Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Orang Utan]

Orang Utan We know what definitely too drunk to consent looks like. What does drunken consent look like?

i don't know.

 

[belboid]

Really?

On what basis?

All X was able to tell anyone is that she had no memory of the event.

The only witnesses declared that she was an enthusiastic participant. So how did they go about disputing what they said she said?

Are you really this thick? They dispute it by saying 'I don't believe you. You're a liar.' That's why it was important to get someone else to claim that she said the same thing to them, to make it plausible.

 

[hegley]

We all know that someone who is semi- conscious / unable to talk properly etc is too drunk to consent. If you have sex with someone in that state you are a rapist.

The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". She's on CCTV staggering, and at one point falling over. An expert witness said she would have had enough alcohol in her system to be slurring her words and unsteady on her feet. McDonald, co-defendant in the original trial even told the night porter when he left to look out for her because she was sick. I don't think either McDonald or Evans particularly cared - it goes back to Evans saying that he could have had any girl he wanted that night because he was a rich footballer. Which has echoes of Trump saying when you're a star you can do anything to women.

 

[Casually Red]

It's the behaviour of a sexual predator. Even if you accept he genuinely believed he had consent, it comes from an appalling attitude that doesn't really know or care what consent really means.

There is absolutely no doubt this guy is a sexual predator, none at all. And no doubt he doesn't give a toss about consent either. He's clearly a menace and a scumbag . But at the same time there are others who do consent to participate in that type of sexual activity . Better judgement can go clean out the window with drink taken . That doesn't in turn mean I think he's innocent mind . I think he's scum .

But for me the biger issue is whether or not this signals a legal opening of the floodgates as regards women's sexual history ? Has it set an actual precedent that overturns existing legislation or were there just particular anomalies and loopholes in this case that made it a one off ? That's what I'd like to know but I'm not getting any clear answers in the midst of all this shouting .

 

[Spymaster]

Are you really this thick? They dispute it by saying 'I don't believe you. You're a liar.' That's why it was important to get someone else to claim that she said the same thing to them, to make it plausible.

You stupid, stupid, cunt.

On what basis could they reasonably say that? If it were their word against hers they could dispute it, but it wasn't even that. It's their word ONLY.

You might get something like: "I put it to you that she did not consent"

Reply: "She did".

The transcripts are out there, go and find it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Er, it's a simple question

Police can bring charges regardless of whether a victim wishes them to, if they believe there's a case to be made.

 

[bimble]

The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". She's on CCTV staggering, and at one point falling over. An expert witness said she would have had enough alcohol in her system to be slurring her words and unsteady on her feet. McDonald, co-defendant in the original trial even told the night porter when he left to look out for her because she was sick. I don't think either McDonald or Evans particularly cared - it goes back to Evans saying that he could have had any girl he wanted that night because he was a rich footballer. Which has echoes of Trump saying when you're a star you can do anything to women.

Totally agree about the disgustingness of the footballer.
On a personal note, it happened once that I was really quite drunk and my very nice boyfriend person refused to have sex with me because of that, even though I tried it on.
But I don't feel comfortable with the law arbitrating that, had we had sex that night, it would have been nonconsensual.

 

[Casually Red]

The only two people to have come here to say that they have had blackouts like this have both been accused of being rape apologists.

That is shit.

That was pretty disgraceful . Out of order .

 

[belboid]

You stupid, stupid, cunt.

On what basis could they reasonably say that? If it were their word against hers they could dispute it, but it wasn't even that. It's their word ONLY.

At best you might get: "I put it to you that she did not consent"

Reply: "She did".

The transcripts are out there, go and find it.

Christ.

Utter nonsense. Going 'I put it to you she did not say that' is disputing it. Arguing she was too inebriated to say it (or anything else) is disputing it.

 

[trashpony]

What does 'too drunk to consent' look like?
We all know that someone who is semi- conscious / unable to talk properly etc is too drunk to consent. If you have sex with someone in that state you are a rapist.
This case was built entirely on her not remembering anything in the morning.
That is all we know for sure.

The only two people to have come here to say that they have had blackouts like this have both been accused of being rape apologists.

That is shit.

I am too busy right now looking after children to answer you properly but that is a complete lie

 

[bimble]

I am too busy right now looking after children to answer you properly but that is a complete lie

I understand you're busy but allow me to defend myself against the accusation of having posted 'a complete lie'.
The two people who have come here and said they have experienced blackouts are LBJ and Ruby Blue.

You know that you directly called LJB a rape apologist.
To RubyBlue you said "Her blackout is neither here nor there. She doesn't remember. It was Evans' evidence that convicted him. So yes to keep banging on about that is making excuses for Evans."

I'm not expecting a response or anything, but its sad that both people who posted with direct experience of memory loss due to alcohol have been accused of being apologists for Evans, who you are certain is a rapist.

 

[trashpony]

I didn't call ruby blue a rape apologist.

I said that LBJ and EoY are because they said they didn't think he should have been charged at all.

ETA and it's not just me who's certain. The first jury. The appeal court and the second appeal court all agreed.

 

[bimble]

You said RubyBlue 's personal testimony was helping to 'make excuses for Evans'. That's how I read your post anyway.
But never mind. I've got to disentangle from the computer too.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Was cctv ever looked into in terms of where they were before going to the hotel? Spiking someone's drink can also cause blackouts, certain date rape substances are known for it in fact...

The I've got a girl' phone call is sinister as fuck Imo... They were certainly up to no good from that moment on.

 

[Treacle Toes]

She's also said to have said the same thing to Evans, which is why it became relevant.

Convenient that, don't you think?

 

[Spymaster]

The first jury. The appeal court and the second appeal court all agreed.

Eh?

 

[Spymaster]

Convenient that, don't you think?

