Probably because she went home with him, and so in this there is an indication McDonald tried to seek informed consent. Whereas because of Evans circumstances, there is little evidence he attempted to seek informed consent.
Hmmm. I think there is a blatant inconsistency there, but there we are.
That's what juries are like.
An intoxicated person can consent where they agree by choice and have the freedom and capacity to make that choice.
If the jury are sure there was no consent and that the defendant could not of reasonably believed the person had consented then they can convict.
Reasonable believed the person had consented is based on the subjective defendant's reasonable interpretation of ‘sexual signals’.
In short if the accussed and co-accused version of what happened in the room had been believed by the Jury then they should have found Evans not guilty in my opinion as he would have had reasonable belief that the person had consented.
Given Evans was found guilty I agree with one of the points made by Evans appeal about consistance that the jury must have believed McDonald was a party to the rape by Evans or their reasoning inconsistant. McDonald was however not charged with being party to the rape by Evans, McDonald was only charged with raping the young woman himself hence his Not Guilty verdict does not make the verdict evidence of the jury being inconsistant in their reasoning.
But how can any jury be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that two people (one of whom they found not guilty, presumably based on the rest of his evidence) are lying when there is no evidence to contradict them? Even if they found them "shifty" when giving their evidence, that isn't sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt that they could be telling the truth.
All we know is that she was out on the razzle, she saw a guy she fancied who appeared to fancy her and agreed to go back to his gaff for sex. She was up for that. So while she is lying there post coital another guy who was nothing to do with her choice or volition turns up and has sex with her. She is lying on her back, kit off and basically ambushed. Where was her choice in this quite different scenario?
Haha, what, where in the world does it say this happened?? Stop making stuff up please.
As far as I was aware the law doesn't mention 'xyz pints'; regarding alcohol and drugs affecting capacity to consent, I think it's a case by case situation. Clearly in this situation they deemed her to not have capacity to consent.
You're absolutely correct, the only problem is that the law isn't supposed to work like that. I looked up around a dozen cases similar to Evans' case and the verdicts were very inconsistent. It's a grey area.
But how can any jury be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that two people (one of whom they found not guilty, presumably based on the rest of his evidence) are lying when there is no evidence to contradict them? Even if they found them "shifty" when giving their evidence, that isn't sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt that they could be telling the truth.
Who knows eh? It was a jury in Caernarfon Crown Court. Perhaps they hate people from Rhyl?!
That doesn't really answer my question and I don't want to go over all of this again but the legal concept of 'capacity' to consent is very poorly defined. Case law currently holds that even someone who is 'heavily intoxicated' does not lose their capacity to consent. (See R v Bree)
Only if the jury believe that not only beyond reasonable doubt the victim did not consent or was incapable of consent but also beyond reasonable doubt that the accussed had no reaonsable belief that the victim had consented, would the verdict be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very high threshold to get a guilty verdict.
As you cite R v Bree (2007) the legal position can be said in one very short sentence "drunken consent is still consent" which is described as a useful shorthand accurately encapsulating the legal position.
Well, I'd have to see the cases, and to what extent their capacity to consent was affected. If they could not consent, then yes it's non-consensual sex. lt.
"Well, I'd have to see the cases"
You are dissembling. You will never see such cases in the court as you well know.
Drunken men having sex with women they have only just met happens every single day without doubt.
Do you agree that these women should be pursued and prosecuted for sexual assault, yes or no?
If amazingly they were prosecuted do you agree that their future employment should be restricted as decided by some internet 'mob' as a result, yes or no?
That doesn't really answer my question and I don't want to go over all of this again but the legal concept of 'capacity' to consent is very poorly defined. Case law currently holds that even someone who is 'heavily intoxicated' does not lose their capacity to consent. (See R v Bree)
No it does not!
That, along with many other misleading impressions, is stated on the Evans website, which is a factual shambles. I suspect that some of the current Evans supporters are basing their judgements on that website - trouble is, it's very economical with the truth - I could list half a dozen examples right now.
Even the hotel reception video is full of gaps, I listed them all here yesterday. The only thing it proves is that the hotel porter had a very good view of her so his testimony that when she arrived, she was extremely drunk, had a blank expression on her face, and appeared to be holding onto McDonald for support, is very important evidence. Incidentally on one frame, I listed it yesterday, she does appear to stagger.
