or some doddery old judges in the court of appeal.

You also miss her own judgement as given in her police interview, that she felt tipsy but not out of control when she went to the pizza place after the club.

Yes. Are you saying that there should be a presumption of consent when you voluntarily 'intoxificate' yourself? Because otherwise perhaps it would be sensible for a jury with the evidence to decide on that.

No, I'm saying that where she does consent, and where none of the 6 specified reasons why this consent should be invalid apply (being held prisoner, spiked etc), that it shouldn't be for the police, cps and courts to then determine at a later date that actually that consent wasn't valid consent as they've determined after the fact that she was too drunk to legally give her consent, and she says she can't remember what happened.

What I'm also saying is that setting the bar at this level of drunkeness effectively criminalises the weekly pissed up pulling rituals of a significant proportion of the population, and leaves it at the police and CPS discretion as to which of them happen to be prosecuted for their drunken one night stands, which is not a position that I'm in any way comfortable with, and certainly isn't something that I think should be happening on the say so of a handful of judges by themselves without parliamentary scrutiny and a wider debate on it.

It's a dangerous (and confused) precedent that has been set here IMO, and that's what I'm arguing against.

 

[belboid]

So anyone that has fallen over wearing heels on a night out, or looks like they might be a bit drunk is now automatically out of bounds?

that isn't what happened, and you are being highly dishonest. There were a string of incidences which led a jury who had - unlike you - seen all of them to conclude the woman was very highly intoxicated.

It's a dangerous (and confused) precedent that has been set here IMO, and that's what I'm arguing against.

It isn't a precedent at all, men are prosecuted on a similar basis regularly. CCTV evidence being shown to contradict the statments the rapist gave before they knew the CCTV evidence was available. Exactly as happened here. Evans lied, and so his testimony was held to be of very dubious value.

It's only news to you because it's a famous person being found guilty.

 

[Athos]

Really, so parliament intended to remove the ability of people to consent to sex at such relatively low levels of voluntary intoxication?

No, I'm sure parliament didn't intend that. And that is not the effect of this legislation.

Sorry, but I call bollocks on that.

Call what you like, mate. But, at the time that parliament made that legislation, the fact that consent could be vitiated by intoxication was settled case law.

Also there has always previously been a very different view taken on voluntary intoxification vs involuntary intoxification in UK law, which presumably would be why involuntary intoxification was given it's own category in the legislation itself.

You don't seem to understand the effect of s.75, with reference to involuntary intoxication. And, I suspect you don't know a great deal about the legal position on intoxication.

OK that was clumsily put, what I was getting at was that they were both based on the same case law, and seemed to be worded very similarly though admittedly the CPS guidance may actually have been updated following this verdict.

And the significance of that is?

because I can't find any other examples of it happening online, feel free to post up some other examples, and note that I said either the first, or one of the first, and that I'm talking about someone who was a bit pissed entirely of her own volition, not someone who was actually passed out or had been deliberately drugged or something.

And the significance of that is?

They decided that she was incapable of giving her consent due to being drunk, which is a very different proposition.

Er, no. To convict they must have decided that, in addition to the fact that she didn't consent (because she lacked the capacity to do so), he had no reasonable belief that she consented.


In short, not only do you not understand the law in this area, but also you didn't hear the evidence that the jury did. So why you're determined to dispute the verdict is suspicious.

 

[free spirit]

that isn't what happened, and you are being highly dishonest. There were a string of incidences which led a jury who had - unlike you - seen all of them to conclude the woman was very highly intoxicated.[/quote]
so you're asuming I was unaware of the list of incidents you just supplied, on which the jury based their decision?

You're a mind reader now are you?

To me everything up to the hotel that she did is pretty much par for the course for tens of thousands of women every weekend in drunkeness terms, not to mention pretty much everyone at most midweek student nights etc.

19 year olds tend to be shit at making it through a night out in heels without falling over at least once, it's not really a good indicator of her being any more intoxicated than the next girl, certainly not that she'd be too drunk to legally be considered able to consent.

It isn't a precedent at all, men are prosecuted on a similar basis regularly. CCTV evidence being shown to contradict the statments the rapist gave before they knew the CCTV evidence was available. Exactly as happened here. Evans lied, and so his testimony was held to be of very dubious value.

It's only news to you because it's a famous person being found guilty.

that's not what I'm saying is the precedent though is it, and I've been pretty clear about this from my first post.

The precedent being that someone who got herself drunk with no assistance from the accused person at all, has been judged as being incapable of giving her consent to have consensual sex with that person due to her level of intoxification.

Previously I'm only aware of the case the CPS and I referenced, which was actually thrown out on another point by the appeals court, other than cases where the person was actually passed out, or had had her drink spiked etc. I've acknowledged there might be a few others, but I've not found any sign of them online.

