Is that the footage of her walking steadily back and forth across the lobby? In platform heels.
I haven't seen the CCT,V have you? If you have, how do you know if that is the CCTV used in court or was from earlier on that night and not shown in court?
It sounds like there is CCTV of her meeting/approaching Mcdonald and from what i heard on the radio, it sounds like she liked Mcdonald which is why he probably was acquited.
Because the victim had no memory of what happened. The "new" laws say that if a person is so drunk or drugged, they can't consent and or are in no fit state to consent.
There is nothing to connect short term memory loss the day after a night on the piss with the person's decision making capacity at the time. This was confirmed by the expert the defence used in court.
Goalkeeper killed 2 kids a few years ago and is back playing. What do people think is worse a drunk women sleeping with Ched or a guy who killed 2 children?
I haven't seen the CCT,V have you? If you have, how do you know if that is the CCTV used in court or was from earlier on that night and not shown in court?
It sounds like there is CCTV of her meeting/approaching Mcdonald and from what i heard on the radio, it sounds like she liked Mcdonald which is why he probably was acquited.
Yes, I've seen the CCTV of them entering the hotel. She spoke to McDonald briefly on the street and asked him where he was going. She said she was going with him when he said he was going to the hotel, and flagged the taxi down herself. She spoke with the taxi driver.
What is in question here is the girl's capacity to consent, and it would appear that she wasn't so incapacitated as to be able to do all that with McDonald, yet mysteriously became incapacitated and unable to consent to Evans' participation only a short time later, when she and McDonald were still having sex.
I agree that it is first necessary to prove that the victim did not have the capacity to consent (but not necessarily to be incapacitated!), before reasonable belief can be argued. Clearly that was done in the Evans' case to the jury's satisfaction - and no two cases are exactly the same so it is unlikely that one jury's decision in another case, however similar on the face of it, could be used to overturn a subsequent case.
In cases like this, it is for each jury to decide itself (based on evidence presented) on the capacity of an alleged victim to consent. No appeal court would overturn that fundamental principle - only legal errors or new evidence could do that.
But that is exactly what happened in the Bree case, he was convicted by a jury but the conviction was overturned in the Court of Appeal, who held that she was capable of consent despite being heavily intoxicated.
There is nothing to connect short term memory loss the day after a night on the piss with the person's decision making capacity at the time. This was confirmed by the expert the defence used in court.
I think you are coming out with very weak points and I'm putting it mildly. The victim can't remember anything even now it seems, that isn't short term memory loss.
Also a defence expert? It is my view that experts in court cases will say what their side of a court case wants them to say or will be in their interests. Either that or its a massive conicidence that both sides use so called expert winesses and they contradict each other but say things that suit the side that hired them.
Yes, I've seen the CCTV of them entering the hotel. She spoke to McDonald briefly on the street and asked him where he was going. She said she was going with him when he said he was going to the hotel, and flagged the taxi down herself. She spoke with the taxi driver.
What is in question here is the girl's capacity to consent, and it would appear that she wasn't so incapacitated as to be able to do all that with McDonald, yet mysteriously became incapacitated and unable to consent to Evans' participation only a short time later, when she and McDonald were still having sex.
Maybe they had drinks in the hotel room. Maybe what she believes to have happened did happen etc etc.
I think you are coming out with very weak points and I'm putting it mildly. The victim can't remember anything even now it seems, that isn't short term memory loss.
Also a defence expert? It is my view that experts in court cases will say what their side of a court case wants them to say or will be in their interests. Either that or its a massive conicidence that both sides use so called expert winesses and they contradict each other but say things that suit the side that hired them.
She couldn't remember anything the morning after, which is short term memory loss based on the events being so recent. The point made was very clear, that inebriation which causes us to say "What on earth did I do last night?" the morning after is not related to our ability to make decisions during the period in question.
Maybe they had drinks in the hotel room. Maybe what she believes to have happened did happen etc etc.
That's two maybes. but maybes shouldn't be good enough to convict anybody. The testimony was made that they did not continue drinking at the premier inn. She didn't "believe" anything to have happened, she had no memory of even going there.
But that is exactly what happened in the Bree case, he was convicted by a jury but the conviction was overturned in the Court of Appeal, who held that she was capable of consent despite being heavily intoxicated.
I shall have to have a read-up on that. In the immortal words of Capt. Oates, I may be gone for some time!
But that is exactly what happened in the Bree case, he was convicted by a jury but the conviction was overturned in the Court of Appeal, who held that she was capable of consent despite being heavily intoxicated.
OK, found the Bree Appeal now.
The grounds for the appeal succeeding were on a point of law: the judge failed to direct the jury on an important point - that a drunken person may or may not be able to consent.
This aspect was also considered in the Evans appeal as the judge did not use those exact words, but the Appeal judge thought what he did say covered the same ground i.e. "there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices." Summary: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
But of course, it is possible that the upcoming review could decide that the judge's comments need to be looked at again as that wasn't the only thing challenged in the appeal.
