If he is cleared could he sue United for ripping up his contract and could he sue the police for additional loss of earnings if they've cocked up the investigation?
Surely he could sue a LOT of people if he is cleared...
His name has been dragged through the mud and in the eyes of the law, for doing nothing wrong!!
Spare a few thoughts for the victim in all this - will have to go through the trial all over again.
Who is the victim? We don't know. IF she's been lying all along then Ched is the victim.
Steady - I think the girl said she was so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened, it was the police who took this as a sign that she was too drunk to consent to sex and was therefore raped by Clayton Donaldson & Ched Evans. Donaldson was subsequently and Ched has had his conviction overturned.
Whatever the outcome I'm not sure the girl in question could be said to be lying.
Spare a few thoughts for the victim in all this - will have to go through the trial all over again.
Who is the victim? We don't know. IF she's been lying all along then Ched is the victim.
Steady - I think the girl said she was so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened, it was the police who took this as a sign that she was too drunk to consent to sex and was therefore raped by Clayton Donaldson & Ched Evans. Donaldson was subsequently and Ched has had his conviction overturned.
Whatever the outcome I'm not sure the girl in question could be said to be lying.
And even if you believe that she wasn't raped, she has had to change her name and uproot her life at least three times because of the actions of Sheffield United fans. As far as I can see, she's definitely a victim.
Spare a few thoughts for the victim in all this - will have to go through the trial all over again.
Who is the victim? We don't know. IF she's been lying all along then Ched is the victim.
Steady - I think the girl said she was so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened, it was the police who took this as a sign that she was too drunk to consent to sex and was therefore raped by Clayton Donaldson & Ched Evans. Donaldson was subsequently and Ched has had his conviction overturned.
Whatever the outcome I'm not sure the girl in question could be said to be lying.
I know, hence why I said "if". Only those present know what really happened, so we don't know who the real victims are, if any.
The law is incredibly suspect in this area. If 2 people are both equally drunk and neither in a fit state to consent to anything, then how can one be adjudged to have raped the other? Also, at what state of drunkenness are you unfit to consent and how is the other party supposed to know either way? This is probably one of the reasons why so few rape cases have result in a poor prosecution, and so many never make it to court.
Is there a distinction between being quashed and overturned ?
I think quash means it is as if the verdict never happened ie at this moment in time he is still yet to be found guilty or not guilty. Overturned means turning an established verdict into its opposite ie guilty to not guilty.
Always did weird me out that Donaldson wasn't convicted either. "I have a drunk woman in my room, come and have a go" is surely an imprisonable offence
So does he now have the presumption of innocence until the new trial is concluded ?
No.
Yes
No
Well yes as if the convictions is quashed that means he isn't guilty and therefore is innocent until the retrial takes place.
I respect your right to hold that view.
However, it's still a no from me as I have yet to see or hear any evidence that tells me he's not an opportunistic, scum-bag rapist. That may well change, but I doubt it.
You're right, there was no evidence to suggest spiking at all - here's a transcript of the case at appeal if anyone wants to know the facts. The problem is this:
- She stopped drinking before 3am. - Shortly after 4am, she spoke to McDonald (Evans's friend) for the first time. It isn't in question that she was making a variety of decisions at this point. - At about 4:15am, she arrived at the hotel and went to a room with McDonald. She was still walking in high heels, holding drunken conversations and so on. - Around ten minutes later, Evans arrived and entered the room.
To convict Evans, the jury must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a) she didn't consent to have sex with him, and b) he didn't reasonably believe that she consented to have sex with him. Her testimony was that she couldn't remember any of the events, and nobody else was able to contradict McDonald's and Evans's accounts of what happened in the room, so the jury can't be sure that she didn't consent unless they are sure that she couldn't possibly have done so, i.e. in practice, that she was too intoxicated to have consented.
We know that she had the capacity to make choices at 4am, an hour after she stopped drinking, but according to the verdict she must have lost her capacity to make choices by about 4:30am. This is the problem. How could the jury be sure - beyond reasonable doubt, remember - that she had become significantly more drunk between 4am and 4:30am when she last had a drink before 3am?
--------------------------------------
Personally, I think the trial is following due processes. I also know from a variety of lawyer friends that it is pretty difficult to get a rape conviction, so there must be more than what I've just put above.
So does he now have the presumption of innocence until the new trial is concluded ?
No.
Yes
No
Well yes as if the convictions is quashed that means he isn't guilty and therefore is innocent until the retrial takes place.
I respect your right to hold that view.
However, it's still a no from me as I have yet to see or hear any evidence that tells me he's not an opportunistic, scum-bag rapist. That may well change, but I doubt it.
Oh well since you were clearly at trial and have had access to all the evidence I'll go along with your assessment.
So does he now have the presumption of innocence until the new trial is concluded ?
No.
Yes
No
Well yes as if the convictions is quashed that means he isn't guilty and therefore is innocent until the retrial takes place.
I respect your right to hold that view.
However, it's still a no from me as I have yet to see or hear any evidence that tells me he's not an opportunistic, scum-bag rapist. That may well change, but I doubt it.
