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.
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.
We'll see what happens in time enough.
Isn't the law that if a woman is drunk then it is considered that she wasn't in a fit state to give consent.
Thus, even if she said "yes" the man could still be charged with rape...
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.
We'll see what happens in time enough.
Isn't the law that if a woman is drunk then it is considered that she wasn't in a fit state to give consent.
Thus, even if she said "yes" the man could still be charged with rape...
I think the key phrasing is "lost her capacity to make choices". I am not a lawyer, though.
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.
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.
We'll see what happens in time enough.
Isn't the law that if a woman is drunk then it is considered that she wasn't in a fit state to give consent.
Thus, even if she said "yes" the man could still be charged with rape...
I think the key phrasing is "lost her capacity to make choices". I am not a lawyer, though.
Reading that appeal the issue seems to be between making an ill judged decision through intoxication, and not being able to remember events the next day. The jury, it is suggested, assumed if she could not remember 7 hours later what happened earlier, she must have been incapable at the time.
The expert evidence countered this and said that just because alcohol had affected your short term memory does't mean you had no consciousness at the time.
Making a bad choice through disinhibition caused by alcohol, it is argued, is not the same as having no capacity to make any choice.
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.
Oops, sorry
It's ok with me but Clayton Donaldson may have something to say about it!!!!
Nobody on here knows nearly enough either way. The conclusion-jumping makes me really uncomfortable, particularly when it comes to opinions on the girl in question who, no matter what the deal, has suffered hugely.
What I am comfortable with believing, is that Ched is an asshole. How big of an asshole, I will wait for my peers to decide.
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. So before the trial they're presumed innocent but after being found not guilty they're not innocent. Most suspect thing I've read in the whole thread.
A lot of people on here played the line "the court say he's guilty so he's guilty".
Well the court now say he isn't guilty so let's stick to previous principles and view him as such.
Played the line? That's not playing a line, it's fair and decent logic. What else have we got but to trust in the people who were given all of the evidence to decide?
There's no reason to assume anyone who had the mindset of trusting the courts will suddenly ignore them, unless either of you can point toward some actual hypocrisy? Like other such CL cliches - "the PC brigade will have a field day!" - It's arguing with an undefined opponent. I've never understood that.
A lot of people on here played the line "the court say he's guilty so he's guilty".
Well the court now say he isn't guilty so let's stick to previous principles and view him as such.
Played the line? That's not playing a line, it's fair and decent logic. What else have we got but to trust in the people who were given all of the evidence to decide?
There's no reason to assume anyone who had the mindset of trusting the courts will suddenly ignore them, unless either of you can point toward some actual hypocrisy? Like other such CL cliches - "the PC brigade will have a field day!" - It's arguing with an undefined opponent. I've never understood that.
I know?
I never said it wasn't fair and decent logic. I'm arguing people should carry it through.
Still don't understand, that how, in the first trial, if she was that drunk, she therefore could not give in the eyes of the law, consent to anyone, how CD was not found guilty on that basis?
Still don't understand, that how, in the first trial, if she was that drunk, she therefore could not give in the eyes of the law, consent to anyone, how CD was not found guilty on that basis?
Its difficult to understand. CD had the defence that it was he she went back to the hotel with. She did not go back with Ched Evans.
Unfortunately if he's guilty or not,he's already been judged by a lot of the public and it will be hard for him to be viewed with out thinking of the original outcome of the case. could he ever be a pro footballer again?
Unfortunately if he's guilty or not,he's already been judged by a lot of the public and it will be hard for him to be viewed with out thinking of the original outcome of the case. could he ever be a pro footballer again?
If he is found not guilty he will 100,000,000% return to football probably within the week with no short of offers.
Unfortunately if he's guilty or not,he's already been judged by a lot of the public and it will be hard for him to be viewed with out thinking of the original outcome of the case. could he ever be a pro footballer again?
He's a footballer, plenty of pretty dodgy people have been massively successful on and off the pitch.
Unfortunately if he's guilty or not,he's already been judged by a lot of the public and it will be hard for him to be viewed with out thinking of the original outcome of the case. could he ever be a pro footballer again?
He's a footballer, plenty of pretty dodgy people have been massively successful on and off the pitch.
Very true, our illustrious owner and CEO being prime examples.
Unfortunately if he's guilty or not,he's already been judged by a lot of the public and it will be hard for him to be viewed with out thinking of the original outcome of the case. could he ever be a pro footballer again?
Still don't understand, that how, in the first trial, if she was that drunk, she therefore could not give in the eyes of the law, consent to anyone, how CD was not found guilty on that basis?
Its difficult to understand. CD had the defence that it was he she went back to the hotel with. She did not go back with Ched Evans.
I think.
Yes, but regardless of going back to the hotel with him, the law states if drunk you cannot give consent, end of. So on that basis he should have been found guilty.
Still don't understand, that how, in the first trial, if she was that drunk, she therefore could not give in the eyes of the law, consent to anyone, how CD was not found guilty on that basis?
Its difficult to understand. CD had the defence that it was he she went back to the hotel with. She did not go back with Ched Evans.
I think.
Yes, but regardless of going back to the hotel with him, the law states if drunk you cannot give consent, end of. So on that basis he should have been found guilty.
Not true - the test is two fold, as mentioned earlier, the jury also have to be satisfied that the defendant couldn't reasonably believe the girl consented.
I guess that's where the two differ, CM might be able to say that, given the circumstances he reasonably believed that she consented but Evans had never met the girl before, effectively broke into the room, and then had sex with her. There was none of the context that there was with CM. I'm guessing that's why CM was found innocent and Evans guilty at the first trial.
How many of us have had sex with a drunk woman , how many of us have been drunk when we had sex
Happens all the time, but how often have you responded to a mate's phone call inviting you over to take advantage of a random drunk women irrespective of if she really wants to and just because you can?
How many of us have had sex with a drunk woman , how many of us have been drunk when we had sex
Happens all the time, but how often have you responded to a mate's phone call inviting you over to take advantage of a random drunk women irrespective of if she really wants to and just because you can?
We never could pull , so it's a problem I didn't incur
Comments
Thus, even if she said "yes" the man could still be charged with rape...
The expert evidence countered this and said that just because alcohol had affected your short term memory does't mean you had no consciousness at the time.
Making a bad choice through disinhibition caused by alcohol, it is argued, is not the same as having no capacity to make any choice.
Is Ched Evans no longer a rapist?
Big questions.
I'm not sure how one could prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were incapable of acquiescing and it was therefore rape.
What I am comfortable with believing, is that Ched is an asshole. How big of an asshole, I will wait for my peers to decide.
Well the court now say he isn't guilty so let's stick to previous principles and view him as such.
So before the trial they're presumed innocent but after being found not guilty they're not innocent. Most suspect thing I've read in the whole thread.
There's no reason to assume anyone who had the mindset of trusting the courts will suddenly ignore them, unless either of you can point toward some actual hypocrisy? Like other such CL cliches - "the PC brigade will have a field day!" - It's arguing with an undefined opponent. I've never understood that.
I never said it wasn't fair and decent logic. I'm arguing people should carry it through.
Oops.... Just seen the previous post from rob
I think.
I guess that's where the two differ, CM might be able to say that, given the circumstances he reasonably believed that she consented but Evans had never met the girl before, effectively broke into the room, and then had sex with her. There was none of the context that there was with CM. I'm guessing that's why CM was found innocent and Evans guilty at the first trial.