Well yes. But also plausible.

Have you read this:https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2016/chedevansappealx.pdf

 

[Orang Utan]

I understand you're busy but allow me to defend myself against the accusation of having posted 'a complete lie'.
The two people who have come here and said they have experienced blackouts are LBJ and Ruby Blue.

that's not true. others have. this is a long thread.
i have definitely had blackouts before myself.

 

[frogwoman]

I have had blackouts and I would hate to think I was acting so crazily that people would think I would be able to get taken advantage of in that state.

 

[Casually Red]

Well yes. But also plausible.

Have you read this:https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2016/chedevansappealx.pdf

Thanks for posting that. I'm far from convinced Evans is actually innocent of rape, but I can now see that actual points of law where he got his conviction quashed . Xs ..or more correctly the CPSs case seems to have been badly damaged by Xs assertion she would never consent to sex with a stranger . Which is an understandable thing for anyone to say in the belief theyd be judged negatively but might not have been completely accurate . I can see how that contradiction , which was central to Evans conviction..was relevant in a court . There's the reasonable doubt introduced .

I'm still pretty fuzzy though on the courts assertion this is a rare instance that doesn't undermine section 41 . It says it doesn't but doesnt really explain why, I'm not really convinced . Seems more hopeful than anything .

Eta

Also the failure of the witnesses to mention specific details previously seems to be that they simply weren't asked . Or so they claim .

The whole things dodgy as fuck tbh. Anyway you look at it Evans reasons for going there were just appalling and wholly predatory .

 

[RubyBlue]

I have had blackouts and I would hate to think I was acting so crazily that people would think I would be able to get taken advantage of in that state.

That's the thing though, the chances are no one would realise - you would (or I would) come across as being happily a bit drunk but no one would think I was so twatted I might get taken advantage of - that's the difference between being pissed and being Ina blackout - if you met me in one you wouldn't think I was that drunk!

I met a guy once in AA who a shagged in a blackout (prior to going to AA). I had no idea I'd shagged him - he asked if I still lived in that flat in Dalston - I thought how the fuck do you know where I live - it all became embarrassingly clear!

 

[trashpony]

You said RubyBlue 's personal testimony was helping to 'make excuses for Evans'. That's how I read your post anyway.

To RubyBlue you said "Her blackout is neither here nor there. She doesn't remember. It was Evans' evidence that convicted him. So yes to keep banging on about that is making excuses for Evans."

No, what I meant was that RubyBlue's testimony was irrelevant inasmuch as her not remembering anything has never been in doubt. I think that's a given. So much of this is diversion - it's like a sleight of hand magician.
It was Evans and McDonald's testimony that meant he was convicted. She could have been lucid except that witnesses and the CCTV says she appeared to be very very drunk. All except for the defendant and his mate.

 

[Casually Red]

That's the thing though, the chances are no one would realise - you would (or I would) come across as being happily a bit drunk but no one would think I was so twatted I might get taken advantage of - that's the difference between being pissed and being Ina blackout - if you met me in one you wouldn't think I was that drunk!

I met a guy once in AA who a shagged in a blackout (prior to going to AA). I had no idea I'd shagged him - he asked if I still lived in that flat in Dalston - I thought how the fuck do you know where I live - it all became embarrassingly clear!

That's alcoholism in a nutshell . Memory loss and face palms all round . You certainly don't need to be outwardly completely out of it to not be able to remember stuff . At the same time you can actually get wrote off and remember doing it .

Being called all sorts for pointing this out is completely uncalled for .

 

[Spymaster]

Thanks for posting that. I'm far from convinced Evans is actually innocent of rape, but I can now see that actual points of law where he got his conviction quashed .

Quite. And then subsequently acquitted in the retrial.

He may well be guilty of rape. He's certainly guilty of being a thoroughgoing scumbag. But as the law stands, you can see that his guilt is not now beyond a reasonable doubt.

ETA> None of which is a reflection on X. The poor woman has been royally fucked by the CPS.

 

[belboid]

ETA> None of which is a reflection on X. The poor woman has been royally fucked by the CPS.

How? By them prosecuting Evans? What else have they done to her?

 

[Casually Red]

Quite. And then subsequently acquitted.

He may well be guilty of rape. He's certainly guilty of being a thoroughgoing scumbag. But as the law stands, you can see that his guilt is not now beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yup. And there's certainly also a number of question marks as to how that introduction of reasonable doubt came about . Quite a whiff , but also a whiff of plausibility too. Can definitely see why people are upset . But if the new witnesses were telling the truth ..that makes a big difference. in law at least .

He's still a predatory , pervert scumbag though . At least that was established beyond any reasonable doubt .

 

[trashpony]

Being called all sorts for pointing this out is completely uncalled for .

No one has called Ruby Blue anything for pointing that out. Bimble misunderstood what I was saying

 

[redsquirrel]

If he had been found guilty of rape on the basis of her not remembering anything of that night that would have set a seriously big precedent, wouldn't it.

Apart from that was never the basis of the CPSs case, the CPSs claim (IMO completely valid) is that the woman was not in a state to give consent.

I personally would not want to see a change in the way the law works making it so that basically "If a woman has no memory of the night before, then any sex that she had was beyond reasonable doubt nonconsensual sex and so the person who had sex with her is guilty of rape."
I think that would probably cause more problems than it would solve.
(This is not a comment on this particular case but on what might have been the result of a guilty verdict.)

Again this is bollocks you've completely made up.

 

[Casually Red]

No one has called Ruby Blue anything for pointing that out. Bimble misunderstood what I was saying

Fair enough . Apologies on that score .

 

[Spymaster]

Can definitely see why people are upset .

Sure. But the alternative is to reduce the standard of proof to something less than beyond a reasonable doubt, and that opens a fucking massive can of worms.