As I said to the previous poster, if you don't agree that this sets a precedent then it's pretty simple for you to prove that point by providing links to the many other cases that have previously set the bar at this level of drunkeness.

 

[Athos]

No, I'm saying that where she does consent, and where none of the 6 specified reasons why this consent should be invalid apply (being held prisoner, spiked etc), that it shouldn't be for the police, cps and courts to then determine at a later date that actually that consent wasn't valid consent as they've determined after the fact that she was too drunk to legally give her consent, and she says she can't remember what happened.

You do not understand s.75. Or the law relating to capacity.

 

[Dowie]

So anyone that has fallen over wearing heels on a night out, or looks like they might be a bit drunk is now automatically out of bounds?

clearly not - remember his buddy was found not guilty....

The other footballer got drunk in a club with the girl, and she decided to stay with him in the club when her mate was leaving and accompany him back to the hotel room. The court has decided that isn't rape.

Ched Evans on the other hand - she didn't agree to go back to any hotel with him... he just let himself into the room and assumed he could do what he wanted.

 

[belboid]

that isn't what happened, and you are being highly dishonest. There were a string of incidences which led a jury who had - unlike you - seen all of them to conclude the woman was very highly intoxicated.

so you're asuming I was unaware of the list of incidents you just supplied, on which the jury based their decision?

You're a mind reader now are you?

To me everything up to the hotel that she did is pretty much par for the course for tens of thousands of women every weekend in drunkeness terms, not to mention pretty much everyone at most midweek student nights etc.

19 year olds tend to be shit at making it through a night out in heels without falling over at least once, it's not really a good indicator of her being any more intoxicated than the next girl, certainly not that she'd be too drunk to legally be considered able to consent.

So have you seen all the CCTV or haven't you? Obviously you haven't as they are not available to the general public. So you are lying when you claim to know that what she did was 'pretty much par for the course for tens of thousands of women every weekend' - you are, quite simply making things up.

that's not what I'm saying is the precedent though is it, and I've been pretty clear about this from my first post.

The precedent being that someone who got herself drunk with no assistance from the accused person at all, has been judged as being incapable of giving her consent to have consensual sex with that person due to her level of intoxification.

Previously I'm only aware of the case the CPS and I referenced, which was actually thrown out on another point by the appeals court, other than cases where the person was actually passed out, or had had her drink spiked etc. I've acknowledged there might be a few others, but I've not found any sign of them online.

As I said to the previous poster, if you don't agree that this sets a precedent then it's pretty simple for you to prove that point by providing links to the many other cases that have previously set the bar at this level of drunkeness.

You are entirely wrong. The cases I was referring to also were about the woman being highly intoxicated and being unable to give consent. That drunkenness was ascertained through CCTV footage, as was the rapists targetting of a clearly drunk person for assault. So there is absolutely no precedent here.

This case should be important as it helps to make clearer what counts as rape. Those claiming Evans is guilty are just making excuses and are saying that any woman able to stand for five seconds is fair game. Those people are scum, and should know that they are liable to be prosecuted for rape.

 

[free spirit]

Er, no. To convict they must have decided that, in addition to the fact that she didn't consent (because she lacked the capacity to do so), he had no reasonable belief that she consented.

is that right. Should be a simple enough task for you to prove that point then.

As I understand it the jury found that she wasn't capable of giving her consent, and potentially also that the guy should have known that she wasn't capable of giving that consent.

How the fuck is someone supposed to determine that a woman isn't actually capable legally if giving her consent, how was he supposed to have a reasonable belief that this wasn't the case when presented with a woman who by all accounts actually did consent, and actually was relatively lucid, able to walk in heels, talk etc.

So far we've had one poster suggesting that blood alcohol levels are irrelevant, but then confusingly suggesting a breathalyser might be a good idea (which measures blood alcohol levels), others effectively suggesting road side drunk tests as to whether the woman can walk straight, talk coherently etc. but then dismissing the cctv footage that was used as evidence in this case that fairly clearly shows that she was able to walk reasonably well by herself... doesn't seem very clear to me.

Or maybe everyone should just base it on the opinion of the hotel night porter. Perhaps it could be part of their job description to determine when a woman is too drunk to consent on behalf of the hotels guests to stop them falling foul of this law. They and posters on here seem to have gone on his statement that she was very drunk, without clarification (AFAIK) as to in relation to what was she very drunk - ie what percentage of guests would he say would come back more drunk than her, is she the most drunk he's ever seen, or just standard friday night very drunk?

In short, not only do you not understand the law in this area, but also you didn't hear the evidence that the jury did. So why you're determined to dispute the verdict is suspicious.

oh suspicious is it. Fuck off, and maybe find some case law to back up your assertions that this case is nothing unusual while you're doing it.

