So I've edited her post because I really don't understand why you've spent so little (if any?) time focussing on THAT aspect of Ched Evans' behaviour. As plenty of posters have said earlier, it's about Evans rolling in later on** to help himself that's important, not exactly how drunk or not the victim was. Pehaps the jury were focussing on how Ched Evans actuually behaved? Pehaps HIS behaviour is why they found him guilty?
**at his mate's invitation FFS -- well fucking disgraceful in itself
because william, you're pushing your own morality onto the situation, and the law should never intervene in what happens in the bedroom between 2 or more consenting adults.
Which is why this case was nominally about whether or not she was too drunk to legally consent, and whether or not this should have been obvious to the accused, although in reality it was pretty obviously brought because the coppers themselves applied that same level of morality to the situation, which is why this case ended up in court whereas many other situations where drunk people have ended up fucking each other then one or other of them had no recollection of how that had happened in the morning haven't.
I also think it's interesting to note that most posters who've posted similar queries on here have done so while embellishing what we actually know about how drunk she was, with stuff like 'passed out' 'pissed herself' 'semi-concious' 'incapable of saying no'.
How come people actually have to make stuff up about how drunk they assume she must have been, when there's zero evidence to support it? Could it be that if they accepted that she wasn't / might well not have actually been passed out / semi conscious etc then they know they might have to revise their opinion of the situation, or are actually assuming that this must be what happened because otherwise he wouldn't have been found guilty?
Both of the people in the room who could actually remember what had happened had testified that she was awake, positively agreed to the idea of Ched joining in, and was very much an active participant in everything that happened - and the hotel porter's testimony also backs up the idea that she was at least a conscious and active participant in the sex, as he went to listen outside the door to check the situation.
The reason I've got involved in this thread in this way is because after investigating the actual situation, I realised that all these stories of her actually being passed out etc that kept being repeated were unsupported bollocks, then realised that essentially he'd been convicted because she'd been in alcoholic blackout and couldn't remember a thing about it, which the police, CPS and jury had taken to mean she must have been completely and obviously incapable of giving her consent.
That's absolutely not my experience at all of people who've ended up in alcoholic blackout by downing that level of spirits in a short space of time, where I know that people can appear pretty coherent, able to hold conversations, able to walk, dance, even DJ, and if anything could be comparable with someone on a manic phase of bipolar as they can really be the life and soul of the party, loosing their inhibitions in the process, but not in a way that it'd be entirely obvious to anyone that they were actually in alcoholic blackout and wouldn't remember a thing about it in the morning.
And i have a lot of experience of that late night world to draw on to know what people are capable of, and how they appear when in alcoholic blackout.
So I find their version of events to at least be plausible, it's supported by the CCTV footage, the way she'd drunk her alcohol, the fact that the blackout period started at some point in the takeaway long before she'd met either of them, and after which she managed to order and wait for a pizza, get into a taxi, walk into the hotel unaided etc. So why must she have instantly passed out as soon as she got into the bedroom just because she also can't remember that bit?
I didn't really understand why or how he'd been convicted on this basis until I read the appeal court documents, and realised that his defence had fucked it up and had an expert witness who instead of ensuring the jury understood how alcoholic blackout worked, that it effect memory formation, but not necessarily the apparent coherence of the person at the time, had instead tried to make out that she'd not drunk enough to have entered that state, and must be lying, which was an utterly shit and wrong approach to have taken both for the girl to be accused of lying, and because it condemned the guy to being found guilty because he wasted the opportunity to actually ensure the jury understood how coherent people under alcoholic blackout can appear.
So here was a situation where a girl could well have been a willing and active participant in sex at the time (no evidence offered to the contrary, supporting evidence from the night porter), but where the person who she was having sex with was later found guilty of rape because she'd been in alcoholic blackout and can't remember what happened, and a jury determined that she must have been obviously too drunk to have been able to truly give her consent without her giving any evidence at all about what happened, so the only support for the rape charge was how drunk the jury decided she must have been.
If you think this sounds like good law, then fair enough, but I don't.
