Henry, you're right but the verdict means she WAS in a fit state to consent (after all she accused both, not just Evans).
Therefore the jury's verdict means there was sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she DID consent to McDonald (see above) but DIDN'T consent to Evans. If the evidence presented (or at least as reported) is sufficient then I'm a Palace fan.
No, it means there was not sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she didn't consent to MD but there was for Evans, slightly different.
Henry, you're right but the verdict means she WAS in a fit state to consent (after all she accused both, not just Evans).
Therefore the jury's verdict means there was sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she DID consent to McDonald (see above) but DIDN'T consent to Evans. If the evidence presented (or at least as reported) is sufficient then I'm a Palace fan.
No, it means there was not sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she didn't consent to MD but there was for Evans, slightly different.
I'm guessing as I don't know but it seems she did go back with MD in a taxi so it could be that the jury felt that she had made a decision to have sex with MD and so had either given consent or as Stu says there was reasonable doubt.
But she had no contact with Evans until he appeared in the bedroom
Anyway, we don't know, there may be an appeal so going to leave it there.
That would be my guess, the time MD had spent with the girl gave the jury some amount of reasonable doubt as to his guilt, however CE just turned up at the hotel and had his way.
Beyond that one man left through the front door, another through the fire exit, that on its own may have told the jury something.
But if she is in no fit state to consent to either, then they are both guilty...period.
My point is that to conclude there is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt is absurd (once as above you've as a jury agreed she was fit to consent to sex with someone.)
It says even more about the lack of morals of the man that he seemed to carry on playing football unaffected by the crime he committed.
Yeah this totally.
IMO even with just the basic outline of the case/charges you didn't need to be Einstein to know that something rotten had taken place....and yet it didn't seem to affect Evan's play or indeed his club's stance on the issue one iota...and of course their fans cheered every goal this `bloke' scored with complete disregard to the whole thing. Infact their backing for the player just solidified all the more on the back of it. Disgusting, disgraceful and shameful behaviour by of course the player himself, his club and the vast majority of it's supporters.
But if she is in no fit state to consent to either, then they are both guilty...period.
My point is that to conclude there is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt is absurd (once as above you've as a jury agreed she was fit to consent to sex with someone.)
Oh I do agree with you, I was simply stating what I think the jurys thought process may have been.
According to the Judge and numerous news outlets, "his career is over" - Seems very unlikely to me.
In 30 months the story will largely be forgotten, he'll get in shape, a club will pick him up on a free. Hell, he might still have the best years ahead of him (at club level at least, hard to believe he'll ever play for Wales again).
He'll be 28 when he completes the full sentence - does anyone know if he will be allowed to play when on parole? From there it's just a question of what level he comes back to.
And just like Lee Hughes, you'll wonder how the victims are feeling every single time you see him score.
I know the Lee Hughes case was bad, hardly anyone wanted to look at him after, but after all said and done he didn't intend to kill that lad, it was an accident, he was stupid to run off and got what came to him.
Ched Evens knew what he's done hence the fire escape and no one will look at him after this, his career is over guys, he is now just a dirty rapist end of.
Stu, but then the jury's thought process is ludicrous.
Only 3 people were in the room - one has no recollection (but the jury has concluded she was able to consent or not), and the other(s) said she consented. What evidence was presented to the contrary?
it's a bit strong when comparing a sentence handed down last week .. an 18 year old given 8 years for striking and killing a 68 year old during the 'riots' .. I suspect that if Evans had been less famous or as it is now, infamous, the sentence might well have been less severe.
it's a bit strong when comparing a sentence handed down last week .. an 18 year old given 8 years for striking and killing a 68 year old during the 'riots' .. I suspect that if Evans had been less famous or as it is now, infamous, the sentence might well have been less severe.
I find it amazing the amount of conjecture going on based up on newspaper reports of the trial. Since the papers do not report everything that goes on or is said and skew stories to meet their own ends it really is not reasonable to be surprised about MacDonald being acquitted and Evans being convicted. We don't know what went on or what the points of law were. The best thing to do is wait till the case is written up by the legal authorities and read what the actual facts were rasther than newspaper interpretations.
As none of us (I assume) were at the trial, heard the evidence, directions to the jury or the jury discussions, it is pointless speculating on how the prosecution case against both defendants was put or what each defendants case was or how each defendant was viewed by the jury. If the appeal is centred on the basis that the verdicts are inconsistent, he will have an uphill task because I have little doubt that the prosecution will be able to identify a number of differences between the two to show why the jury may have been satisfied with Evans but not Macdonald.
