Have you heard of logic and philosophy? You can distill a legal issue right down to the bare bones but you would rather try and muddy the waters by bringing in what in logical terms are incidental details.
I wonder why.
Probably because I'm trying to stick to this case, where we have details.
I'm not muddying anything. I've said that in a one on one drunken encounter consent is difficult to prove, and that such cases rarely go anywhere.
The bare bones are what the law says, and what cases have deemed. Without a bit of detail to go on, every post would be an essay to try and cover all eventualities.
It strikes me that this is a very murky area. Assuming that she was sober enough to consent to sex with the first young man I can see why he would be found not guilty of rape - with regard to having sex with her himself, but I don't see how the court could treat the second act as something which was the sole responsibility of his mate - who as you say he got to sneak in and do the deed. If someone held a girl down while his friend raped her he would be found guilty of rape himself, I don't see a lot of difference here TBH. Not only did he not stop his friend having sex with the supposedly non-consenting girl, he actually encouraged it.
I agree. I think he was lucky to get away with aiding his mate.
I don't know what you read, but there was no evidence to indicate they had planned to pick up a girl. McDonald had been involved in a fracas in the street, he went to get a taxi on his own. The girl had been in a kebab shop and approached him. Evans had taken another taxi with two other friends, there was no "conspiracy". The girl had been drinking but wasn't incapable, it just turned into one of those sordid episodes that happen somewhere every weekend of the year. Two young men and one young woman all guilty of behaviour that most people would find morally repulsive.
I read it in the Court of Appeal Ruling.
The prosecution case was that the applicant had booked the room at the hotel with the main or sole purpose of procuring a girl or girls later that night. According to the Crown's case, both men were on the look-out for any girl who was a suitable target. The complainant had literally stumbled across McDonald's path.
Quote:
The prosecution case was that the applicant had booked the room at the hotel with the main or sole purpose of procuring a girl or girls later that night. According to the Crown's case, both men were on the look-out for any girl who was a suitable target. The complainant had literally stumbled across McDonald's path.
It might have been the prosecutions case, but I still could find no evidence to prove it was true. As predators, you would have thought they could have planned it better. As I've said, McDonald didn't even make the first move, doesn't sound like some evil seducer ?
I agree. I think he was lucky to get away with aiding his mate.
On what basis would you have convicted him of rape (Post #125 "I would have convicted both') even though you go on to say the conviction would have been impossible?
On what basis would you have convicted him of rape (Post #125 "I would have convicted both') even though you go on to say the conviction would have been impossible?
Aiding and Abetting Adams, as I explained earlier.
Quote:
The prosecution case was that the applicant had booked the room at the hotel with the main or sole purpose of procuring a girl or girls later that night. According to the Crown's case, both men were on the look-out for any girl who was a suitable target. The complainant had literally stumbled across McDonald's path.
It might have been the prosecutions case, but I still could find no evidence to prove it was true. As predators, you would have thought they could have planned it better. As I've said, McDonald didn't even make the first move, doesn't sound like some evil seducer ?
Well the prosecution case appears to have been accepted by the jury, and the appeal Court. How else would you describe their planning?
I doubt they considered they would be reported for any wrong doing when they planned it.
Well the prosecution case appears to have been accepted by the jury, and the appeal Court. How else would you describe their planning?
I doubt they considered they would be reported for any wrong doing when they planned it.
Juries don't give reasons for their decisions but the Judge's view was that the victim did not have the capacity to consent, not that McDonald and Evans conspired to rape a woman that night.
And that's the issue, capacity. The facts of the case aren't really in dispute, there is nothing to contradict the defendant's version of events, the question is did she have the capacity to consent? She was described as being 'very drunk' (an estimated 2.5 times the legal limit at the time of the incident) but she was conscious, able to walk unaided and approached McDonald voluntarily.
Well the prosecution case appears to have been accepted by the jury, and the appeal Court. How else would you describe their planning?
I doubt they considered they would be reported for any wrong doing when they planned it.
They wouldn't be the first young blokes to go out and book a hotel room or city centre rental apartments in the hope of getting girls back later on, it doesn't suggest sinister or predatory behaviour to me. The first guy's testimony stated that the girl asked him where he was going and offered to go with him. The CCTV of her entering the hotel lobby shows a girl on high platforms walking steadily, even nipping back out then back in again. Certainly not suggestive of somebody out of their head as alleged.
