I thought the whole conviction was based on the fact that the woman was in a state too drunk to consent. Unless I'm mistaken, this was mainly evidenced by her inability to remember.
The man testifying says he had multiple "encounters" with the same woman who never seemed overly drunk but, on every given morning after, claimed to remember nothing.
Surely, that makes her evidence more plausible, as it shows that she never remembers and wasn't lying ?
It can work the other way too. If the question is whether Evans engaged in a sexual act while aware that the woman was too drunk to consent, that would be rape.
If the woman doesn't appear to be overly drunk and therefore is able to consent, when does it become an act of rape?
(Really trying not to sound like I'm defending a rapist here. Could never do that. All I'm interested in is the truth and justice, whichever way that happens to be.)
Not that I know anything in particular, but...
My understanding is that the investigation began because of the alleged victim's condition on the following morning.
The conviction rested on, among other things, statements made by those involved and other witnesses, CCTV footage, etc. It was not just her word against his, and the jury felt that the prosecution had, as the judge will have warned, convinced them beyond all reasonable doubt.
The witness who has since come forward was questioned by the Crown barrister about whether the £50,000 offered by Team Evans, for anyone convincing a retrial of his innocence, might have improved his memory.
Whether or not the woman involved was a paragon of virginal purity should not matter, if she was in no condition to make a conscious decision at the time, there can only be one verdict.
I thought the whole conviction was based on the fact that the woman was in a state too drunk to consent. Unless I'm mistaken, this was mainly evidenced by her inability to remember.
The man testifying says he had multiple "encounters" with the same woman who never seemed overly drunk but, on every given morning after, claimed to remember nothing.
Surely, that makes her evidence more plausible, as it shows that she never remembers and wasn't lying ?
It can work the other way too. If the question is whether Evans engaged in a sexual act while aware that the woman was too drunk to consent, that would be rape.
If the woman doesn't appear to be overly drunk and therefore is able to consent, when does it become an act of rape?
(Really trying not to sound like I'm defending a rapist here. Could never do that. All I'm interested in is the truth and justice, whichever way that happens to be.)
Not that I know anything in particular, but...
My understanding is that the investigation began because of the alleged victim's condition on the following morning.
The conviction rested on, among other things, statements made by those involved and other witnesses, CCTV footage, etc. It was not just her word against his, and the jury felt that the prosecution had, as the judge will have warned, convinced them beyond all reasonable doubt.
The witness who has since come forward was questioned by the Crown barrister about whether the £50,000 offered by Team Evans, for anyone convincing a retrial of his innocence, might have improved his memory.
Whether or not the woman involved was a paragon of virginal purity should not matter, if she was in no condition to make a conscious decision at the time, there can only be one verdict.
Nowt to do with the 50k offer in assisting cheds defence and getting his name cleared, but although this new witness had heard of the offer was quite sure money was not his motive
I thought the whole conviction was based on the fact that the woman was in a state too drunk to consent. Unless I'm mistaken, this was mainly evidenced by her inability to remember.
The man testifying says he had multiple "encounters" with the same woman who never seemed overly drunk but, on every given morning after, claimed to remember nothing.
Surely, that makes her evidence more plausible, as it shows that she never remembers and wasn't lying ?
It can work the other way too. If the question is whether Evans engaged in a sexual act while aware that the woman was too drunk to consent, that would be rape.
If the woman doesn't appear to be overly drunk and therefore is able to consent, when does it become an act of rape?
(Really trying not to sound like I'm defending a rapist here. Could never do that. All I'm interested in is the truth and justice, whichever way that happens to be.)
Not that I know anything in particular, but...
My understanding is that the investigation began because of the alleged victim's condition on the following morning.
The conviction rested on, among other things, statements made by those involved and other witnesses, CCTV footage, etc. It was not just her word against his, and the jury felt that the prosecution had, as the judge will have warned, convinced them beyond all reasonable doubt.
The witness who has since come forward was questioned by the Crown barrister about whether the £50,000 offered by Team Evans, for anyone convincing a retrial of his innocence, might have improved his memory.
Whether or not the woman involved was a paragon of virginal purity should not matter, if she was in no condition to make a conscious decision at the time, there can only be one verdict.
Thank you so much for restoring my belief in the human race with that. It's been a fragile week.
The law is a farce in that situation. If two people are equally drunk and have sex, then the law deems that one raped the other. That doesn't sit right with me and is genuinely counter-productive, as evidenced by the incredibly low conviction rates for rape. The genuine cases of rape get mixed in with the drunken escapades and changes of mind and the police+CPS are supposed to somehow sort the wheat from the chaff and secure convictions.