Oh well since you were clearly at trial and have had access to all the evidence I'll go along with your assessment.
Are we talking about the trial whereby he was found guilty? or are you talking about the appeal process where Lady Justice Hallett, Mr Justice Flaux and Sir David Maddison have heard fresh evidence which lead to the 'quashing'?
Until I've heard this 'fresh' evidence then I can't form an opinion other than the one I previously held.
If you don't like that or it doesn't sit well with you, then fair enough. There's no need to get all mardy over it though. Life's too short.
Spare a few thoughts for the victim in all this - will have to go through the trial all over again.
Who is the victim? We don't know. IF she's been lying all along then Ched is the victim.
Steady - I think the girl said she was so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened, it was the police who took this as a sign that she was too drunk to consent to sex and was therefore raped by Clayton Donaldson & Ched Evans. Donaldson was subsequently and Ched has had his conviction overturned.
Whatever the outcome I'm not sure the girl in question could be said to be lying.
Think you should get the other players name right, it was Clayton Mcdonald not Donaldson.
Really not surprised by this. Looked at the case a lot when it first went to trial and I'm no expert but there was a lot on there that looked suspect to me. There still is a real trial but I reckon it's unlikely he will be conivcted again after this was overturned. Fair play to him for fighting to clear his name...if he's found not guilty again I hope he finds a club and can get on with his life tbh.
The law is incredibly suspect in this area. If 2 people are both equally drunk and neither in a fit state to consent to anything, then how can one be adjudged to have raped the other? Also, at what state of drunkenness are you unfit to consent and how is the other party supposed to know either way? This is probably one of the reasons why so few rape cases have result in a poor prosecution, and so many never make it to court.
There is every chance she didn't consent to either but the jury couldn't be sure beyond reasonable doubt that McDonald couldn't have reasonably believed that she had.
Spare a few thoughts for the victim in all this - will have to go through the trial all over again.
Who is the victim? We don't know. IF she's been lying all along then Ched is the victim.
Steady - I think the girl said she was so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened, it was the police who took this as a sign that she was too drunk to consent to sex and was therefore raped by Clayton Donaldson & Ched Evans. Donaldson was subsequently and Ched has had his conviction overturned.
Whatever the outcome I'm not sure the girl in question could be said to be lying.
And even if you believe that she wasn't raped, she has had to change her name and uproot her life at least three times because of the actions of Sheffield United fans. As far as I can see, she's definitely a victim.
Evans may be a victim too.
Not guilty (if that is what the ultimate outcome is) does not mean innocent. It just means the prosecution cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. There may still have been a crime and thus a victim.
Really not surprised by this. Looked at the case a lot when it first went to trial and I'm no expert but there was a lot on there that looked suspect to me. There still is a real trial but I reckon it's unlikely he will be conivcted again after this was overturned. Fair play to him for fighting to clear his name...if he's found not guilty again I hope he finds a club and can get on with his life tbh.
Regardless if he does clear his name and finds a new club... Football fans will never let him forget this
Comments
His name has been dragged through the mud and in the eyes of the law, for doing nothing wrong!!
Whatever the outcome I'm not sure the girl in question could be said to be lying.
Evans may be a victim too.
"Quashed" was a racehorse that won the 1935 Oaks
Hope that helps.
However, it's still a no from me as I have yet to see or hear any evidence that tells me he's not an opportunistic, scum-bag rapist. That may well change, but I doubt it.
You're right, there was no evidence to suggest spiking at all - here's a transcript of the case at appeal if anyone wants to know the facts. The problem is this:
- She stopped drinking before 3am.
- Shortly after 4am, she spoke to McDonald (Evans's friend) for the first time. It isn't in question that she was making a variety of decisions at this point.
- At about 4:15am, she arrived at the hotel and went to a room with McDonald. She was still walking in high heels, holding drunken conversations and so on.
- Around ten minutes later, Evans arrived and entered the room.
To convict Evans, the jury must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a) she didn't consent to have sex with him, and b) he didn't reasonably believe that she consented to have sex with him. Her testimony was that she couldn't remember any of the events, and nobody else was able to contradict McDonald's and Evans's accounts of what happened in the room, so the jury can't be sure that she didn't consent unless they are sure that she couldn't possibly have done so, i.e. in practice, that she was too intoxicated to have consented.
The law on that point after R v Bree is that "if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting".
We know that she had the capacity to make choices at 4am, an hour after she stopped drinking, but according to the verdict she must have lost her capacity to make choices by about 4:30am. This is the problem. How could the jury be sure - beyond reasonable doubt, remember - that she had become significantly more drunk between 4am and 4:30am when she last had a drink before 3am?
--------------------------------------
Personally, I think the trial is following due processes. I also know from a variety of lawyer friends that it is pretty difficult to get a rape conviction, so there must be more than what I've just put above.
We'll see what happens in time enough.
Until I've heard this 'fresh' evidence then I can't form an opinion other than the one I previously held.
If you don't like that or it doesn't sit well with you, then fair enough. There's no need to get all mardy over it though. Life's too short.