Yes, but they were 12 people who had the law carefully explained to them and then reached a decision having heard every single bit of evidence. How many of the Evans supporters can claim the same thing?
At least it's possible to scrutinise and discuss how the supporters come to their conclusions over his innocence.
You say 'court of law' as if it's some infallible institution. It's 12 people with likely little or no legal knowledge coming together for a one off occasion and deciding the fate of a person's life, with zero scrutiny allowed of how they come to their decision.
Those who keep going on about the fact that he was found guilty by a jury give me the impression that they have never experienced the mindset of a jury first hand.
I could well imagine a jury in this case saying we can't let them both off, it wouldn't look good in the papers. Perhaps an exaggeration but one juror once put forward to me that the defendant was from a rough area so he must be guilty.
Another Evans, Timothy, was once declared guilty by a jury and subsequently hanged by the neck until dead. It came to light later that a certain John Christie did it at the infamous 10 Rillington Place.
Although many would like to see this Evans hanged too I see no reason why he should not be allowed to play football. He may also have a case against his abusers under the Harrasment Act . Food for thought and of course IMHO.
Those who keep going on about the fact that he was found guilty by a jury give me the impression that they have never experienced the mindset of a jury first hand.
I could well imagine a jury in this case saying we can't let them both off, it wouldn't look good in the papers. Perhaps an exaggeration but one juror once put forward to me that the defendant was from a rough area so he must be guilty.
Indeed. I've read many cases where it was discovered the jury used some ridiculous means to make their decision, ranging from getting drunk and consulting a ouija board, to simply saying "we'll just find them both guilty, sometimes life isn't fair and it doesn't matter if they're innocent" because they couldn't be bothered to spend days deliberating and examining the evidence. Discrimination has also been a constant problem, historically.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that happened in this case, but thinking a conviction alone always means a person is 100% guilty is foolish (the corollary is also true; an acquittal does not mean no crime was committed). I prefer to take each case on its merits.
Those who keep going on about the fact that he was found guilty by a jury give me the impression that they have never experienced the mindset of a jury first hand.
I could well imagine a jury in this case saying we can't let them both off, it wouldn't look good in the papers. Perhaps an exaggeration but one juror once put forward to me that the defendant was from a rough area so he must be guilty.
Another Evans, Timothy, was once declared guilty by a jury and subsequently hanged by the neck until dead. It came to light later that a certain John Christie did it at the infamous 10 Rillington Place.
Although many would like to see this Evans hanged too I see no reason why he should not be allowed to play football. He may also have a case against his abusers under the Harrasment Act . Food for thought and of course IMHO.
Yes aside from the numerous cases every day that go through correctly, you have made up a jury deciding best to convict one of them, a story a juror once said and 1 actual wrongful conviction.
Again I note that you offer nothing of the harassment received by the victim in all of this just poor old Ched.
...I see no reason why he should not be allowed to play football. He may also have a case against his abusers under the Harrasment Act . Food for thought and of course IMHO.
Nice bit of perverse logic there! The person who's known to have been seriously harassed is the victim - and that isn't Ched Evans.
Yes, but they were 12 people who had the law carefully explained to them and then reached a decision having heard every single bit of evidence. How many of the Evans supporters can claim the same thing?
Yes but jury's verdicts can be perverse and there are lawyers who consider that this verdict does not make sense. The case will be reviewed again soon as a result.
The problem may be in how the jury took the direction they were given. They were asked to consider the evidence against the two defendants separately, but the evidence was linked by one common factor. The capability of the alleged victim to give consent. There was CCTV footage of the woman walking about in the hotel foyer apparently fairly sober. This may well have helped Evans' friend be found not guilty. However if the jury ignored this evidence in Evans' case, as he wasn't present at the time, all they had to go on was that the woman said she couldn't remember anything that had happened which might be taken that she was extremely drunk and therefore not capable.
The connundrum here is how could she be thought able to consent to his friend but not to Evans. Logically you would think if Evans was guilty then his friend must also be guilty (because her intoxication would be about the same). The initial appeal could not take the vagaries of the jury's decision into account, or apply logic to it. The jury's decision is assumed to reasonable. So the appeal was thrown out.
The sooner the review of the case takes place the better. But people who are saying he should show remorse are missing an important point. To show remorse he would in effect admit he raped the woman. As soon as he does that his attempts to clear his name fail.