The law is a farce in that situation. If two people are equally drunk and have sex, then the law deems that one raped the other. That doesn't sit right with me and is genuinely counter-productive, as evidenced by the incredibly low conviction rates for rape. The genuine cases of rape get mixed in with the drunken escapades and changes of mind and the police+CPS are supposed to somehow sort the wheat from the chaff and secure convictions.
This has been my view all along. If he's a rapist based on the fact that she was too drunk to give consent, regardless of whether she gave consent or not, that just doesn't seem fair to me.
I know I'm defending Evans here. Make no mistake, I think Evans is guilty of being an absolute scumbag, but I don't think it's right that the man served a prison sentence based on the fact she was deemed too drunk to give consent, even if she actually did give consent (I think she probably did). If that's the basis of his conviction, I think the law needs looking at
I'm aware that mine is not a view shared by most on this forum, but I'm entitled to give my view on it the same as everybody else.
How can you give consent if you are too drunk to give consent?
The courts would rightly set the bar lower for what constitutes a reasonable expectation that consent was given in a typical 'boy meets girl' situation (beginning at a bar/party/nightclub etc.) compared to walking in on a drunk naked woman you have never seen before.
How can you give consent if you are too drunk to give consent?
How can one person be absolved of all responsibility for their actions by virtue of being too drunk whilst the other, equally drunk, person is fully accountable and potentially up for a lengthy prison sentence? Obviously not the case with Evans but will often occur.
How can you give consent if you are too drunk to give consent?
The courts would rightly set the bar lower for what constitutes a reasonable expectation that consent was given in a typical 'boy meets girl' situation (beginning at a bar/party/nightclub etc.) compared to walking in on a drunk naked woman you have never seen before.
Of course you are correct, but I'd be very wary of relying on a judge using common sense, or relying on the the law being applied as per the real world instead of as the exact wording. The law assumes that a women can't rape a man and that it's only the women's consent that matters. A defence of "I didn't realise she was too drunk to give consent because I was too drunk to know", isn't a defence I'd want to stake my future liberty on.
Anyway, the point I was making is that whether the judge is lenient or not, it's police time, CPS time, court time that is being used up on cases where guilt isn't cut and dried, and it's this drip drip effect of boarderline, and in many cases what we wouldn't morally call rape than causes many genuine cases either to fail to secure a prosecution in court, or even get that far.
I don't know enough about the Evans case to comment, but it doesn't sound like a drunken hook up between equally intoxicated participants. I was just pointing out that the way the law is written is problematic and has a detrimental effect on prosecuting all rape cases.
It will always be difficult to build evidence in a typical 'date rape' case (not that Evans' situation could be so described) but any man falsely accused would likely be able to build a reasonable defence based upon a timeline of actions, decisions etc. by both parties during the night in question.
It is worth remembering by the way that lack of memory is not equivalent to 'too drunk to consent'.
How can you give consent if you are too drunk to give consent?
How can one person be absolved of all responsibility for their actions by virtue of being too drunk whilst the other, equally drunk, person is fully accountable and potentially up for a lengthy prison sentence? Obviously not the case with Evans but will often occur.
re. this thread - Very few people are qualified to comment on any of it. While that's not normally something to worry about on a football forum, in this case I find its quite uncomfortable reading when there's so much conjecture and speculation. Then there's stuff like:
"she's a bit of a slut"
"Just think what he could have been if he hadn't gone for sloppy seconds"
"Jessica Ennis whinging has cost United a good striker"
"I've been absolutely blasted and been taken home by a fat bird before who I would never in a million years have shagged if I wasn't smashed. Does this rule only work one way or am I a rape victim?"
And that's just the last couple of pages.
There's a girl at the heart of this whose life has been completely fucked. She's been bullied and harassed by Evans' family and supporters. She's somebody's daughter. Sister. Friend. Imagine how it just feel to see "she's a slut" written by someone who has no clue who she is, let alone what she's done. And that's key - we don't know.
I'm not offended by this stuff, Brendan_O_Connell. Dismissing me in that way is lazy. I think there's some really poor taste comments here combined with would-be legal experts decreeing who is and isn't guilty. It's not a healthy debate, it's a shitty situation that hasn't done a single soul any favours beyond those who have enjoyed it as a form of entertainment. Like a real-life episode of Quincy.
I'm not overly PC. I don't get offended by much, if anything. I just find this thread is a bit shit, so I'll leave you all to it and try and resist coming back into it.
Well said, Jimmy. Are some of you seriously implying that all was "ok" because he was pissed too? From what I've heard, he seemed pretty aware of,at least, how to get in and out of the building.
Well said, Jimmy. Are some of you seriously implying that all was "ok" because he was pissed too?