ETA: The court heard also that the room had been booked by Evans as there was no room at his mother's house for McDonald, and accepted that there was no premeditation to the incident. (From the BBC articles that followed the trial)
If you are going to deny one ex-con the opportunity to resume his career after serving his time then your going to have to deny all of them, because if not it looks like your singling out this guy for double punishment. The fact that he is likely to earn a good living is irrelevant really. He's served his time.
Let's get this in perspective. This dude isn't going to end up at Man United. He was a third tier footballer before the conviction and he will be so after. He will be a man in his late 20's starting over again in a career where most people are finished at 33. He's wasted two of the best years of his career. And he has no-one to blame but himself.
Enjoy your Thursday nights at Rochdale Ched!
I should imagine that two years of prison food, very limited gymnasium facilities even less opportunity to do stamina training when you're banged up for 23 hours a day and zero match practice except, the occasional game for D Wing vs B Wing where various psychos, lifers and other assorted violent offenders will probably target him for a sliding tackle around the kneecaps..... is hardly likely to have him in tip-top form for a speedy return to the rigours of life in League One.
I hope his former club give him another chance, but if he's going to make it, he's going to have an uphill struggle. And that's before he even sets foot on a football pitch in front of opposition fans who will won't be shy of letting it be known what they think of him.
If he wants to get back into pro football, he's going to have to show some backbone.. Has he got it in him..? Well, if he has, and he does make it, then it will be a pretty good indicator that he's got some character and some good in him after all.
he was convicted and has served/serving his time,
when he gets out he should be allowed to continue his career i guess, but maybe as he would be in public eye , he should really consider not doing so
All this absolute rubbish from those disputing his guilt, none of us were in court to see the evidence.
We have to trust the legal system that found him guilty so he's a convicted rapist until proven otherwise.
The evidence is public knowledge. The evidence is not even that important to the case as very few of the facts are in dispute, the question is of the legal position on the relationship between drunkenness and capacity to consent.
The evidence is public knowledge. The evidence is not even that important to the case as very few of the facts are in dispute, the question is of the legal position on the relationship between drunkenness and capacity to consent.
Fair enough.
But I wouldn't dispute his guilt if I hadn't been in court.
Well the prosecution case appears to have been accepted by the jury, and the appeal Court. How else would you describe their planning?
I doubt they considered they would be reported for any wrong doing when they planned it.
But why would booking a room in McDonald's name be with the "main and sole purpose of finding a girl" ? It was booked because McDonald and another friend were in Rhyl (Evans' home town) for a night out. McDonald and the other friend had to stay somewhere, I don't find it that suspicious.
After McDonald and Evans became seperated due to some trouble in the street, the young woman is clearly seen in the CCTV footage approaching McDonald at a street corner. A brief conversation ensued and within seconds the two of them got in a taxi which she had flagged down (In his evidence McDonald stated that the girll asked him where he was going, he replied that he was going back to his hotel to which she replied “I’m coming with you") That is the first connection with the girl, seems a pretty haphazard encounter to me, not a plan.
What they arranged after getting to the room is all pretty grubby stuff, but it doesn't appear as if the young woman objected too much at the time. Even she doesn't claim thay forced themselves on her, she just doesn't remember.
He should be allowed if he decides that he does want to play again. I wouldn't want him playing for my club and wouldn't employ him. But i'm sure there will be club who feels he deserves a chance.
If she too drunk / couldn't remember any of this encounter, how come she was considered to have given consent to one guy and not the other?
There was a long thread about this at the time of the trial.
As I understand it:
She went back to the hotel with the other player. As he spent time with her and talking to her, it was hard for the jury to be certain that he didn't believe that she had given him informed consent. Sorry about all the negatives. To find him guilty the jury would have had to believe that he had sex without informed consent. As he spent time talking to her, he might have believed he had that consent. The jury gave him the benefit of any doubt.
However, when Ched Evans arrived, (by sneaking in through a window, IIRC) she was already comatose. He did not spent time talking to her, so there was no way that he could have formed the opinion that she was giving informed consent to sex. Hence the guilty verdict.
IIRC, the other player had phoned or texted Evans to come round for sex with the woman, so he didn't come out of this smelling of roses, but he was acqitted of rape.
