Anyway to get back on topic ( you can clearly tell that I am firmly in the guilty camp) this is supposed to be about whether he can play for us again. I was sitting in the South stand at Bramall Lane last saturday and there were chants about him being a hero. Whatever you think about the conviction, that is wrong. I don't want him, let some other club rehabiliate him. Soiled goods....
It's an insincere apology anyway. She has already stated her opinion and has been forced into apologising. No doubt those who were offended will see the apology as a moral victory, but it's nothing of the sort.
While I disagree with her on her views on this rape, I have to agree with above.
I've always found it silly when people apologise things like this, particularly as it's unlikely they've changed their opinion.
It's like when Clarkson was asked to apologise by the BBC. Asked to apologise! Apologies are worthless when demanded.
The confusing aspect of this case to me was how one was found guilty and one acquitted given that the woman didn't drink anything more after arriving at the hotel.
Having just had a read through of the Ched Evans website (there isn't much on there that hasn't already been said and so it did nothing to change my opinion) one thing that stood out to me is that Evans and McDonald both said that the woman was asked if Ched could join in, but both thought that it was the other who asked.
That confusion over who asked may contribute to why the jury found Evans guilty but not McDonald.
As for the 'When I Win Big' tweets, they were non-specific and were posted 5 months after the incident - they could have been in relation to anything.
The confusing aspect of this case to me was how one was found guilty and one acquitted given that the woman didn't drink anything more after arriving at the hotel.
Having just had a read through of the Ched Evans website (there isn't much on there that hasn't already been said and so it did nothing to change my opinion) one thing that stood out to me is that Evans and McDonald both said that the woman was asked if Ched could join in, but both thought that it was the other who asked.
That confusion over who asked may contribute to why the jury found Evans guilty but not McDonald.
As for the 'When I Win Big' tweets, they were non-specific and were posted 5 months after the incident - they could have been in relation to anything.
Your body takes an hour plus to metabolise alcohol, so even if the victim did not have an alcoholic drink at the hotel she still could have become more intoxicated after arrival. I've always thought it was likely that Mcdonald was found Not Guilty as the victim had contact with him prior to going to the hotel and willingly accompanied him to his room. This could be seen as 'consent' by the jury and lead to the CPS being unable to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt. Evans had not met her prior to arriving in the hotel room and we only have his and his co-defendant at the times account of what happened after this. Maybe their statements weren't credible? Either way, it always strikes we as strange that rape is the one crime where the victim seems to comes under more scrutiny than the perpetrator.
The confusing aspect of this case to me was how one was found guilty and one acquitted given that the woman didn't drink anything more after arriving at the hotel.
Having just had a read through of the Ched Evans website (there isn't much on there that hasn't already been said and so it did nothing to change my opinion) one thing that stood out to me is that Evans and McDonald both said that the woman was asked if Ched could join in, but both thought that it was the other who asked.
That confusion over who asked may contribute to why the jury found Evans guilty but not McDonald.
As for the 'When I Win Big' tweets, they were non-specific and were posted 5 months after the incident - they could have been in relation to anything.
Re the tweets that is possible, but then if they were not connected why delete them and deny they ever existed.
The website doesn't tell us anything not available in the court transcripts or the media , including that fact that she had cocaine in her system and admitted taking it but a week before and could not remember where she got it from ( bad memory problem she seems to have ) which toxicology proved she was not being truthful and that for the levels she had she would have used it pretty regularly and at most 3 days prior to that night and whilst claiming to be unable to remember the night seemed able to remember that she did not take cocaine that night.
As you say there is confusion over why one is guilty and one is not when the guilty verdict was based upon ability to consent not forced sex , and she had nothing further to drink at the hotel so therefore if she was deemed able to consent to one person why not the other ?
Your body takes an hour plus to metabolise alcohol, so even if the victim did not have an alcoholic drink at the hotel she still could have become more intoxicated after arrival. I've always thought it was likely that Mcdonald was found Not Guilty as the victim had contact with him prior to going to the hotel and willingly accompanied him to his room. This could be seen as 'consent' by the jury and lead to the CPS being unable to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt. Evans had not met her prior to arriving in the hotel room and we only have his and his co-defendant at the times account of what happened after this. Maybe their statements weren't credible? Either way, it always strikes we as strange that rape is the one crime where the victim seems to comes under more scrutiny than the perpetrator.
