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.
Why?
Do you make a difference between the sexes?
How often does a drunken man have sex with a woman he has only just met?
Why do you keep banging on about this? There is no difference between the sexes regarding sexual offences law (apart from females not having penises so can't do rape in England, and different orifices). I told you why she can't be prosecuted, for starters they weren't incapable of consent!
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.
Because if the jury reasoning was consistant they had reasonable doubt that McDonald might have had reasonable belief she consented, but for Evans they did not. This would I guess have been down to her willingly accompanying McDonald, her dishelved top in the tax ride to the hotel, her telling McDonald your not going to leave me in the hotel lobby and willingly going to the room with him, which makes his cliam that she willingly had sex with him far more credible, than Evans claim. Evans paid for the room before hand it was claimed for the purpose of taking a girl to, it is claimed was out looking for a girl, got a text "I got a bird", lied to get a keycard to the room, entered unanounced, his brother and a friend filming from outside the window, and afterwards he left by the fire exist. There is no independent corrobaration to his claim she was willing besides his co-accused McDonald, Evans's brother and Evans's other friend outside trying to film. Then there would have I guess have been evidence from the young woman who woke up alone naked in a hotel room in her own urine who despite having no recollection as to what had happened to her would I guess have been questioned as to if it was something she believed she might have consented to and if the actions and language attributed to her by the men were things she may have done and said, and there was also expert evidence as to if she might have been capable or incapable of consenting and the cctv, taxi driver, hotel porter evidence as to her state.
Why do you keep banging on about this? There is no difference between the sexes regarding sexual offences law (apart from females not having penises so can't do rape in England, and different orifices). I told you why she can't be prosecuted, for starters they weren't incapable of consent!
They had both been drinking so their capacity for meaningful consent is moot.
Therefore would you agree that she should have been put before the courts to test the point?
Wait, so I can just make up some BS and say this and that happened, and no one can tell me I'm wrong, because no one knows exactly what happened?
No, you are the one who has no clue, I've followed this in depth, and you'll find I was posting in this thread long before you, please go.
I just like trying to tell people how stupid they sound spouting such nonsense, bejamini for example.
You have not an idea what happened, neither do I. However the jury were given all the info from a woman who didn't remember and a dubious pair of liars. They chose oddly enough to disbelieve the liars. You make up whatever scenario you like. Evans was found guilty. Suck it up.
Wait, so I can just make up some BS and say this and that happened, and no one can tell me I'm wrong, because no one knows exactly what happened?
No, you are the one who has no clue, I've followed this in depth, and you'll find I was posting in this thread long before you, please go.
I just like trying to tell people how stupid they sound spouting such nonsense, bejamini for example.
Oh good for you, what do you want - a medal? I'm sure your contribution then was as valuable as your most recent I.e. completely useless and dumb.
Still waiting for you to actually explain how the poster's description of the case was made-up while your non-existent contribution is very definitely the 100% correct one. I'll say it again - ball's in your court, mate.
I think a more common way of describing what you like to do is be a rude, ignorant moron.
Why do you keep banging on about this? There is no difference between the sexes regarding sexual offences law (apart from females not having penises so can't do rape in England, and different orifices). I told you why she can't be prosecuted, for starters they weren't incapable of consent!
So what about the numerous females who are having sex with drunken males they have only just met, should society be tracking them down and prosecuting them?
Or do you think that doesn't happen? Or do you think that such men are 'lucky' rather than victims?
So what about the numerous females who are having sex with drunken males they have only just met, should society be tracking them down and prosecuting them?
Or do you think that doesn't happen? Or do you think that such men are 'lucky' rather than victims?
I refer you to my post #2433, you won't drag me off topic that easily. Looks like you are going to have to start your own thread on it, I'm sure it would be well visited.
We've gone through all this a million times. All that says is that capacity or lack of capacity [when someone is not unconcious or asleep] may occur when you are drunk. Which it is will depend on other evidence, not simply that someone is drunk.
Other evidence like what though? We know that she was very drunk, all of the evidence supports that. But we also know that she was conscious at all times and capable of things like ordering food in the kebab shop, talking to McDonald, deciding to accompany him in the taxi and (according to both defendants) actively participating in sexual activity.
If the law was simply that being heavily intoxicated renders someone incapable of consent then it would be a lot clearer, and nobody would attempt to dispute Evans' guilt.
She did not accuse either of the men of any illegal act..