There was a long thread about this at the time of the trial.
As I understand it:
She went back to the hotel with the other player. As he spent time with her and talking to her, it was hard for the jury to be certain that he didn't believe that she had given him informed consent. Sorry about all the negatives. To find him guilty the jury would have had to believe that he had sex without informed consent. As he spent time talking to her, he might have believed he had that consent. The jury gave him the benefit of any doubt.
However, when Ched Evans arrived, (by sneaking in through a window, IIRC) she was already comatose. He did not spent time talking to her, so there was no way that he could have formed the opinion that she was giving informed consent to sex. Hence the guilty verdict.
IIRC, the other player had phoned or texted Evans to come round for sex with the woman, so he didn't come out of this smelling of roses, but he was acqitted of rape.
I didn't read anything in that appeal summary that suggested she was comatose. It said that McDonald was already in sexual activity with her when he arrived and asked her could Evans join in to which she said "Yes". She then asked Evans to perform oral sex on her after McDonald left. She was apparently lucid, enthusiastic and appeared to be enjoying herself by his testimony. None of this was denied, she just maintained that she couldn't remember.
If there were two friends recording it through a window what happened to the video?
I'd question if he should have been found guilty. A girl asks to go back with a man for sex within a minute of meeting him in the street. She consents to that yet somehow becomes more pissed and can't consent to the next guy. To state the obvious, if someone is giving you oral sex chances are they aren't comatose, and more than likely willing participants.
I think he should be allowed to continue his career, it won't reflect well on the club employing him but he's done his time.
There was a long thread about this at the time of the trial.
As I understand it:
She went back to the hotel with the other player. As he spent time with her and talking to her, it was hard for the jury to be certain that he didn't believe that she had given him informed consent. Sorry about all the negatives. To find him guilty the jury would have had to believe that he had sex without informed consent. As he spent time talking to her, he might have believed he had that consent. The jury gave him the benefit of any doubt.
However, when Ched Evans arrived, (by sneaking in through a window, IIRC) she was already comatose. He did not spent time talking to her, so there was no way that he could have formed the opinion that she was giving informed consent to sex. Hence the guilty verdict.
IIRC, the other player had phoned or texted Evans to come round for sex with the woman, so he didn't come out of this smelling of roses, but he was acqitted of rape.
Comments
Probably because I'm trying to stick to this case, where we have details.
I'm not muddying anything. I've said that in a one on one drunken encounter consent is difficult to prove, and that such cases rarely go anywhere.
The bare bones are what the law says, and what cases have deemed. Without a bit of detail to go on, every post would be an essay to try and cover all eventualities.
I agree. I think he was lucky to get away with aiding his mate.
I read it in the Court of Appeal Ruling.
The prosecution case was that the applicant had booked the room at the hotel with the main or sole purpose of procuring a girl or girls later that night. According to the Crown's case, both men were on the look-out for any girl who was a suitable target. The complainant had literally stumbled across McDonald's path.
It might have been the prosecutions case, but I still could find no evidence to prove it was true. As predators, you would have thought they could have planned it better. As I've said, McDonald didn't even make the first move, doesn't sound like some evil seducer ?
On what basis would you have convicted him of rape (Post #125 "I would have convicted both') even though you go on to say the conviction would have been impossible?
Aiding and Abetting Adams, as I explained earlier.
Well the prosecution case appears to have been accepted by the jury, and the appeal Court. How else would you describe their planning?
I doubt they considered they would be reported for any wrong doing when they planned it.
Ah right, I didn't know he was charged with that, thanks.
Juries don't give reasons for their decisions but the Judge's view was that the victim did not have the capacity to consent, not that McDonald and Evans conspired to rape a woman that night.
And that's the issue, capacity. The facts of the case aren't really in dispute, there is nothing to contradict the defendant's version of events, the question is did she have the capacity to consent? She was described as being 'very drunk' (an estimated 2.5 times the legal limit at the time of the incident) but she was conscious, able to walk unaided and approached McDonald voluntarily.
We have to trust the legal system that found him guilty so he's a convicted rapist until proven otherwise.
They wouldn't be the first young blokes to go out and book a hotel room or city centre rental apartments in the hope of getting girls back later on, it doesn't suggest sinister or predatory behaviour to me. The first guy's testimony stated that the girl asked him where he was going and offered to go with him. The CCTV of her entering the hotel lobby shows a girl on high platforms walking steadily, even nipping back out then back in again. Certainly not suggestive of somebody out of their head as alleged.