I do think in this case the reason for the extra scrutiny and doubt is what came out later about the "victim" and her tweets that she lied about and deleted and previous claims . I will admit that based upon transcripts and other information that has come to light I feel the verdict is extremely unsafe.
Your body takes an hour plus to metabolise alcohol, so even if the victim did not have an alcoholic drink at the hotel she still could have become more intoxicated after arrival. I've always thought it was likely that Mcdonald was found Not Guilty as the victim had contact with him prior to going to the hotel and willingly accompanied him to his room. This could be seen as 'consent' by the jury and lead to the CPS being unable to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt. Evans had not met her prior to arriving in the hotel room and we only have his and his co-defendant at the times account of what happened after this. Maybe their statements weren't credible? Either way, it always strikes we as strange that rape is the one crime where the victim seems to comes under more scrutiny than the perpetrator.
I agree with all of what you say, regarding their credibility that's what I was getting at with the confusion over who asked her if Evans could join in. Them not being able to remember that detail could have cast doubt on everything else they said about what happened in the room.
Regarding metabolising alcohol, there was only 10 minutes between their arrivals so I'm not sure how much of a difference that would have made.
Overall I think the woman's previous contact with McDonald (and the fact that she hailed the taxi) is why he was found not guilty.
BIB - I 100% agree with, there's too much focus on the behaviour of the victim when the person who's behaviour needs to be looked at is the perpetrators.
Re the tweets that is possible, but then if they were not connected why delete them and deny they ever existed.
The website doesn't tell us anything not available in the court transcripts or the media , including that fact that she had cocaine in her system and admitted taking it but a week before and could not remember where she got it from ( bad memory problem she seems to have ) which toxicology proved she was not being truthful and that for the levels she had she would have used it pretty regularly and at most 3 days prior to that night and whilst claiming to be unable to remember the night seemed able to remember that she did not take cocaine that night.
As you say there is confusion over why one is guilty and one is not when the guilty verdict was based upon ability to consent not forced sex , and she had nothing further to drink at the hotel so therefore if she was deemed able to consent to one person why not the other ?
I do think in this case the reason for the extra scrutiny and doubt is what came out later about the "victim" and her tweets that she lied about and deleted and previous claims . I will admit that based upon transcripts and other information that has come to light I feel the verdict is extremely unsafe.
The victim never made a complaint of rape against Evans or McDonald though so her previous claims and tweets etc. are irrelevant.
Regarding her cocaine use, if it is something that might affect her job then I can see why she would lie about it. I have numerous friends who would lie about their drug use in court to try and protect their jobs.
As for deleting tweets, maybe she knew that they would be twisted out of context and so she got rid of them.
Not that it matters in the context of the case though, it was never a question of "is she lying" as she never actually accused them of rape.
That is what I find most distasteful about the Ched Evans website, the way it totally vilifies the victim (particularly the 'letter from a brave woman' bit) despite the fact that she didn't accuse them of raping her.
Well she must have gone to the police and said something.
She went to the police (after going to work that day) because she had lost her bag & phone and had no recollection of how she ended up waking up at the Premier Inn or who she had been there with, she suspected her drink may have been spiked.
The police looked into who booked the room she had woken up in, who was staying in the room and the CCTV of them arriving at the hotel which led them to Evans & McDonald.
They questioned Evans and McDonald, they told the police that they had had sex with the woman (she had no memory of it and hadn't mentioned having sex with anyone to the police) and the police then arrested them for rape based on their admissions of having sex with her.
She went to the police (after going to work that day) because she had lost her bag & phone and had no recollection of how she ended up waking up at the Premier Inn or who she had been there with, she suspected her drink may have been spiked.
The police looked into who booked the room she had woken up in, who was staying in the room and the CCTV of them arriving at the hotel which led them to Evans & McDonald.
They questioned Evans and McDonald, they told the police that they had had sex with the woman (she had no memory of it and hadn't mentioned having sex with anyone to the police) and the police then arrested them for rape based on their admissions of having sex with her.
She never accused them of raping her.
Crazy stuff, I can't believe it ever got to court.
Re the tweets that is possible, but then if they were not connected why delete them and deny they ever existed.