The authorities pursued it on the basis she was drunk beyond the ability to give meaningful consent. They did not know her blood/alchohol figure at the relevant time though they know she had been drinking.
They did not know what the men's levels were either though they know they had been drinking.
Not sure what the major difference is apart from the sexes one, which I suspect is the difference!
Other evidence like what though? We know that she was very drunk, all of the evidence supports that. But we also know that she was conscious at all times and capable of things like ordering food in the kebab shop, talking to McDonald, deciding to accompany him in the taxi and (according to both defendants) actively participating in sexual activity.
If the law was simply that being heavily intoxicated renders someone incapable of consent then it would be a lot clearer, and nobody would attempt to dispute Evans' guilt.
People would argue about what the meaning of 'heavily' was in that case, so we'd be back to square 1. Anyway, the law talks about capacity or lack of it, and that can be for any one or more of a myriad of reasons.
The 'other evidence' is what was presented in court; independent witness statements, expert testimony, CCTV, as well as what the accused and victim gave as evidence. After advice on what the law is, Jury then have to balance the pro and anti evidence and decide. As it's been discussed here a lot in the last day or two, you're not wanting a list, are you?
I refer you to my post #2433, you won't drag me off topic that easily. Looks like you are going to have to start your own thread on it, I'm sure it would be well visited.
It is exactly on topic actually.
Just answer the perfectly reasonable question.
You don't want to I know that.
You can hardly deny that drunken men are having sex with females they have only just met every single day.
You don't want to relate that to this case because it kind of destroys the idea that Evans is some sort of monster. Or it exposes that you think the sexes should be treated differently.
Hey, perhaps you think these drunken men are the abusers as well. Do you?
Because if the jury reasoning was consistant they had reasonable doubt that McDonald might have had reasonable belief she consented, but Evans did not. This would I guess have been down to her willingly accompanying McDonald, her dishelved top in the tax ride to the hotel, her telling McDonald your not going to leave me in the hotel lobby and willingly going to the room with him, which makes his cliam that she willingly had sex with him far more credible, than Evans claim. Evans paid for the room before hand it was claimed for the purpose of taking a girl to, it is claimed was out looking for a girl, got a text "I got a bird", lied to get a keycard to the room, entered unanounced, his brother and a friend filming from outside the window, and afterwards he left by the fire exist. There is no independent corrobaration to his claim she was willing besides his co-accused McDonald, Evans's brother and Evans's other friend outside trying to film. Then there would have I guess have been evidence from the young woman who woke up alone naked in a hotel room in her own urine who despite having no recollection as to what had happened to her would I guess have been questioned as to if it was something she believed she might have consented to and if the actions and language attributed to her by the men were things she may have done and said, and there was also expert evidence as to if she might have been capable or incapable of consenting and the cctv, taxi driver, hotel porter evidence as to her state.
Imo, how he got to the room is not an issue which should be given much weight by the jury. If he had always been staying there and he had wandered in by mistake and said "oops sorry but hey can i join in?" then would it make a difference? The question is whether she consented or could consent.
The videoing is also a double-edged sword. Does the fact he was prepared to sleep with her knowing that, at the least, his mates were trying to video it not suggest he may have believed he had consent?
The fact is that there is no evidence of what went on in the room other than that of Evans and McDonald (who was deemed an innocent man). It is a very hard verdict to understand. This is particularly the when you consider the Bree case - where it was solely the man's word against the lady's (with her saying she was dipping in and out of consciousness but denying consenting) and the Court of Appeal overturned the verdict of guilty.
The appeal judgement said that one possibility for the difference in verdicts is because the jury consider McDonald's belief in her consent reasonable, though incorrect, due to how the came together.
Perhaps juries should have to write down how the come to their verdicts.
The fact is that there is no evidence of what went on in the room other than that of Evans and McDonald (who was deemed an innocent man). It is a very hard verdict to understand.
It's pretty simple to understand
Either A the verdict was due to inconsistant thinking by the jury.
Or B the jury had a reasonable doubt in that McDonald might have reasonably believed she consented to having sex with him, but no reasonable doubt in regards to Evans.
Your no other evidence of what went on in the room also discounts evidence as to her state leading up to going to the room and the expert evidence vs the account of her being fully concious and active in the room, and what she might have to say about the things attributed to her by the men as far as if they were things she might have done or said.
If youte referring to Evans, is the evidence not he was sober?