She couldn't remember anything the morning after, which is short term memory loss based on the events being so recent. The point made was very clear, that inebriation which causes us to say "What on earth did I do last night?" the morning after is not related to our ability to make decisions during the period in question.
The law doesn't say if someone remembers or not the next day its all ok, its obviously looking at was she in a fit enough state to consent or not. They seem to have decided that she either wasn't in a fit enough state to consent or didn't when it came to Evans.
Saved you buggerall, you're going over the same points I've seen you cover on at least 2 previous threads now.
Fair play you've got some patience to be doing this again.
I knew you and a couple of other FM's would do the heavy lifting again.
I should leave it alone really. I just think the lad got stitched up when a night of drunken sex went horribly wrong. And whilst it's all a bit sordid by most peoples' standards, this kind of thing amongst drunk youngsters will still be happening most weekends up and down the country.
Well you think she wasn't drunk or that drunk but its not what the judge said in his/her comments to Evans when he was found guilty.
Nobody knows just how drunk she was in that hotel room, or what kind of capacity she had to agree to Evans' participation when he arrived. The general consensus as painted by the prosecution is that she was semi-conscious and he was pumping away at a limp body for want of a better description, but there is testimony and evidence that contradicts that. The porter heard both of them having sex, he could hear "playful" sounding dialogue, he had no cause for concern etc
The law doesn't say if someone remembers or not the next day its all ok, its obviously looking at was she in a fit enough state to consent or not. They seem to have decided that she either wasn't in a fit enough state to consent or didn't when it came to Evans.
You have turned what I said arse about face. What I said was this, so read it carefully.
A lack of memory the day after a night of drunkenness is not related to our capacity to make decisions at the time.
You can be pissed at night at a party and still be able to make decisions, but the day after you can wake up and think "What the ? I don't remember getting here?"
Nobody knows just how drunk she was in that hotel room, or what kind of capacity she had to agree to Evans' participation when he arrived. The general consensus as painted by the prosecution is that she was semi-conscious and he was pumping away at a limp body for want of a better description, but there is testimony and evidence that contradicts that. The porter heard both of them having sex, he could hear "playful" sounding dialogue, he had no cause for concern etc
Again the onus is on the defendent to point out how he/she obtained consent. Their word is not quite enough, especially as he just "turned up" Its not as if she texted him asking him to come round was it?
Nobody knows just how drunk she was in that hotel room, or what kind of capacity she had to agree to Evans' participation when he arrived. The general consensus as painted by the prosecution is that she was semi-conscious and he was pumping away at a limp body for want of a better description, but there is testimony and evidence that contradicts that. The porter heard both of them having sex, he could hear "playful" sounding dialogue, he had no cause for concern etc
None of that matters though, as the Jury were entitled to make the judgement they did based on the evidence they heard. Their verdict cannot be overturned unless new evidence comes to light or the judge made a legal error: the latter was considered and rejected on appeal. As I mentioned a few posts above, the similar Bree Appeal was successful because the judge forgot to advise the jury that even drunken people may or may not be capable of consenting. The Evans judge didn't forget.
Again the onus is on the defendent to point out how he/she obtained consent. Their word is not quite enough, especially as he just "turned up" Its not as if she texted him asking him to come round was it?
No it isn't, the onus is on the prosecution to determine consent was not given or was not able to be given. Both men's testimony was that she was asked when he arrived in the room and said yes to Evans' participation.
Their word is not quite enough? What else is there, because she didn't remember a thing and so could offer nothing to dispute it?
None of that matters though, as the Jury were entitled to make the judgement they did based on the evidence they heard. Their verdict cannot be overturned unless new evidence comes to light or the judge made a legal error: the latter was considered and rejected on appeal. As I mentioned a few posts above, the similar Bree Appeal was successful because the judge forgot to advise the jury that even drunken people may or may not be capable of consenting. The Evans judge didn't forget.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he has a hope of overturning his conviction. The jury's decision will stand, I just think they got it wrong.
No it isn't, the onus is on the prosecution to determine consent was not given or was not able to be given. Both men's testimony was that she was asked when he arrived in the room and said yes to Evans' participation.
Their word is not quite enough? What else is there, because she didn't remember a thing and so could offer nothing to dispute it?
You're like a dog with a bone, aren't you? He was found guilty.
Are you part of some sort of Ched Evans street team, hitting social media in an effort to turn public opinion around?
Comments
I haven't seen the CCT,V have you? If you have, how do you know if that is the CCTV used in court or was from earlier on that night and not shown in court?
It sounds like there is CCTV of her meeting/approaching Mcdonald and from what i heard on the radio, it sounds like she liked Mcdonald which is why he probably was acquited.
There is nothing to connect short term memory loss the day after a night on the piss with the person's decision making capacity at the time. This was confirmed by the expert the defence used in court.