Yes but jury's verdicts can be perverse and there are lawyers who consider that this verdict does not make sense. The case will be reviewed again soon as a result.
The problem may be in how the jury took the direction they were given. They were asked to consider the evidence against the two defendants separately, but the evidence was linked by one common factor. The capability of the alleged victim to give consent. There was CCTV footage of the woman walking about in the hotel foyer apparently fairly sober. This may well have helped Evans' friend be found not guilty. However if the jury ignored this evidence in Evans' case, as he wasn't present at the time, all they had to go on was that the woman said she couldn't remember anything that had happened which might be taken that she was extremely drunk and therefore not capable.
The connundrum here is how could she be thought able to consent to his friend but not to Evans. Logically you would think if Evans was guilty then his friend must also be guilty (because her intoxication would be about the same). The initial appeal could not take the vagaries of the jury's decision into account, or apply logic to it. The jury's decision is assumed to reasonable. So the appeal was thrown out.
The sooner the review of the case takes place the better. But people who are saying he should show remorse are missing an important point. To show remorse he would in effect admit he raped the woman. As soon as he does that his attempts to clear his name fail.
She went back with macdonald which would imply consent. Evans turned up when she was in no fit state and raped her.
Don't let the facts get in the way of the pro-Evans argument.
I've only read bits and bobs of the case but if she remembers going to the room with the first bloke but not Evans did they take drinks to the room? It just doesn't strike me as the kind of place with a hotel mini bar.
Not agreeing particularly with any of the stances - just couldn't work out where her memory block came in.
The connundrum here is how could she be thought able to consent to his friend but not to Evans.
By being unable to consent to both of them, but McDonald having spent more time with her would have argued that he saw and heard enough of her to reasonably believe she was consenting (even though his belief was in reality wrong).
Evans' reasonable belief argument would have been much weaker as he hardly spent any time with her before diving in, was probably an unexpected participant, and doesn't seem to have engaged beforehand in what you'd call a conversation or much of anything else with her. The law says that what/how much you did to try and judge consent has to be taken into account and Evans seems to have done very little.
So they may have given McDonald the benefit of the doubt, but not Evans, whose general behaviour that night seems to have been even more sleazy than McDonald's.
Yes aside from the numerous cases every day that go through correctly, you have made up a jury deciding best to convict one of them, a story a juror once said and 1 actual wrongful conviction.
.
To clarify this remark I was in fact the foreman of the jury when that remark was made. Seconds later another juror said yes, if we say he is guilty we can all go home now. I know the process is not perfect but I did not realise it could be that bad until I saw it for myself.
As for my somewhat provocative remark about harassment the law makes a judgement on fact not on the status of perceived third party victims. Unfair? Probably but that is the way it all works. There is a current case where a girl reported her alleged rape to the police who subsequently decided there was not enough evidence for a prosecution. The alleged rapist is now taking her to Court for defaming his character. That is another example of how the law can be manipulated by those whose behaviour is less than acceptable in the eyes of the general public.
I've only read bits and bobs of the case but if she remembers going to the room with the first bloke but not Evans did they take drinks to the room? It just doesn't strike me as the kind of place with a hotel mini bar.
Not agreeing particularly with any of the stances - just couldn't work out where her memory block came in.
In the case notes that fact seems to be sketchy. It's said she couldn't recall anything that happened after 3am. But she also said she "vaguely remembered" being in a kebab shop after leaving the club, which was around 3am. This was shortly before she met McDonald. Then she arrived at the hotel with him at 4:15am, so presumably she remembered nothing of her encounter with either man.
In the case notes that fact seems to be sketchy. It's said she couldn't recall anything that happened after 3am. But she also said she "vaguely remembered" being in a kebab shop after leaving the club, which was around 3am. This was shortly before she met McDonald. Then she arrived at the hotel with him at 4:15am, so presumably she remembered nothing of her encounter with either man.
That was how I thought it panned out but it was posted above "She went back with macdonald which would imply consent. Evans turned up when she was in no fit state and raped her."
That sounds like she went there with McDonald and was fine but something happened in the room to make her end up 'in no fit state' (more alcohol being the most obvious) but I couldn't work out where from.
That was how I thought it panned out but it was posted above "She went back with macdonald which would imply consent. Evans turned up when she was in no fit state and raped her."
That sounds like she went there with McDonald and was fine but something happened in the room to make her end up 'in no fit state' (more alcohol being the most obvious) but I couldn't work out where from.