The website claims to show all the facts and as "proof" of that, says "the transcript of the trial is a matter of public record and available to view. "
Well neither they, nor anybody in this thread has posted a link to where it is available to view, so if they are correct, it ain't online as they misleadingly suggest. A link to the trial judge's summing up or sentencing remarks would be better than nothing but neither of them seems to have surfaced online either. I'm sure Evans and his lawyers have the transcripts though, so let's see them! All of them! Complete! The video also needs to be independently verified as being true and complete. Unless and until all that happens, that website is neither use nor ornament in so far as getting a balanced view is concerned and I advise everyone to take it all with a huge pinch of salt.
You are dissembling. You will never see such cases in the court as you well know.
Drunken men having sex with women they have only just met happens every single day without doubt.
Do you agree that these women should be pursued and prosecuted for sexual assault, yes or no?
If amazingly they were prosecuted do you agree that their future employment should be restricted as decided by some internet 'mob' as a result, yes or no?
Maggie
Your attempts are futile because no one will give you a straight answer, they know that the true answers will just show the double standards between the sexes, and how there's an agenda against this guy because he's a footballer.
All we know is that she was out on the razzle, she saw a guy she fancied who appeared to fancy her and agreed to go back to his gaff for sex. She was up for that. So while she is lying there post coital another guy who was nothing to do with her choice or volition turns up and has sex with her. She is lying on her back, kit off and basically ambushed. Where was her choice in this quite different scenario?
That's not accurate. The only evidence we have that she fancied McDonald is from him - who says she picked him up on the street. She has no recollection of him. In any other scenario, the fact that she got a taxi with him (despite presumably being too intoxicated to make a free decision) would not be being viewed as an invitation for him to sleep with her.The only evidence that she consented to McDonald is from him. He also says she consented to Evans. Why is his evidence accepted in one case and not the other?
The (undisputed) evidence presented was that she was not post-coital and that, midpoint through sleeping with McDonald, she was asked and consented to Evans joining in and then asked him to perform oral sex on her. If accurate, I can't see how that would be an ambush or why she had no choice.
the double standards between the sexes, and how there's an agenda against this guy because he's a footballer.
I can tell you haven't bothered to read much, if any of the discussion in the 90+ pages of this thread because literally no one has argued that there is an "agenda". You strike me as someone who is reactionary, charging into this thread making all kinds of nonsense claims without backing up a single claim. The best you offered was "I don't know" - if that's the best you can do then I suggest you leave instead of wasting everyone's time.
Yes, it does. And I have no interest what is or isn't on his website.
If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting… However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.
So if either McDonald or Evans had also been drunk do you think the woman should have also been prosecuted?
Did they lack the capacity to consent? Did they remember what happened, is there independent evidence of their lack of capacity? I could go on... but it would be pointless. The answer incidentally is no.
That's not accurate. The only evidence we have that she fancied McDonald is from him - who says she picked him up on the street. She has no recollection of him. In any other scenario, the fact that she got a taxi with him (despite presumably being too intoxicated to make a free decision) would not be being viewed as an invitation for him to sleep with her.The only evidence that she consented to McDonald is from him. He also says she consented to Evans. Why is his evidence accepted in one case and not the other?
The (undisputed) evidence presented was that she was not post-coital and that, midpoint through sleeping with McDonald, she was asked and consented to Evans joining in and then asked him to perform oral sex on her. If accurate, I can't see how that would be an ambush or why she had no choice.
What is not in dispute is that Evans was convicted of rape. That's based on the evidence presented to a jury in court. Nothing has changed that verdict. He is still serving his sentence. He is premature in seeking to exonerate himself and resurrect his career. IMO
Your attempts are futile because no one will give you a straight answer, they know that the true answers will just show the double standards between the sexes, and how there's an agenda against this guy because he's a footballer.
There's an agenda against him because he's a rapist; not because he's a footballer. Those who have committed heinous crimes such as rape, in other public roles have also be condemned.
You are dissembling. You will never see such cases in the court as you well know.
Drunken men having sex with women they have only just met happens every single day without doubt.