 

[free spirit]

You do not understand s.75. Or the law relating to capacity.

so you keep saying, but then failing to give examples to support your case.

 

[belboid]

How the fuck is someone supposed to determine that a woman isn't actually capable legally if giving her consent, how was he supposed to have a reasonable belief that this wasn't the case when presented with a woman who by all accounts actually did consent, and actually was relatively lucid, able to walk in heels, talk etc.

It wasn't 'by all accounts' at all. You are lying.

 

[SpackleFrog]

The precedent being that someone who got herself drunk with no assistance from the accused person at all, has been judged as being incapable of giving her consent to have consensual sex with that person due to her level of intoxification.

Getting drunk isn't illegal. Wandering around at 3am, spotting a girl who has clearly had too much to drink, taking her back to a hotel room and TEXTING YOUR MATE TO COME OVER AND HAVE A GO is illegal, or if it's a grey area it fucking should be. And it's utterly despicable. And someone who gets a text from a mate letting them know he has a drunk woman in a hotel room, and decides to pop over and fuck someone he has never met and who is incredibly drunk is a filthy, dirty rapist bastard. And unless he's been raised by predatory abusers and is so damaged as to have no concept of right and wrong, he knows it too.

You ignorant fucking cunt.

 

[Athos]

is that right. Should be a simple enough task for you to prove that point then.

Yes it is. By reference to the wording of s.1 (with my emphasis added):

1 Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

oh suspicious is it. Fuck off, and maybe find some case law to back up your assertions that this case is nothing unusual while you're doing it.

You could try Malone, Howard, Dougal and H, as a starting point.


You are a prick.

 

[ddraig]

amazing defence of the indefensible going on
wondered if you consider yourself to have been 'wrongly accused' in the past fs?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

amazing defence of the indefensible going on
wondered if you consider yourself to have been 'wrongly accused' in the past fs?

Fuck right off with that.

 

[ddraig]

?it is a question
hope totally wrong

e2a of course it is fine to dissect and doubt the testimony of a woman from a bit of cctv and that we all get pissed up on booze but not fine to question possible motives behind arguing the case for the defence so vehemently?

 

[free spirit]

clearly not - remember his buddy was found not guilty....

The other footballer got drunk in a club with the girl, and she decided to stay with him in the club when her mate was leaving and accompany him back to the hotel room.

oh really, that's what happened is it? Sure of that? Maybe you could give your evidence to the court then as it's not what's on the record as happening.

The court has decided that isn't rape.

after the police and CPS had prosecuted him for it because they were sure it was rape.

Ched Evans on the other hand - she didn't agree to go back to any hotel with him... he just let himself into the room and assumed he could do what he wanted.

yes he was sleazy as fuck doing that, but the case hinged legally on her capacity to give consent at that point, not on whether he was a sleazy fuck. Although I'd have to suspect that the jury actually made it's decision on the basis of their opinion of him being a sleazy fuck as opposed to the specifics of her capacity to give consent at that point, which can't have been significantly different to her capacity to give consent a few minutes earlier.

 

[Cid]

oh really, that's what happened is it? Sure of that? Maybe you could give your evidence to the court then as it's not what's on the record as happening.


after the police and CPS had prosecuted him for it because they were sure it was rape.


yes he was sleazy as fuck doing that, but the case hinged legally on her capacity to give consent at that point, not on whether he was a sleazy fuck. Although I'd have to suspect that the jury actually made it's decision on the basis of their opinion of him being a sleazy fuck as opposed to the specifics of her capacity to give consent at that point, which can't have been significantly different to her capacity to give consent a few minutes earlier.

You are failing to understand the case again. The jury decided, on the evidence, that she was unable to consent. This is the case for McDonald as well as Evans. McDonald was able to use the defence of having a reasonable belief in consent, Evans was not.

 

[Athos]

... which can't have been significantly different to her capacity to give consent a few minutes earlier.

But the two men could have held very different beliefs regarding her consent. One may have reasonably believed from all the events leading up to sex that she consented to sex with him; the other didn't. The fact that you go home with one man doesn't mean you consent to be fucked by any of his mates who sneak into the room.

Evans knew that. And, deep down, he and his supporters know what he is. That they continue to defend him notwithstanding that fact says something about them. And about you.

Until you understand s.1, stop spouting shit.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

?it is a question
hope totally wrong

e2a of course it is fine to dissect and doubt the testimony of a woman from a bit of cctv and that we all get pissed up on booze but not fine to question possible motives behind arguing the case for the defence so vehemently?

And fuck right off with that as well. It was not an innocent 'question', hence the 'quotation marks'.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In short, not only do you not understand the law in this area, but also you didn't hear the evidence that the jury did. So why you're determined to dispute the verdict is suspicious.

This is fucking out of order. Call him stupid, call him a cunt, even call him an apologist if you have to. But not this.