Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[andysays]

10 minutes earlier she's seen on the cctv linked to walking into the hotel, have a look, does she seem in such a state that you'd automatically say that she should be judged as being in no fit state to consent to sex?

There doesn't seem to have been any doubt in the footballers minds that she was clearly consenting, and a willing partner in what was going on, the prosecution case was based on her being too drunk to have legally given her consent (as far as I can tell, if anyone has links that say otherwise please post them up).

The prosecution case appears to have convinced the jury, who were able to judge all the evidence in the case, rather than the various snippets Ched Evans has seen fit to emphasise.

On the whole, I'm more inclined to go with their judgement than either his or yours, TBH...

 

[goldenecitrone]

10 minutes earlier she's seen on the cctv linked to walking into the hotel, have a look, does she seem in such a state that you'd automatically say that she should be judged as being in no fit state to consent to sex?

Appearances can be deceptive. People can have blackouts when they are totally pissed up and do things they have no recollection of the next day. Never been there?

 

[trashpony]

There doesn't seem to have been any doubt in the footballers minds that she was clearly consenting

I don't know if you're being willfully stupid but that's exactly what the prosecution argued (successfully).

 

[free spirit]

The prosecution case appears to have convinced the jury, who were able to judge all the evidence in the case, rather than the various snippets Ched Evans has seen fit to emphasise.

On the whole, I'm more inclined to go with their judgement than either his or yours, TBH...

Yes, convinced the jury that he was guilty according to the way the law is now framed, and presumably the way the law was explained to them in court by the judge etc.

Which would be why I'm mainly attacking the way the law is now framed and interpreted, and particularly querying whether that CCTV footage really shows a woman who was obviously too drunk to consent to sex. If she was legally too drunk to consent to sex, then so are probably the majority of women and men who stumble out of the UK's clubs every weekend.

I support the juries decision to find the other defendant not guilty, but also have real problems with the police and CPS decision to prosecute him in the first place.

 

[free spirit]

Appearances can be deceptive. People can have blackouts when they are totally pissed up and do things they have no recollection of the next day. Never been there?

of course I have, but whatever I do in those periods I'm still held legally responsible for.

and I'm well aware that I can still seem perfectly lucid, able to walk, hold conversations, dance etc etc while twatted, so I don't really know how someone else should be considered able to judge that I'm actually far too pissed to be capable of deciding that actually I quite fancy a shag, and that if they took me up on that then they should be held to have raped me, or vice versa.

 

[goldenecitrone]

of course I have, but whatever I do in those periods I'm still held legally responsible for.

and I'm well aware that I can still seem perfectly lucid, able to walk, hold conversations, dance etc etc while twatted, so I don't really know how someone else should be considered able to judge that I'm actually far too pissed to be capable of deciding that actually I quite fancy a shag, and that if they took me up on that then they should be held to have raped me, or vice versa.

Isn't that why the first footballer got off, but the guy who turned up later and took advantage didn't? On the balance of probabilities she consented to sex with the first footballer and went back to the hotel with him, but there is no evidence that she could consent to the second bloke turning up later on in the evening.

 

[bmd]

Yes, convinced the jury that he was guilty according to the way the law is now framed, and presumably the way the law was explained to them in court by the judge etc.

Which would be why I'm mainly attacking the way the law is now framed and interpreted, and particularly querying whether that CCTV footage really shows a woman who was obviously too drunk to consent to sex. If she was legally too drunk to consent to sex, then so are probably the majority of women and men who stumble out of the UK's clubs every weekend.

I support the juries decision to find the other defendant not guilty, but also have real problems with the police and CPS decision to prosecute him in the first place.

What seems to be confusing some people is the bit about having sex when pissed. If you are so pissed you're barely conscious then are you able to give consent? If you are so pissed you're unconscious then clearly you're not. This case seems to have drawn a more visible line. Well, I hope so anyway.

 

[brogdale]

of course I have, but whatever I do in those periods I'm still held legally responsible for.

But that implies that someone in that hotel room was somehow not legally responsible for their action? I'm not aware that anyone, aside from Evans, broke the law. Certainly not the victim of the rape whom the jury decided had consensual sex with one defendant, but was raped by the second.

 

[free spirit]

I don't know if you're being willfully stupid but that's exactly what the prosecution argued (successfully).

This is the judges instructions to the jury.

"A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree to sexual intercourse."

He then addressed the implications and consequences of the evidence that the complainant had been drinking and had possibly taken cocaine. He said:

"There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an individual who is intoxicated. First, it can remove inhibitions. A person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do, or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness. So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be. Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed her capacity to exercise a choice?"

He went on to explain: "A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."

source

This case was pretty much entirely about whether the woman had the legal capacity to consent, or was too drunk to legally consent, not whether she actually did consent as she apparently couldn't remember either way, and both defendants stated that she had, and were the only other direct witnesses.