Do you agree that these women should be pursued and prosecuted for sexual assault, yes or no?
If amazingly they were prosecuted do you agree that their future employment should be restricted as decided by some internet 'mob' as a result, yes or no?
Maggie
I'm not dissembling, because the law doesn't specify a level of alcohol or drug level in which suddenly capacity to consent no longer exists; it is very much dependent on the specific circumstances of cases, which is why I said what I said. You're looking for 'yes' or 'no' answers were there is no such thing. Someone could drink alcohol and still be able to consent; in another case it may be the exact opposite. There is no clear all size fits answer regarding these kinds of incidents you're looking for.
And as I said in my last post; if the individual, judged by a jury, and all the evidence has lost the capacity to consent then yes, prosecution should occur. And as said before (I've answered this before), an internet mob is unlikely to go after these women because they aren't in the public eye. If a woman had committed rape, and she was in a position of influence to shape society's beliefs regarding rape and sexual violence, then I certainly wouldn't be against people voicing concerns about that in a petition, (that is *not* a mob). For non public person, I doubt many would even know them for a petition to occur; and being on the sex offenders registers list would probably make their employment situation hard anyway.
You're absolutely correct, the only problem is that the law isn't supposed to work like that. I looked up around a dozen cases similar to Evans' case and the verdicts were very inconsistent. It's a grey area.
Did they lack the capacity to consent? Did they remember what happened, is there independent evidence of their lack of capacity? I could go on... but it would be pointless. The answer incidentally is no.
Did you notice the rest of my post by the way?
As well you know, her lack of memory was utterly irrelevant. Even the trial judge said as much.
Yes, it does. And I have no interest what is or isn't on his website.
If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting… However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.
We've gone through all this a million times. All that says is that capacity or lack of capacity [when someone is not unconscious or asleep] may occur when you are drunk. Which it is will depend on other evidence, not simply that someone is drunk.
Glad you don't read the Evans website. It's economical with the truth and in places misleading. But... they claim to present a balanced view, so don't you think it would be great if they'd post the full trial transcript (redacted as legally required)? Or at least put the judge's summing up and sentencing comments on there (also redacted if legally required), as they clearly know where to get them and probably have them.
Comments
Hmmm. I think there is a blatant inconsistency there, but there we are.
That's what juries are like.
But how can any jury be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that two people (one of whom they found not guilty, presumably based on the rest of his evidence) are lying when there is no evidence to contradict them? Even if they found them "shifty" when giving their evidence, that isn't sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt that they could be telling the truth.
Haha, what, where in the world does it say this happened?? Stop making stuff up please.
You're absolutely correct, the only problem is that the law isn't supposed to work like that. I looked up around a dozen cases similar to Evans' case and the verdicts were very inconsistent. It's a grey area.
Who knows eh? It was a jury in Caernarfon Crown Court. Perhaps they hate people from Rhyl?!
Sorry, you tell me how it actually happened then .
As you cite R v Bree (2007) the legal position can be said in one very short sentence "drunken consent is still consent" which is described as a useful shorthand accurately encapsulating the legal position.
"Well, I'd have to see the cases"
You are dissembling. You will never see such cases in the court as you well know.
Drunken men having sex with women they have only just met happens every single day without doubt.
Do you agree that these women should be pursued and prosecuted for sexual assault, yes or no?
If amazingly they were prosecuted do you agree that their future employment should be restricted as decided by some internet 'mob' as a result, yes or no?
Maggie
I don't claim to know, but I don't go around trying to paint a clearly made up story such as yours
No it does not!
That, along with many other misleading impressions, is stated on the Evans website, which is a factual shambles. I suspect that some of the current Evans supporters are basing their judgements on that website - trouble is, it's very economical with the truth - I could list half a dozen examples right now.
Even the hotel reception video is full of gaps, I listed them all here yesterday. The only thing it proves is that the hotel porter had a very good view of her so his testimony that when she arrived, she was extremely drunk, had a blank expression on her face, and appeared to be holding onto McDonald for support, is very important evidence. Incidentally on one frame, I listed it yesterday, she does appear to stagger.