The website doesn't tell us anything not available in the court transcripts or the media , including that fact that she had cocaine in her system and admitted taking it but a week before and could not remember where she got it from ( bad memory problem she seems to have ) which toxicology proved she was not being truthful and that for the levels she had she would have used it pretty regularly and at most 3 days prior to that night and whilst claiming to be unable to remember the night seemed able to remember that she did not take cocaine that night.
As you say there is confusion over why one is guilty and one is not when the guilty verdict was based upon ability to consent not forced sex , and she had nothing further to drink at the hotel so therefore if she was deemed able to consent to one person why not the other ?
I do think in this case the reason for the extra scrutiny and doubt is what came out later about the "victim" and her tweets that she lied about and deleted and previous claims . I will admit that based upon transcripts and other information that has come to light I feel the verdict is extremely unsafe.
I don't think it is a case of her consenting to one but not the other. It is that the jury was not convinced of guilt in one case because the defendant might reasonably have thought that she was in a fit state to consent, so they gave him the benefit of the doubt. In the case of the other one (Evans), he had just arrived so couldn't have reasonably decided she was fit enough to consent, so the jury did not give him the benefit of any doubt. They decided he acted in a cavalier fashion regarding whether or not she was in a fit state to consent, so that was rape.
Anyway to get back on topic ( you can clearly tell that I am firmly in the guilty camp) this is supposed to be about whether he can play for us again. I was sitting in the South stand at Bramall Lane last saturday and there were chants about him being a hero. Whatever you think about the conviction, that is wrong. I don't want him, let some other club rehabiliate him. Soiled goods....
I live in Sheffield, (though not particularly a keen football fan). He should be allowed to play again, but I also hope it is not at United. It would be a bit of a mark against both the club and the city.
Isn't it funny how the same people calling for the club not to take him back are a lot of the same people who extol the virtues of a justice system built upon rehabilitation and allowing a person to get on with their lives after they have served their time.
I wonder if they are the same people that whine on at length about the benefits culture and paying people who are out of work JSA?
Again whose are these same people ? ?
Yous both mean the half a million signed the petition to Sheffield United to not have him back yous mean those same people
Totally agree with everything you have said - Judy should never have apologized because she was right in what she was saying the girl was obviously a slapper.
I don't blame lasses not saying nowt with remarks like that,
he should be back into a football league team playing in front of thasands ? Nope it's a big business this football lark in front of lads and lasses that idolise yous and it's not right after something Like rape ,if he was on t.v his career would be down the pan
Jill Sayward was interviewed on BBC Radio Sheffield this morning.
One thing she said was that Evans was (or would be, I'm not sure) campaigning for a change to the law regarding rape - presumably such that what he did would no longer be considered to be a crime - I don't actually know, as she didn't elaborate.
Does anyone know about this? I've not heard any mention anywhere else.
Jill Sayward was interviewed on BBC Radio Sheffield this morning.
One thing she said was that Evans was (or would be, I'm not sure) campaigning for a change to the law regarding rape - presumably such that what he did would no longer be considered to be a crime - I don't actually know, as she didn't elaborate.
Does anyone know about this? I've not heard any mention anywhere else.
The law seems to be fine as it stands, as it has been used in the past in an Aberystwyth court where the judge threw out a rape allegation, ruling that drunken consent is still consent, where the victim claimed she was too drunk to remember whether she did or did not.
Much has been made about Evans' means of arrival and exit from the hotel, but people sneak around in and out of sexual encounters all the time, the people in the public eye probably more so than anybody.
To my mind, what matters is what happened in the hotel room. If the girl was asked, and agreed, and behaved in a way that suggested she was aware of what she was doing, who with, and appeared to be participating freely, then no amount of memory loss the day after equates to a lack of capacity to consent at the time.
She was considered to have had the capacity to consent to sex with McDonald, then suddenly she doesn't have capacity ten minutes later??? I find the disparity between the two verdicts baffling.
You can see the agenda with statements like this, which are contradicted by the CCTV footage of a person quite alert and steady on her feet just 10 minutes before, the testimony from Evans, and the evidence that a porter heard the sounds of both of them having sex:-
...Evans has genuinely convinced himself that getting off inside a semi-unconscious woman is either not rape or it is rape and that is okay
Finnegan is a stupid old woman who is just like so many other victim blamers.