Although the actual decision of the jury seems a bit perverse on that point to me, as either she was too drunk to consent, or she wasn't.

 

[brogdale]

Although the actual decision of the jury seems a bit perverse on that point to me, as either she was too drunk to consent, or she wasn't.

You're saying that levels of intoxication can't vary over time?

 

[free spirit]

But that implies that someone in that hotel room was somehow not legally responsible for their action? I'm not aware that anyone, aside from Evans, broke the law. Certainly not the victim of the rape whom the jury decided had consensual sex with one defendant, but was raped by the second.

the woman in this case was judged not to have been legally capable of giving consent to have sex with Ched Evans.

and the woman had previously been judged by the police and CPS as having not been legally capable of consenting to sex with the other defendant either, though the jury apparently disagreed, but that demonstrates how the CPS were interpreting the law.

If they'd actually decided that no consent was given at all for Ched to have sex with her, then presumably both defendants would have been prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice / perjury for both lying in court that she had consented.

 

[comrade spurski]

10 minutes earlier she's seen on the cctv linked to walking into the hotel, have a look, does she seem in such a state that you'd automatically say that she should be judged as being in no fit state to consent to sex?

There doesn't seem to have been any doubt in the footballers minds that she was clearly consenting, and a willing partner in what was going on, the prosecution case was based on her being too drunk to have legally given her consent (as far as I can tell, if anyone has links that say otherwise please post them up).

How can you possibly know that?
Maybe he knew she couldnt consent but didnt give a shit.
Maybe he is simply a lying rapist piece of shit.
You weren't on the jury so you weren't privvy to all the info needed to make a judgement.
This aint a case of someone being fitted up by corrupt police so fuck knows why so many people are presuming he is an innocent victim

 

[free spirit]

You're saying that levels of intoxication can't vary over time?

well yes, but not significantly in the space of half an hour or so, particularly where no alcohol had been drunk for about 2 hours by that stage, and a pizza had been bought and eaten etc.

 

[free spirit]

How can you possibly know that?
Maybe he knew she couldnt consent but didnt give a shit.
Maybe he is simply a lying rapist piece of shit.
You weren't on the jury so you weren't privvy to all the info needed to make a judgement.
This aint a case of someone being fitted up by corrupt police so fuck knows why so many people are presuming he is an innocent victim

well, I started with the idea that the prosecution hadn't argued that point, at least not as far as I can find, although I've so far only read the appeal courts judgement documents when refusing the right to appeal, rather than the original court transcripts.

usually I'd assume that the prosecution would at least have made that argument in court if they thought that was the case, but both defendants statements were pretty unequivocal about it.

 

[brogdale]

well yes, but not significantly in the space of half an hour or so, particularly where no alcohol had been drunk for about 2 hours by that stage, and a pizza had been bought and eaten etc.

The jury, who heard the evidence, thought differently.

 

[comrade spurski]

well, I started with the idea that the prosecution hadn't argued that point, at least not as far as I can find, although I've so far only read the appeal courts judgement documents when refusing the right to appeal, rather than the original court transcripts.

usually I'd assume that the prosecution would at least have made that argument in court if they thought that was the case, but both defendants statements were pretty unequivocal about it.

So because of what was not argued by the prosecution you assume to know what was in his head at the time?
So in reality your statement that "there seemed to be no doubt in the footballers mind that she was consenting" is actually bollocks ... it is not a fact just your opinion which you have come to without having heard all the evidence and testimony which the jury did

 

[free spirit]

The jury, who heard the evidence, thought differently.

That's your interpretation of the basis on which they made the decision, but I've not seen any evidence in any of the reports, appeals, judgements etc that this was what the decision was based on.

There wasn't any alcohol involved after she'd met the footballer, the entire list of alcohol involved came from earlier in the night, and she'd had about an hour in the pizza place after leaving the club prior to even meeting the footballers, so I'd have said that if anything she should have been getting more sober as time went on.

 

[killer b]

Fucking hell

 

[free spirit]

So because of what was not argued by the prosecution you assume to know what was in his head at the time?
So in reality your statement that "there seemed to be no doubt in the footballers mind that she was consenting" is actually bollocks ... it is not a fact just your opinion which you have come to without having heard all the evidence and testimony which the jury did

yeah, you see that 'seemed' bit?

what would that mean in that sentence? That I'm arguing the point as an incontrovertible fact?

 

[free spirit]

Are you saying that she was lying? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

just to clarify this, in her court evidence she stated that she didn't remember what happened in response to every question, so no I'm not saying she was lying, as she herself never said she didn't consent.

After talking in room 14, he said: "You each took your clothes off and he began having sex with you. Do you remember?"

She replied: "No."

Mr Morgan: "You were happy for this sex to go on weren't you?"

Woman: "I don't remember."

etc

source

What I'm saying is that a law that allows people to be convicted as a rapist despite the woman apparently consenting to sex (and offering no suggestion in court that she hadn't) based solely on the drunkeness of the woman, where that woman is clearly not passed out or even that obviously inebriated, is not a law that I can support.