Yes, I've seen the CCTV of them entering the hotel. She spoke to McDonald briefly on the street and asked him where he was going. She said she was going with him when he said he was going to the hotel, and flagged the taxi down herself. She spoke with the taxi driver.
What is in question here is the girl's capacity to consent, and it would appear that she wasn't so incapacitated as to be able to do all that with McDonald, yet mysteriously became incapacitated and unable to consent to Evans' participation only a short time later, when she and McDonald were still having sex.
But that is exactly what happened in the Bree case, he was convicted by a jury but the conviction was overturned in the Court of Appeal, who held that she was capable of consent despite being heavily intoxicated.
I think you are coming out with very weak points and I'm putting it mildly. The victim can't remember anything even now it seems, that isn't short term memory loss.
Also a defence expert? It is my view that experts in court cases will say what their side of a court case wants them to say or will be in their interests. Either that or its a massive conicidence that both sides use so called expert winesses and they contradict each other but say things that suit the side that hired them.
Maybe they had drinks in the hotel room. Maybe what she believes to have happened did happen etc etc.
She couldn't remember anything the morning after, which is short term memory loss based on the events being so recent. The point made was very clear, that inebriation which causes us to say "What on earth did I do last night?" the morning after is not related to our ability to make decisions during the period in question.
That's two maybes. but maybes shouldn't be good enough to convict anybody. The testimony was made that they did not continue drinking at the premier inn. She didn't "believe" anything to have happened, she had no memory of even going there.
I shall have to have a read-up on that. In the immortal words of Capt. Oates, I may be gone for some time!
Maybe she remembers the whole thing and made up the fact that she cant remember cause she was embarrassed.
No I don't believe that but its as "maybe" as they had drunk more in the hotel room
Saved you buggerall, you're going over the same points I've seen you cover on at least 2 previous threads now.
Fair play you've got some patience to be doing this again.
I knew you and a couple of other FM's would do the heavy lifting again.
They weren't carrying any drink in with them, and the Premier Inns I have stayed at on business don't have mini bars in the room.
OK, found the Bree Appeal now.
The grounds for the appeal succeeding were on a point of law: the judge failed to direct the jury on an important point - that a drunken person may or may not be able to consent.
This aspect was also considered in the Evans appeal as the judge did not use those exact words, but the Appeal judge thought what he did say covered the same ground i.e. "there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices." Summary: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
So the cases are not the same due to the judge's error in Bree. Summary: http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/criminallawcases.php
But of course, it is possible that the upcoming review could decide that the judge's comments need to be looked at again as that wasn't the only thing challenged in the appeal.
The law doesn't say if someone remembers or not the next day its all ok, its obviously looking at was she in a fit enough state to consent or not. They seem to have decided that she either wasn't in a fit enough state to consent or didn't when it came to Evans.
Well you think she wasn't drunk or that drunk but its not what the judge said in his/her comments to Evans when he was found guilty.
I should leave it alone really. I just think the lad got stitched up when a night of drunken sex went horribly wrong. And whilst it's all a bit sordid by most peoples' standards, this kind of thing amongst drunk youngsters will still be happening most weekends up and down the country.
Nobody knows just how drunk she was in that hotel room, or what kind of capacity she had to agree to Evans' participation when he arrived. The general consensus as painted by the prosecution is that she was semi-conscious and he was pumping away at a limp body for want of a better description, but there is testimony and evidence that contradicts that. The porter heard both of them having sex, he could hear "playful" sounding dialogue, he had no cause for concern etc
You have turned what I said arse about face. What I said was this, so read it carefully.
A lack of memory the day after a night of drunkenness is not related to our capacity to make decisions at the time.
You can be pissed at night at a party and still be able to make decisions, but the day after you can wake up and think "What the ? I don't remember getting here?"
Again the onus is on the defendent to point out how he/she obtained consent. Their word is not quite enough, especially as he just "turned up" Its not as if she texted him asking him to come round was it?
None of that matters though, as the Jury were entitled to make the judgement they did based on the evidence they heard. Their verdict cannot be overturned unless new evidence comes to light or the judge made a legal error: the latter was considered and rejected on appeal. As I mentioned a few posts above, the similar Bree Appeal was successful because the judge forgot to advise the jury that even drunken people may or may not be capable of consenting. The Evans judge didn't forget.
No it isn't, the onus is on the prosecution to determine consent was not given or was not able to be given. Both men's testimony was that she was asked when he arrived in the room and said yes to Evans' participation.
Their word is not quite enough? What else is there, because she didn't remember a thing and so could offer nothing to dispute it?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he has a hope of overturning his conviction. The jury's decision will stand, I just think they got it wrong.
You're like a dog with a bone, aren't you? He was found guilty.
Are you part of some sort of Ched Evans street team, hitting social media in an effort to turn public opinion around?
No, I'm a rapist according to you. (Which just about renders every and all posts you make a complete crock of shit in my opinion)