He says he was drunk and I don't think that's disputed. I haven't seen anything which says how much he had drunk. It wouldn't have been a part of the case though as it wouldn't be a defence for him - even if he showed he was more drunk than she was (not,to be clear, that I am suggesting that was the case).
As far as I know, a woman can't rape a man in the UK by the way. They could be guilty of sexual assault though if the man did not consent.
People would argue about what the meaning of 'heavily' was in that case, so we'd be back to square 1. Anyway, the law talks about capacity or lack of it, and that can be for any one or more of a myriad of reasons.
The 'other evidence' is what was presented in court; independent witness statements, expert testimony, CCTV, as well as what the accused and victim gave as evidence. After advice on what the law is, Jury then have to balance the pro and anti evidence and decide. As it's been discussed here a lot in the last day or two, you're not wanting a list, are you?
Every legal concept is argued about but 'Heavily intoxicated' is far easier to define than the present law!
The other evidence presented in this case only supports the generally accepted facts of the case, that she was very drunk but conscious and capable of making some decisions.
This is particularly the when you consider the Bree case - where it was solely the man's word against the lady's (with her saying she was dipping in and out of consciousness but denying consenting) and the Court of Appeal overturned the verdict of guilty.
"... deficiencies in the trial judge’s summing up meant the jury was not given any or any sufficient direction to enable their verdict to be regarded as safe."
That matter was considered at Evans' first attempt to seek leave to appeal and the appeal judges held that his trial judge's summing up was not deficient.
So, the Bree precedent doesn't apply to the Evans case.
He says he was drunk and I don't think that's disputed. I haven't seen anything which says how much he had drunk. It wouldn't have been a part of the case though as it wouldn't be a defence for him - even if he showed he was more drunk than she was (not,to be clear, that I am suggesting that was the case).
Yes he had been drinking but felt 'in control' of his actions. And you're quite right his level of intoxication is largely irrelevant because drunkenness can never be a defence to any crime.
He says he was drunk and I don't think that's disputed. I haven't seen anything which says how much he had drunk. It wouldn't have been a part of the case though as it wouldn't be a defence for him - even if he showed he was more drunk than she was (not,to be clear, that I am suggesting that was the case).
As far as I know, a woman can't rape a man in the UK by the way. They could be guilty of sexual assault though if the man did not consent.
Correct, being drunk does not absolve you from blame for an offence. Neither can a woman 'Rape' a man under the law.
However, if either of the men was drunk then the women should have been prosecuted on the same basis for sexual assault. That is if you treat the sexes equally and it is pretty plain that doesn't happen when it comes to drunken sexual activity.
Comments
Why?
Do you make a difference between the sexes?
How often does a drunken man have sex with a woman he has only just met?
What should happen to such women?
Answers would be good.
Maggie
Why do you keep banging on about this? There is no difference between the sexes regarding sexual offences law (apart from females not having penises so can't do rape in England, and different orifices). I told you why she can't be prosecuted, for starters they weren't incapable of consent!
Wait, so I can just make up some BS and say this and that happened, and no one can tell me I'm wrong, because no one knows exactly what happened?
No, you are the one who has no clue, I've followed this in depth, and you'll find I was posting in this thread long before you, please go.
I just like trying to tell people how stupid they sound spouting such nonsense, bejamini for example.
They had both been drinking so their capacity for meaningful consent is moot.
Therefore would you agree that she should have been put before the courts to test the point?
if not, why not?
Maggie
You have not an idea what happened, neither do I. However the jury were given all the info from a woman who didn't remember and a dubious pair of liars. They chose oddly enough to disbelieve the liars. You make up whatever scenario you like. Evans was found guilty. Suck it up.
Nobody has accused her of any illegal act, so no!
Oh good for you, what do you want - a medal? I'm sure your contribution then was as valuable as your most recent I.e. completely useless and dumb.
Still waiting for you to actually explain how the poster's description of the case was made-up while your non-existent contribution is very definitely the 100% correct one. I'll say it again - ball's in your court, mate.
I think a more common way of describing what you like to do is be a rude, ignorant moron.
So what about the numerous females who are having sex with drunken males they have only just met, should society be tracking them down and prosecuting them?
Or do you think that doesn't happen? Or do you think that such men are 'lucky' rather than victims?
Maggie
I refer you to my post #2433, you won't drag me off topic that easily. Looks like you are going to have to start your own thread on it, I'm sure it would be well visited.