Stu is right to challenge New York's view of the burden of proof and I set out the ingredients of the offence in an earlier post. Tango asks why M wasn't charged with failing to stop Evans. Simple - there is no such offence in these circumstances (there are some but not applicable here).
At some stage in the future if a club is desperate and feel that Evans can help them, I expect he will be hired (as was Hughes) and the Chairman will be trotting out the usual 'he has served his sentence' line.
it's a bit strong when comparing a sentence handed down last week .. an 18 year old given 8 years for striking and killing a 68 year old during the 'riots' .. I suspect that if Evans had been less famous or as it is now, infamous, the sentence might well have been less severe.
You think 5 years is severe for rape?
no, but 8 years for murder is far too lenient .. the victim here is still alive .. the courts need to get a sense of perspective .. as has been said above, 3 people in the room, the victim, one found not guilty of rape and one found guilty .. how did the judge direct the jury on 'reasonable doubt' .. IF the jury had been composed of 12 Sheffield United fans, Evans would probably have been found not guilty, if the jury was composed of the United hating fans on here, Evans could well have been sentenced to 100 years with no parole
It says even more about the lack of morals of the man that he seemed to carry on playing football unaffected by the crime he committed.
Yeah this totally.
IMO even with just the basic outline of the case/charges you didn't need to be Einstein to know that something rotten had taken place....and yet it didn't seem to affect Evan's play or indeed his club's stance on the issue one iota...and of course their fans cheered every goal this `bloke' scored with complete disregard to the whole thing. Infact their backing for the player just solidified all the more on the back of it. Disgusting, disgraceful and shameful behaviour by of course the player himself, his club and the vast majority of it's supporters.
He was a completely innocent man up until this afternoon, Sheffield United have done nothing wrong.
According to the Judge and numerous news outlets, "his career is over" - Seems very unlikely to me.
In 30 months the story will largely be forgotten, he'll get in shape, a club will pick him up on a free. Hell, he might still have the best years ahead of him (at club level at least, hard to believe he'll ever play for Wales again).
He'll be 28 when he completes the full sentence - does anyone know if he will be allowed to play when on parole? From there it's just a question of what level he comes back to.
And just like Lee Hughes, you'll wonder how the victims are feeling every single time you see him score.
I know the Lee Hughes case was bad, hardly anyone wanted to look at him after, but after all said and done he didn't intend to kill that lad, it was an accident, he was stupid to run off and got what came to him.
Ched Evens knew what he's done hence the fire escape and no one will look at him after this, his career is over guys, he is now just a dirty rapist end of.
it's a bit strong when comparing a sentence handed down last week .. an 18 year old given 8 years for striking and killing a 68 year old during the 'riots' .. I suspect that if Evans had been less famous or as it is now, infamous, the sentence might well have been less severe.
You think 5 years is severe for rape?
no, but 8 years for murder is far too lenient .. the victim here is still alive .. the courts need to get a sense of perspective .. as has been said above, 3 people in the room, the victim, one found not guilty of rape and one found guilty .. how did the judge direct the jury on 'reasonable doubt' .. IF the jury had been composed of 12 Sheffield United fans, Evans would probably have been found not guilty, if the jury was composed of the United hating fans on here, Evans could well have been sentenced to 100 years with no parole
|Good understanding of law.
You cannot get 8 years for murder, manslaughter is not the same as murder.
Secondly, jurors do not decide on sentances, so the waffle about united hating fabs is moot
I think the general sentencing principles in this nation are a joke.
I assume that you have followed the discussions of the Sentencing Council in detail then? Perhaps you have contributed? If not then you should do so! http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/ What is interesting is that when members of the public do get involved in sentencing exercises (rather than forums) they actually under-sentence.
I do not envy any judge who has to carry out sentencing. How can you equate an offence of violence with fraud involving millions of pounds? It is impossible.
In the 8 year case it was manslaughter not murder.
A guy got 13 years the other day for embezzling a load of money off a Nigerian nation...
I think the general sentencing principles in this nation are a joke.
You could kill someone and rape someone and get the same amount of time as embezzlement in this country...
agreed, the courts regard property as far more important than people .. and as for the manslaughter; part of the definition of 'murder' is that if one strikes another with the INTENT to commit gbh, and the victim dies, then that is murder .. the charge and/or verdict in that case appears to be more politically than legally motivated. I doubt that the perpetrator struck the dead old man with the intent of passing on fraternal love.
But if she is in no fit state to consent to either, then they are both guilty...period.
My point is that to conclude there is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt is absurd (once as above you've as a jury agreed she was fit to consent to sex with someone.)