The only victim in this case, is a young guy who has wrongly spent 2 years in jail and had his character and career ruined by a corrupt legal system, out to score brownie points.
Oh give over, I am a Blade and I have read everything on this case including the appeal judge's comments. This was not a miscarriage of justice. If it were his conviction would have been overturned by now. The circumstances that saw him being found guilty were completely different to the other man. In fact you could say he was predatory in his actions. This is a man who never spoke to the victim, lied to get into the room, had his mates and brother recording it on their phones and then left via a fire escape! Again this is supposedly a woman who was celebrating a pay day but has ended up having to move to Ireland and change her identity because of the abuse she has received because of football fans. And, if she was such a money grabber surely it would be easier for Sheffield United to offer her money to give a statement saying that she believes he should be able to continue his career. The fact she has never given an interview leads me to believe that she has never had any intention to cash in on what happened to her. Everyone who derides her for being a drunken slag who was on the make should hang their heads in shame imo!
Originally Posted by skp20040
Are you absolutely sure the one convicted did ? one was found not guilty. The CPS convinced a jury that she was too drunk to consent that does not mean she did not and the history that was not admitted may have meant a very different verdict.
A lack of courtship prior to sex isn't a crime, and nobody has asserted that he was the epitome of chivalry. Both testimonies stated that the girl was asked, and she replied "Yes" to Evans' participation. It was also reported that she asked Evans to give her oral sex, and I can point you the claims that she said to him "Fk me harder", I haven't made it up at all. The porter heard sounds of sexual activity with male and female voices after being concerned about over-occupancy of the room when Evans was with her. It's hardly surprising he left via the fire escape, given that he had a girlfriend and is relatively well known.
What the case seemed to hang on was the girl's capacity to consent because of her inebriation. Now to my mind she was as drunk when she met McDonald as she was when Evans left. She was drunk in the pizza shop, although she was able to talk to people in there, drunk arriving at the hotel, although she was seen to be walking on high heels quite steadily, drunk when they got in the room and she initiated activity, drunk when having sex with McDonald, drunk when Evans arrived and was asked could he join in, and drunk when having sex with him, although he claims she was enthusiastic and lucid.
The,jury decided that her drunkenness wasn't too bad and that she had capacity all the way up to Evans' arrival 10 mins after McDonald, when suddenly she lost capacity and was too drunk after all.
Why do you think you know better than the Jury who heard all the evidence and watched the footage taken by Evans friend and brother? And better than the Appeal Court ?
Originally Posted by skp20040
Are you absolutely sure the one convicted did ? one was found not guilty. The CPS convinced a jury that she was too drunk to consent that does not mean she did not and the history that was not admitted may have meant a very different verdict.
And yet, when it suits the prosecution, they can bandy a celebs name about, fishing for potential corroboration of "previous".
She had previous - why couldn't they shout her name from the rooftops asking for corroboration?
Answer - because she's not a high-profile celeb, to be made an example of.
Serial rape accusers should be treated at least equal to actual rapists. The effect on the falsely accused, is equally, if not more, devastating.
Sigh. The reason why previous convictions of any sort are not admitted in evidence in any trial, not just this one is for the simple reason that just because someone, say, burgled a house last year does not mean that they burgled a house this time. It's basic stuff about not prejudicing the jury and looking at each charge on its merits. Otherwise we may as well assume the burglar burgled all the houses, every time.
That's how justice operates.
And quite clearly the prior allegations about rape were irrelevant because the victim NEVER claimed she had been raped by Ched and his mate. Do you see that?
The confusing aspect of this case to me was how one was found guilty and one acquitted given that the woman didn't drink anything more after arriving at the hotel.
Having just had a read through of the Ched Evans website (there isn't much on there that hasn't already been said and so it did nothing to change my opinion) one thing that stood out to me is that Evans and McDonald both said that the woman was asked if Ched could join in, but both thought that it was the other who asked.
That confusion over who asked may contribute to why the jury found Evans guilty but not McDonald.
As for the 'When I Win Big' tweets, they were non-specific and were posted 5 months after the incident - they could have been in relation to anything.