Yeah, that poster's history suggests they tend to take an extremely facile view of things. Probably read the case summary in The Sun.
That was how I thought it panned out but it was posted above "She went back with macdonald which would imply consent. Evans turned up when she was in no fit state and raped her."
That sounds like she went there with McDonald and was fine but something happened in the room to make her end up 'in no fit state' (more alcohol being the most obvious) but I couldn't work out where from.
I think it's that the jury considered her to have been incapable of consent all the time she was with CMc & CE. The different verdicts are down to how the men behaved. I think CMc was probably lucky to get a not guilty verdict
I think it's that the jury considered her to have been incapable of consent all the time she was with CMc & CE. The different verdicts are down to how the men behaved. I think CMc was probably lucky to get a not guilty verdict
Sounds like there were a whole lot of ifs, buts and maybes in this case and it could quite easily of swung a few ways.
I wonder if it makes people on xmas parties think twice before they bed a colleague or stranger when they're both full of drink.
Sounds like there were a whole lot of ifs, buts and maybes in this case and it could quite easily of swung a few ways.
I wonder if it makes people on xmas parties think twice before they bed a colleague or stranger when they're both full of drink.
Just on your last sentence... I thought about that too. I used to work with a girl who was very professional and quite brilliant at her job, but every Friday night or office outing she got drunk to an almost paraplegic state after which she would throw herself (quite literally) at most men in the office, sit on their lap, hug and try to kiss them asking them to come back to her place. She remembered none of it the next day but if one of the men took her up on her numerous offers, they could have been in a similar position to Evans.
Just on your last sentence... I thought about that too. I used to work with a girl who was very professional and quite brilliant at her job, but every Friday night or office outing she got drunk to an almost paraplegic state after which she would throw herself (quite literally) at most men in the office, sit on their lap, hug and try to kiss them asking them to come back to her place. She remembered none of it the next day but if one of the men took her up on her numerous offers, they could have been in a similar position to Evans.
It is so easily done. Its frightening the situation someone can end up in when they genuinely thought something was consentual.
Can people stop bumping this thread, I was hoping it would die yesterday. This is the Football subsection in the Sports section. Can we have some real threads at the top please?
Can people stop bumping this thread, I was hoping it would die yesterday. This is the Football subsection in the Sports section. Can we have some real threads at the top please?
There are plenty of actual football threads. Nobody's stopping you from contributing to them.
Comments
At least it's possible to scrutinise and discuss how the supporters come to their conclusions over his innocence.
Those who keep going on about the fact that he was found guilty by a jury give me the impression that they have never experienced the mindset of a jury first hand.
I could well imagine a jury in this case saying we can't let them both off, it wouldn't look good in the papers. Perhaps an exaggeration but one juror once put forward to me that the defendant was from a rough area so he must be guilty.
Another Evans, Timothy, was once declared guilty by a jury and subsequently hanged by the neck until dead. It came to light later that a certain John Christie did it at the infamous 10 Rillington Place.
Although many would like to see this Evans hanged too I see no reason why he should not be allowed to play football. He may also have a case against his abusers under the Harrasment Act . Food for thought and of course IMHO.
Indeed. I've read many cases where it was discovered the jury used some ridiculous means to make their decision, ranging from getting drunk and consulting a ouija board, to simply saying "we'll just find them both guilty, sometimes life isn't fair and it doesn't matter if they're innocent" because they couldn't be bothered to spend days deliberating and examining the evidence. Discrimination has also been a constant problem, historically.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that happened in this case, but thinking a conviction alone always means a person is 100% guilty is foolish (the corollary is also true; an acquittal does not mean no crime was committed). I prefer to take each case on its merits.
Yes aside from the numerous cases every day that go through correctly, you have made up a jury deciding best to convict one of them, a story a juror once said and 1 actual wrongful conviction.
Again I note that you offer nothing of the harassment received by the victim in all of this just poor old Ched.
Nice bit of perverse logic there! The person who's known to have been seriously harassed is the victim - and that isn't Ched Evans.
The problem may be in how the jury took the direction they were given. They were asked to consider the evidence against the two defendants separately, but the evidence was linked by one common factor. The capability of the alleged victim to give consent. There was CCTV footage of the woman walking about in the hotel foyer apparently fairly sober. This may well have helped Evans' friend be found not guilty. However if the jury ignored this evidence in Evans' case, as he wasn't present at the time, all they had to go on was that the woman said she couldn't remember anything that had happened which might be taken that she was extremely drunk and therefore not capable.