The website claims to show all the facts and as "proof" of that, says "the transcript of the trial is a matter of public record and available to view. "
Well neither they, nor anybody in this thread has posted a link to where it is available to view, so if they are correct, it ain't online as they misleadingly suggest. A link to the trial judge's summing up or sentencing remarks would be better than nothing but neither of them seems to have surfaced online either. I'm sure Evans and his lawyers have the transcripts though, so let's see them! All of them! Complete! The video also needs to be independently verified as being true and complete. Unless and until all that happens, that website is neither use nor ornament in so far as getting a balanced view is concerned and I advise everyone to take it all with a huge pinch of salt.
Your attempts are futile because no one will give you a straight answer, they know that the true answers will just show the double standards between the sexes, and how there's an agenda against this guy because he's a footballer.
So you don't know what happened, but you definitely know the version the poster put forward is made-up? Yeah right. Ball's in your court, mate.
In the immortal words of MRD , " they would wouldn't they " .:)
That's not accurate. The only evidence we have that she fancied McDonald is from him - who says she picked him up on the street. She has no recollection of him. In any other scenario, the fact that she got a taxi with him (despite presumably being too intoxicated to make a free decision) would not be being viewed as an invitation for him to sleep with her.The only evidence that she consented to McDonald is from him. He also says she consented to Evans. Why is his evidence accepted in one case and not the other?
The (undisputed) evidence presented was that she was not post-coital and that, midpoint through sleeping with McDonald, she was asked and consented to Evans joining in and then asked him to perform oral sex on her. If accurate, I can't see how that would be an ambush or why she had no choice.
So if either McDonald or Evans had also been drunk do you think the woman should have also been prosecuted?
If all three had been drunk perhaps we should have prosecuted all three of them!
Maggie
I can tell you haven't bothered to read much, if any of the discussion in the 90+ pages of this thread because literally no one has argued that there is an "agenda". You strike me as someone who is reactionary, charging into this thread making all kinds of nonsense claims without backing up a single claim. The best you offered was "I don't know" - if that's the best you can do then I suggest you leave instead of wasting everyone's time.
That doesn't preclude it from being true.
I'm not saying it is btw.
Yes, it does. And I have no interest what is or isn't on his website.
If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting… However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.
Did they lack the capacity to consent? Did they remember what happened, is there independent evidence of their lack of capacity? I could go on... but it would be pointless. The answer incidentally is no.
Did you notice the rest of my post by the way?
What is not in dispute is that Evans was convicted of rape. That's based on the evidence presented to a jury in court. Nothing has changed that verdict. He is still serving his sentence. He is premature in seeking to exonerate himself and resurrect his career. IMO
They had in fact both been drinking, albeit to a lesser extent.
I'm not dissembling, because the law doesn't specify a level of alcohol or drug level in which suddenly capacity to consent no longer exists; it is very much dependent on the specific circumstances of cases, which is why I said what I said. You're looking for 'yes' or 'no' answers were there is no such thing. Someone could drink alcohol and still be able to consent; in another case it may be the exact opposite. There is no clear all size fits answer regarding these kinds of incidents you're looking for.
And as I said in my last post; if the individual, judged by a jury, and all the evidence has lost the capacity to consent then yes, prosecution should occur. And as said before (I've answered this before), an internet mob is unlikely to go after these women because they aren't in the public eye. If a woman had committed rape, and she was in a position of influence to shape society's beliefs regarding rape and sexual violence, then I certainly wouldn't be against people voicing concerns about that in a petition, (that is *not* a mob). For non public person, I doubt many would even know them for a petition to occur; and being on the sex offenders registers list would probably make their employment situation hard anyway.
Really? Why do you come to that conclusion?
As well you know, her lack of memory was utterly irrelevant. Even the trial judge said as much.
We've gone through all this a million times. All that says is that capacity or lack of capacity [when someone is not unconscious or asleep] may occur when you are drunk. Which it is will depend on other evidence, not simply that someone is drunk.
Glad you don't read the Evans website. It's economical with the truth and in places misleading. But... they claim to present a balanced view, so don't you think it would be great if they'd post the full trial transcript (redacted as legally required)? Or at least put the judge's summing up and sentencing comments on there (also redacted if legally required), as they clearly know where to get them and probably have them.