No. I don't think anyone has said or even implied that, because Evans wasn't drunk, has never claimed to be and, AFAIK, nobody on here has said he was.
re. this thread - Very few people are qualified to comment on any of it. While that's not normally something to worry about on a football forum, in this case I find its quite uncomfortable reading when there's so much conjecture and speculation. Then there's stuff like:
"she's a bit of a slut"
"Just think what he could have been if he hadn't gone for sloppy seconds"
"Jessica Ennis whinging has cost United a good striker"
"I've been absolutely blasted and been taken home by a fat bird before who I would never in a million years have shagged if I wasn't smashed. Does this rule only work one way or am I a rape victim?"
And that's just the last couple of pages.
There's a girl at the heart of this whose life has been completely fucked. She's been bullied and harassed by Evans' family and supporters. She's somebody's daughter. Sister. Friend. Imagine how it just feel to see "she's a slut" written by someone who has no clue who she is, let alone what she's done. And that's key - we don't know.
I'm not offended by this stuff, Brendan_O_Connell. Dismissing me in that way is lazy. I think there's some really poor taste comments here combined with would-be legal experts decreeing who is and isn't guilty. It's not a healthy debate, it's a shitty situation that hasn't done a single soul any favours beyond those who have enjoyed it as a form of entertainment. Like a real-life episode of Quincy.
I'm not overly PC. I don't get offended by much, if anything. I just find this thread is a bit shit, so I'll leave you all to it and try and resist coming back into it.
Then dont read the thread then, if it (doesn't) offend you much.
Comments
My understanding is that the investigation began because of the alleged victim's condition on the following morning.
The conviction rested on, among other things, statements made by those involved and other witnesses, CCTV footage, etc. It was not just her word against his, and the jury felt that the prosecution had, as the judge will have warned, convinced them beyond all reasonable doubt.
The witness who has since come forward was questioned by the Crown barrister about whether the £50,000 offered by Team Evans, for anyone convincing a retrial of his innocence, might have improved his memory.
Whether or not the woman involved was a paragon of virginal purity should not matter, if she was in no condition to make a conscious decision at the time, there can only be one verdict.
What a fucking shambles
Grr
1. Why did he leave via the fire exit?
2. I can't believe his girlfriend has stuck by him
*edited because of what mrbligh says
Although quoted below anyway
EDIT, i was imagining/making that up, people were filming through the window.
I know I'm defending Evans here. Make no mistake, I think Evans is guilty of being an absolute scumbag, but I don't think it's right that the man served a prison sentence based on the fact she was deemed too drunk to give consent, even if she actually did give consent (I think she probably did). If that's the basis of his conviction, I think the law needs looking at
I'm aware that mine is not a view shared by most on this forum, but I'm entitled to give my view on it the same as everybody else.
The courts would rightly set the bar lower for what constitutes a reasonable expectation that consent was given in a typical 'boy meets girl' situation (beginning at a bar/party/nightclub etc.) compared to walking in on a drunk naked woman you have never seen before.
Anyway, the point I was making is that whether the judge is lenient or not, it's police time, CPS time, court time that is being used up on cases where guilt isn't cut and dried, and it's this drip drip effect of boarderline, and in many cases what we wouldn't morally call rape than causes many genuine cases either to fail to secure a prosecution in court, or even get that far.
I don't know enough about the Evans case to comment, but it doesn't sound like a drunken hook up between equally intoxicated participants. I was just pointing out that the way the law is written is problematic and has a detrimental effect on prosecuting all rape cases.
It is worth remembering by the way that lack of memory is not equivalent to 'too drunk to consent'.
"she's a bit of a slut"
"Just think what he could have been if he hadn't gone for sloppy seconds"
"Jessica Ennis whinging has cost United a good striker"
"I've been absolutely blasted and been taken home by a fat bird before who I would never in a million years have shagged if I wasn't smashed. Does this rule only work one way or am I a rape victim?"
And that's just the last couple of pages.
There's a girl at the heart of this whose life has been completely fucked. She's been bullied and harassed by Evans' family and supporters. She's somebody's daughter. Sister. Friend. Imagine how it just feel to see "she's a slut" written by someone who has no clue who she is, let alone what she's done. And that's key - we don't know.
I'm not offended by this stuff, Brendan_O_Connell. Dismissing me in that way is lazy. I think there's some really poor taste comments here combined with would-be legal experts decreeing who is and isn't guilty. It's not a healthy debate, it's a shitty situation that hasn't done a single soul any favours beyond those who have enjoyed it as a form of entertainment. Like a real-life episode of Quincy.
I'm not overly PC. I don't get offended by much, if anything. I just find this thread is a bit shit, so I'll leave you all to it and try and resist coming back into it.