ETA: The court heard also that the room had been booked by Evans as there was no room at his mother's house for McDonald, and accepted that there was no premeditation to the incident. (From the BBC articles that followed the trial)
I should imagine that two years of prison food, very limited gymnasium facilities even less opportunity to do stamina training when you're banged up for 23 hours a day and zero match practice except, the occasional game for D Wing vs B Wing where various psychos, lifers and other assorted violent offenders will probably target him for a sliding tackle around the kneecaps..... is hardly likely to have him in tip-top form for a speedy return to the rigours of life in League One.
I hope his former club give him another chance, but if he's going to make it, he's going to have an uphill struggle. And that's before he even sets foot on a football pitch in front of opposition fans who will won't be shy of letting it be known what they think of him.
If he wants to get back into pro football, he's going to have to show some backbone.. Has he got it in him..? Well, if he has, and he does make it, then it will be a pretty good indicator that he's got some character and some good in him after all.
Good luck son. You're going to need it.
Unfortunately, there is a certain section of this forum & indeed society at large, who will never accept a guilty rape verdict.
he was convicted and has served/serving his time,
when he gets out he should be allowed to continue his career i guess, but maybe as he would be in public eye , he should really consider not doing so
The evidence is public knowledge. The evidence is not even that important to the case as very few of the facts are in dispute, the question is of the legal position on the relationship between drunkenness and capacity to consent.
That's nonsense. Most people are having a reasonable discussion about the case.
But I wouldn't dispute his guilt if I hadn't been in court.
But why would booking a room in McDonald's name be with the "main and sole purpose of finding a girl" ? It was booked because McDonald and another friend were in Rhyl (Evans' home town) for a night out. McDonald and the other friend had to stay somewhere, I don't find it that suspicious.
After McDonald and Evans became seperated due to some trouble in the street, the young woman is clearly seen in the CCTV footage approaching McDonald at a street corner. A brief conversation ensued and within seconds the two of them got in a taxi which she had flagged down (In his evidence McDonald stated that the girll asked him where he was going, he replied that he was going back to his hotel to which she replied “I’m coming with you") That is the first connection with the girl, seems a pretty haphazard encounter to me, not a plan.
What they arranged after getting to the room is all pretty grubby stuff, but it doesn't appear as if the young woman objected too much at the time. Even she doesn't claim thay forced themselves on her, she just doesn't remember.
We at Notts County loved him, and if Ched Evans is not guilty then as a perfectly good footballer he should go back to Sheff Utd
Yeh thats how we allow Ex cons to move forward in life isn't it........great plan!....
He should rightfully be aloud to continue his footballing career imo
There was a long thread about this at the time of the trial.
As I understand it:
She went back to the hotel with the other player. As he spent time with her and talking to her, it was hard for the jury to be certain that he didn't believe that she had given him informed consent. Sorry about all the negatives. To find him guilty the jury would have had to believe that he had sex without informed consent. As he spent time talking to her, he might have believed he had that consent. The jury gave him the benefit of any doubt.
However, when Ched Evans arrived, (by sneaking in through a window, IIRC) she was already comatose. He did not spent time talking to her, so there was no way that he could have formed the opinion that she was giving informed consent to sex. Hence the guilty verdict.
IIRC, the other player had phoned or texted Evans to come round for sex with the woman, so he didn't come out of this smelling of roses, but he was acqitted of rape.
I didn't read anything in that appeal summary that suggested she was comatose. It said that McDonald was already in sexual activity with her when he arrived and asked her could Evans join in to which she said "Yes". She then asked Evans to perform oral sex on her after McDonald left. She was apparently lucid, enthusiastic and appeared to be enjoying herself by his testimony. None of this was denied, she just maintained that she couldn't remember.
I'd question if he should have been found guilty. A girl asks to go back with a man for sex within a minute of meeting him in the street. She consents to that yet somehow becomes more pissed and can't consent to the next guy. To state the obvious, if someone is giving you oral sex chances are they aren't comatose, and more than likely willing participants.
I think he should be allowed to continue his career, it won't reflect well on the club employing him but he's done his time.
So the first boy shagged her unconscious??
High 5!!!