Other evidence like what though? We know that she was very drunk, all of the evidence supports that. But we also know that she was conscious at all times and capable of things like ordering food in the kebab shop, talking to McDonald, deciding to accompany him in the taxi and (according to both defendants) actively participating in sexual activity.
If the law was simply that being heavily intoxicated renders someone incapable of consent then it would be a lot clearer, and nobody would attempt to dispute Evans' guilt.
She did not accuse either of the men of any illegal act..
The authorities pursued it on the basis she was drunk beyond the ability to give meaningful consent. They did not know her blood/alchohol figure at the relevant time though they know she had been drinking.
They did not know what the men's levels were either though they know they had been drinking.
Not sure what the major difference is apart from the sexes one, which I suspect is the difference!
Maggie
If youte referring to Evans, is the evidence not he was sober?
People would argue about what the meaning of 'heavily' was in that case, so we'd be back to square 1. Anyway, the law talks about capacity or lack of it, and that can be for any one or more of a myriad of reasons.
The 'other evidence' is what was presented in court; independent witness statements, expert testimony, CCTV, as well as what the accused and victim gave as evidence. After advice on what the law is, Jury then have to balance the pro and anti evidence and decide. As it's been discussed here a lot in the last day or two, you're not wanting a list, are you?
It is exactly on topic actually.
Just answer the perfectly reasonable question.
You don't want to I know that.
You can hardly deny that drunken men are having sex with females they have only just met every single day.
You don't want to relate that to this case because it kind of destroys the idea that Evans is some sort of monster. Or it exposes that you think the sexes should be treated differently.
Hey, perhaps you think these drunken men are the abusers as well. Do you?
Maggie
https://www.facebook.com/events/591509250950296/591737854260769/?notif_t=plan_mall_activity
Imo, how he got to the room is not an issue which should be given much weight by the jury. If he had always been staying there and he had wandered in by mistake and said "oops sorry but hey can i join in?" then would it make a difference? The question is whether she consented or could consent.
The videoing is also a double-edged sword. Does the fact he was prepared to sleep with her knowing that, at the least, his mates were trying to video it not suggest he may have believed he had consent?
The fact is that there is no evidence of what went on in the room other than that of Evans and McDonald (who was deemed an innocent man). It is a very hard verdict to understand. This is particularly the when you consider the Bree case - where it was solely the man's word against the lady's (with her saying she was dipping in and out of consciousness but denying consenting) and the Court of Appeal overturned the verdict of guilty.
Perhaps juries should have to write down how the come to their verdicts.
Either A the verdict was due to inconsistant thinking by the jury.
Or B the jury had a reasonable doubt in that McDonald might have reasonably believed she consented to having sex with him, but no reasonable doubt in regards to Evans.
Your no other evidence of what went on in the room also discounts evidence as to her state leading up to going to the room and the expert evidence vs the account of her being fully concious and active in the room, and what she might have to say about the things attributed to her by the men as far as if they were things she might have done or said.
He says he was drunk and I don't think that's disputed. I haven't seen anything which says how much he had drunk. It wouldn't have been a part of the case though as it wouldn't be a defence for him - even if he showed he was more drunk than she was (not,to be clear, that I am suggesting that was the case).
As far as I know, a woman can't rape a man in the UK by the way. They could be guilty of sexual assault though if the man did not consent.
Every legal concept is argued about but 'Heavily intoxicated' is far easier to define than the present law!
The other evidence presented in this case only supports the generally accepted facts of the case, that she was very drunk but conscious and capable of making some decisions.
Bree appeal was successful because:
"... deficiencies in the trial judge’s summing up meant the jury was not given any or any sufficient direction to enable their verdict to be regarded as safe."
That matter was considered at Evans' first attempt to seek leave to appeal and the appeal judges held that his trial judge's summing up was not deficient.
So, the Bree precedent doesn't apply to the Evans case.
Yes he had been drinking but felt 'in control' of his actions. And you're quite right his level of intoxication is largely irrelevant because drunkenness can never be a defence to any crime.
Correct, being drunk does not absolve you from blame for an offence. Neither can a woman 'Rape' a man under the law.
However, if either of the men was drunk then the women should have been prosecuted on the same basis for sexual assault. That is if you treat the sexes equally and it is pretty plain that doesn't happen when it comes to drunken sexual activity.
Maggie