At best it's a law that will inevitably end up being applied very randomly, as millions of sexual interactions a year in the UK probably involve women and men who're at least that drunk.

 

[comrade spurski]

S

yeah, you see that 'seemed' bit?

what would that mean in that sentence? That I'm arguing the point as an incontrovertible fact?

So why bring it up?
You were and are arguing that she was not raped...when you weren't privvy to all of the facts that the jury who convicted him had...and have spouted rubbish to back up your personal view that he is innocent.
Why are you so unable to believe a jury made a correct decision.
You have not shown any eeason as to why he would have been set up ... the were reasons why all the famous miscarriages of justice happened but nothing has been bought up here so maybe you could enlighten us as to why the police, courts, appeal courts, the prosecution and the victim have chosen to set him up.

 

[free spirit]

S


So why bring it up?
You were and are arguing that she was not raped...when you weren't privvy to all of the facts that the jury who convicted him had...and have spouted rubbish to back up your personal view that he is innocent.
Why are you so unable to believe a jury made a correct decision.
You have not shown any eeason as to why he would have been set up ... the were reasons why all the famous miscarriages of justice happened but nothing has been bought up here so maybe you could enlighten us as to why the police, courts, appeal courts, the prosecution and the victim have chosen to set him up.

how difficult is this to understand?

I don't think the jury necessarily made an incorrect decision as the law stands.

I think the law on which that jury was having to make their decision is wrong.

clear enough for you, or shall I get some fucking crayons out and draw you a picture?

 

[goldenecitrone]

just to clarify this, in her court evidence she stated that she didn't remember what happened in response to every question, so no I'm not saying she was lying, as she herself never said she didn't consent.


source

What I'm saying is that a law that allows people to be convicted as a rapist despite the woman apparently consenting to sex (and offering no suggestion in court that she hadn't) based solely on the drunkeness of the woman, where that woman is clearly not passed out or even that obviously inebriated, is not a law that I can support.

At best it's a law that will inevitably end up being applied very randomly, as millions of sexual interactions a year in the UK probably involve women and men who're at least that drunk.

At what point in that does she consent to sex?

 

[comrade spurski]

just to clarify this, in her court evidence she stated that she didn't remember what happened in response to every question, so no I'm not saying she was lying, as she herself never said she didn't consent.


source

What I'm saying is that a law that allows people to be convicted as a rapist despite the woman apparently consenting to sex (and offering no suggestion in court that she hadn't) based solely on the drunkeness of the woman, where that woman is clearly not passed out or even that obviously inebriated, is not a law that I can support.

At best it's a law that will inevitably end up being applied very randomly, as millions of sexual interactions a year in the UK probably involve women and men who're at least that drunk.

APPARENTLY...key word...he claims she consented...any chance the convicted rapist is lying?

 

[comrade spurski]

how difficult is this to understand?

I don't think the jury necessarily made an incorrect decision as the law stands.

I think the law on which that jury was having to make their decision is wrong.

clear enough for you, or shall I get some fucking crayons out and draw you a picture?

I am quite capable of understanding your logic...I just think its dishonest and shit.
Hence your stupid crayon comments

 

[free spirit]

At what point in that does she consent to sex?

in court she says she can't remember either way.

both witnesses say she consented on the night, she says she can't remember, the prosecution don't seem to have particularly dispute their statements that she consented, as they don't need to, they merely claim that whether she did or didn't is irrelevant as she wasn't in a fit state to give her consent legally due to being too drunk.

Or to put it another way, he was convicted on the basis that she was too drunk to consent legally, not on the basis that she hadn't consented on the night, so whether she had or hadn't actually consented was a moot point in court.

 

[killer b]

I think the lesson we can all take away from this is that men need more protection from rape allegations.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Or to put it another way, he was convicted on the basis that she was too drunk to consent legally, not on the basis that she hadn't consented on the night, so whether she had or hadn't actually consented was a moot point in court.

So if a 14 year old girl consented to a 50 year old man, he should be let off?

 

[comrade spurski]

I am half expecting free spirit to go galloway on my arse and claim the rapist is actually only guilty of bad sexual etiquette.
Night all

 

[free spirit]

I am quite capable of understanding your logic...I just think its dishonest and shit.
Hence your stupid crayon comments

so, to be clear, you support a law that allows for someone to be charged and potentially convicted as a rapist despite both parties consenting to sex at the time, just because the police, CPS and possibly jury decide that the woman was too drunk to consent when it later turns out that she can't actually remember what happened?

And you support this even when the woman involved can be shown to have been at least able to walk in heels in and out of a hotel lobby under her own steam, so clearly not obviously falling over drunk?

Me, I think this is properly dodgy law making that a lot of people could potentially fall foul of after a drunken one night stand that's later regretted.