It's possible that the jury considered she consented to McDonald before they reached the hotel at a point when she was in a fit state to do so, and that's where the reasonable doubt regarding his case comes in. I'd be interested to see what the judge's direction was, particularly whether the concept of "joint enterprise" came in to play. To be honest I'm a bit lairy about the idea of setting a precedent that failing to stop your mate committing an offence and "leaving them to it" is the same as doing it yourself. Acting as an accessory possibly, but that's a lesser charge, and I don't know if it's appropriate in this case.
But if she is in no fit state to consent to either, then they are both guilty...period.
My point is that to conclude there is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt is absurd (once as above you've as a jury agreed she was fit to consent to sex with someone.)
It's possible that the jury considered she consented to McDonald before they reached the hotel at a point when she was in a fit state to do so, and that's where the reasonable doubt regarding his case comes in. I'd be interested to see what the judge's direction was, particularly whether the concept of "joint enterprise" came in to play. To be honest I'm a bit lairy about the idea of setting a precedent that failing to stop your mate committing an offence and "leaving them to it" is the same as doing it yourself. Acting as an accessory possibly, but that's a lesser charge, and I don't know if it's appropriate in this case.
But if she is in no fit state to consent to either, then they are both guilty...period.
My point is that to conclude there is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt is absurd (once as above you've as a jury agreed she was fit to consent to sex with someone.)
What I am hearing from this is that she willingly went in a taxi with McDonald and Evans turned up later in the room. Maybe, earlier in the evening she was more sober so she knew what she was doing, hence the involvement with MD. By the time Evans turned up in the room she was pretty plastered so she just didn't know what was going on. It's quite simple to see how the two circumstances could be very different. The jury appeared to make their decision quickly. I would think it was pretty clear cut.
Comments
Not sure that was the best thing to say when you are on a rape charge
But she had no contact with Evans until he appeared in the bedroom
Anyway, we don't know, there may be an appeal so going to leave it there.
Beyond that one man left through the front door, another through the fire exit, that on its own may have told the jury something.
My point is that to conclude there is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt is absurd (once as above you've as a jury agreed she was fit to consent to sex with someone.)
IMO even with just the basic outline of the case/charges you didn't need to be Einstein to know that something rotten had taken place....and yet it didn't seem to affect Evan's play or indeed his club's stance on the issue one iota...and of course their fans cheered every goal this `bloke' scored with complete disregard to the whole thing. Infact their backing for the player just solidified all the more on the back of it.
Disgusting, disgraceful and shameful behaviour by of course the player himself, his club and the vast majority of it's supporters.
I know the Lee Hughes case was bad, hardly anyone wanted to look at him after, but after all said and done he didn't intend to kill that lad, it was an accident, he was stupid to run off and got what came to him.
Ched Evens knew what he's done hence the fire escape and no one will look at him after this, his career is over guys, he is now just a dirty rapist end of.
Only 3 people were in the room - one has no recollection (but the jury has concluded she was able to consent or not), and the other(s) said she consented. What evidence was presented to the contrary?
Yes you are being cynical and yes you are right IMO
Jesus H you really have lost the plot.
Stu is right to challenge New York's view of the burden of proof and I set out the ingredients of the offence in an earlier post. Tango asks why M wasn't charged with failing to stop Evans. Simple - there is no such offence in these circumstances (there are some but not applicable here).
At some stage in the future if a club is desperate and feel that Evans can help them, I expect he will be hired (as was Hughes) and the Chairman will be trotting out the usual 'he has served his sentence' line.
no, but 8 years for murder is far too lenient .. the victim here is still alive .. the courts need to get a sense of perspective .. as has been said above, 3 people in the room, the victim, one found not guilty of rape and one found guilty .. how did the judge direct the jury on 'reasonable doubt' .. IF the jury had been composed of 12 Sheffield United fans, Evans would probably have been found not guilty, if the jury was composed of the United hating fans on here, Evans could well have been sentenced to 100 years with no parole
A guy got 13 years the other day for embezzling a load of money off a Nigerian nation...
I think the general sentencing principles in this nation are a joke.
You could kill someone and rape someone and get the same amount of time as embezzlement in this country...
Marlon King
You cannot get 8 years for murder, manslaughter is not the same as murder.
Secondly, jurors do not decide on sentances, so the waffle about united hating fabs is moot
http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/
What is interesting is that when members of the public do get involved in sentencing exercises (rather than forums) they actually under-sentence.
I do not envy any judge who has to carry out sentencing. How can you equate an offence of violence with fraud involving millions of pounds? It is impossible.