This makes me wonder if she was asked at all! It all makes sense now. Neither of them asked her. Surely you would remember asking!
Why do you think you know better than the Jury who heard all the evidence and watched the footage taken by Evans friend and brother? And better than the Appeal Court ?
But they did not know about the previous rape allegations which shed quite a different light on the matter.
Comments
While I disagree with her on her views on this rape, I have to agree with above.
I've always found it silly when people apologise things like this, particularly as it's unlikely they've changed their opinion.
It's like when Clarkson was asked to apologise by the BBC. Asked to apologise! Apologies are worthless when demanded.
Roughly 4 or 5 I think, depending on the ABV.
No, that was her estimated level at 4 am, shortly before the incident occurred.
Having just had a read through of the Ched Evans website (there isn't much on there that hasn't already been said and so it did nothing to change my opinion) one thing that stood out to me is that Evans and McDonald both said that the woman was asked if Ched could join in, but both thought that it was the other who asked.
That confusion over who asked may contribute to why the jury found Evans guilty but not McDonald.
As for the 'When I Win Big' tweets, they were non-specific and were posted 5 months after the incident - they could have been in relation to anything.
Your body takes an hour plus to metabolise alcohol, so even if the victim did not have an alcoholic drink at the hotel she still could have become more intoxicated after arrival. I've always thought it was likely that Mcdonald was found Not Guilty as the victim had contact with him prior to going to the hotel and willingly accompanied him to his room. This could be seen as 'consent' by the jury and lead to the CPS being unable to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt. Evans had not met her prior to arriving in the hotel room and we only have his and his co-defendant at the times account of what happened after this. Maybe their statements weren't credible? Either way, it always strikes we as strange that rape is the one crime where the victim seems to comes under more scrutiny than the perpetrator.
Re the tweets that is possible, but then if they were not connected why delete them and deny they ever existed.
The website doesn't tell us anything not available in the court transcripts or the media , including that fact that she had cocaine in her system and admitted taking it but a week before and could not remember where she got it from ( bad memory problem she seems to have ) which toxicology proved she was not being truthful and that for the levels she had she would have used it pretty regularly and at most 3 days prior to that night and whilst claiming to be unable to remember the night seemed able to remember that she did not take cocaine that night.
As you say there is confusion over why one is guilty and one is not when the guilty verdict was based upon ability to consent not forced sex , and she had nothing further to drink at the hotel so therefore if she was deemed able to consent to one person why not the other ?
I do think in this case the reason for the extra scrutiny and doubt is what came out later about the "victim" and her tweets that she lied about and deleted and previous claims . I will admit that based upon transcripts and other information that has come to light I feel the verdict is extremely unsafe.
I agree with all of what you say, regarding their credibility that's what I was getting at with the confusion over who asked her if Evans could join in. Them not being able to remember that detail could have cast doubt on everything else they said about what happened in the room.
Regarding metabolising alcohol, there was only 10 minutes between their arrivals so I'm not sure how much of a difference that would have made.
Overall I think the woman's previous contact with McDonald (and the fact that she hailed the taxi) is why he was found not guilty.
BIB - I 100% agree with, there's too much focus on the behaviour of the victim when the person who's behaviour needs to be looked at is the perpetrators.
The victim never made a complaint of rape against Evans or McDonald though so her previous claims and tweets etc. are irrelevant.
Regarding her cocaine use, if it is something that might affect her job then I can see why she would lie about it. I have numerous friends who would lie about their drug use in court to try and protect their jobs.
As for deleting tweets, maybe she knew that they would be twisted out of context and so she got rid of them.
Not that it matters in the context of the case though, it was never a question of "is she lying" as she never actually accused them of rape.
That is what I find most distasteful about the Ched Evans website, the way it totally vilifies the victim (particularly the 'letter from a brave woman' bit) despite the fact that she didn't accuse them of raping her.
She went to the police (after going to work that day) because she had lost her bag & phone and had no recollection of how she ended up waking up at the Premier Inn or who she had been there with, she suspected her drink may have been spiked.
The police looked into who booked the room she had woken up in, who was staying in the room and the CCTV of them arriving at the hotel which led them to Evans & McDonald.
They questioned Evans and McDonald, they told the police that they had had sex with the woman (she had no memory of it and hadn't mentioned having sex with anyone to the police) and the police then arrested them for rape based on their admissions of having sex with her.
She never accused them of raping her.
Crazy stuff, I can't believe it ever got to court.
I don't think it is a case of her consenting to one but not the other. It is that the jury was not convinced of guilt in one case because the defendant might reasonably have thought that she was in a fit state to consent, so they gave him the benefit of the doubt. In the case of the other one (Evans), he had just arrived so couldn't have reasonably decided she was fit enough to consent, so the jury did not give him the benefit of any doubt. They decided he acted in a cavalier fashion regarding whether or not she was in a fit state to consent, so that was rape.
I live in Sheffield, (though not particularly a keen football fan). He should be allowed to play again, but I also hope it is not at United. It would be a bit of a mark against both the club and the city.
What same people
Again whose are these same people ? ?
Yous both mean the half a million signed the petition to Sheffield United to not have him back yous mean those same people
I don't blame lasses not saying nowt with remarks like that,
he should be back into a football league team playing in front of thasands ? Nope it's a big business this football lark in front of lads and lasses that idolise yous and it's not right after something Like rape ,if he was on t.v his career would be down the pan
One thing she said was that Evans was (or would be, I'm not sure) campaigning for a change to the law regarding rape - presumably such that what he did would no longer be considered to be a crime - I don't actually know, as she didn't elaborate.
Does anyone know about this? I've not heard any mention anywhere else.
The law seems to be fine as it stands, as it has been used in the past in an Aberystwyth court where the judge threw out a rape allegation, ruling that drunken consent is still consent, where the victim claimed she was too drunk to remember whether she did or did not.
Much has been made about Evans' means of arrival and exit from the hotel, but people sneak around in and out of sexual encounters all the time, the people in the public eye probably more so than anybody.
To my mind, what matters is what happened in the hotel room. If the girl was asked, and agreed, and behaved in a way that suggested she was aware of what she was doing, who with, and appeared to be participating freely, then no amount of memory loss the day after equates to a lack of capacity to consent at the time.
She was considered to have had the capacity to consent to sex with McDonald, then suddenly she doesn't have capacity ten minutes later??? I find the disparity between the two verdicts baffling.
The narrative of the fallen abuser is all too familiar: the ruined life that matters is the man’s rather than the woman he raped, hit or killed.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/ruined-lives-oscar-pistorius-and-ched-evans-why-do-men-matter-more-women
You can see the agenda with statements like this, which are contradicted by the CCTV footage of a person quite alert and steady on her feet just 10 minutes before, the testimony from Evans, and the evidence that a porter heard the sounds of both of them having sex:-
The only victim in this case, is a young guy who has wrongly spent 2 years in jail and had his character and career ruined by a corrupt legal system, out to score brownie points.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/sorry-judy-finnigan-but-ched-evans-is-no-less-sickening-than-an-alleyway-rapist-9794692.html?google_editors_picks=true
Are you absolutely sure the one convicted did ? one was found not guilty. The CPS convinced a jury that she was too drunk to consent that does not mean she did not and the history that was not admitted may have meant a very different verdict.
And yet, when it suits the prosecution, they can bandy a celebs name about, fishing for potential corroboration of "previous".
She had previous - why couldn't they shout her name from the rooftops asking for corroboration?
Answer - because she's not a high-profile celeb, to be made an example of.
Serial rape accusers should be treated at least equal to actual rapists. The effect on the falsely accused, is equally, if not more, devastating.
Why do you think you know better than the Jury who heard all the evidence and watched the footage taken by Evans friend and brother? And better than the Appeal Court ?
Sigh. The reason why previous convictions of any sort are not admitted in evidence in any trial, not just this one is for the simple reason that just because someone, say, burgled a house last year does not mean that they burgled a house this time. It's basic stuff about not prejudicing the jury and looking at each charge on its merits. Otherwise we may as well assume the burglar burgled all the houses, every time.
That's how justice operates.
And quite clearly the prior allegations about rape were irrelevant because the victim NEVER claimed she had been raped by Ched and his mate. Do you see that?
This makes me wonder if she was asked at all! It all makes sense now. Neither of them asked her. Surely you would remember asking!
But they did not know about the previous rape allegations which shed quite a different light on the matter.