The connundrum here is how could she be thought able to consent to his friend but not to Evans. Logically you would think if Evans was guilty then his friend must also be guilty (because her intoxication would be about the same). The initial appeal could not take the vagaries of the jury's decision into account, or apply logic to it. The jury's decision is assumed to reasonable. So the appeal was thrown out.
The sooner the review of the case takes place the better. But people who are saying he should show remorse are missing an important point. To show remorse he would in effect admit he raped the woman. As soon as he does that his attempts to clear his name fail.
She went back with macdonald which would imply consent. Evans turned up when she was in no fit state and raped her.
Don't let the facts get in the way of the pro-Evans argument.
I've only read bits and bobs of the case but if she remembers going to the room with the first bloke but not Evans did they take drinks to the room? It just doesn't strike me as the kind of place with a hotel mini bar.
Not agreeing particularly with any of the stances - just couldn't work out where her memory block came in.
By being unable to consent to both of them, but McDonald having spent more time with her would have argued that he saw and heard enough of her to reasonably believe she was consenting (even though his belief was in reality wrong).
Evans' reasonable belief argument would have been much weaker as he hardly spent any time with her before diving in, was probably an unexpected participant, and doesn't seem to have engaged beforehand in what you'd call a conversation or much of anything else with her. The law says that what/how much you did to try and judge consent has to be taken into account and Evans seems to have done very little.
So they may have given McDonald the benefit of the doubt, but not Evans, whose general behaviour that night seems to have been even more sleazy than McDonald's.
To clarify this remark I was in fact the foreman of the jury when that remark was made. Seconds later another juror said yes, if we say he is guilty we can all go home now. I know the process is not perfect but I did not realise it could be that bad until I saw it for myself.
As for my somewhat provocative remark about harassment the law makes a judgement on fact not on the status of perceived third party victims. Unfair? Probably but that is the way it all works. There is a current case where a girl reported her alleged rape to the police who subsequently decided there was not enough evidence for a prosecution. The alleged rapist is now taking her to Court for defaming his character. That is another example of how the law can be manipulated by those whose behaviour is less than acceptable in the eyes of the general public.
In the case notes that fact seems to be sketchy. It's said she couldn't recall anything that happened after 3am. But she also said she "vaguely remembered" being in a kebab shop after leaving the club, which was around 3am. This was shortly before she met McDonald. Then she arrived at the hotel with him at 4:15am, so presumably she remembered nothing of her encounter with either man.
That was how I thought it panned out but it was posted above "She went back with macdonald which would imply consent. Evans turned up when she was in no fit state and raped her."
That sounds like she went there with McDonald and was fine but something happened in the room to make her end up 'in no fit state' (more alcohol being the most obvious) but I couldn't work out where from.
Yeah, that poster's history suggests they tend to take an extremely facile view of things. Probably read the case summary in The Sun.
I think it's that the jury considered her to have been incapable of consent all the time she was with CMc & CE. The different verdicts are down to how the men behaved. I think CMc was probably lucky to get a not guilty verdict
Sounds like there were a whole lot of ifs, buts and maybes in this case and it could quite easily of swung a few ways.
I wonder if it makes people on xmas parties think twice before they bed a colleague or stranger when they're both full of drink.
I read the case notes and how the judge condemned Evans.
Judging by your sweeping generalisations id imagine you get your 'facts' straight from the daily mail.
Just on your last sentence... I thought about that too. I used to work with a girl who was very professional and quite brilliant at her job, but every Friday night or office outing she got drunk to an almost paraplegic state after which she would throw herself (quite literally) at most men in the office, sit on their lap, hug and try to kiss them asking them to come back to her place. She remembered none of it the next day but if one of the men took her up on her numerous offers, they could have been in a similar position to Evans.
It is so easily done. Its frightening the situation someone can end up in when they genuinely thought something was consentual.
Yep, which is why I understand how in his head Evans is convinced to this day that the sex was consensual.
There are plenty of actual football threads. Nobody's stopping you from contributing to them.
It's not easily done. That is a truly horrifying thing to say.
What's frightening is having men climb on top of you when you tell them no
What's frightening is when you tell them no and they wont leave
What's frightening is waking up in bed with a man you have no memory of meeting
What's frightening is that there are men out there who think it's acceptable to have sex with someone so drunk they can't look after themselves
But hey it's easily done isn't it! Stupid girls practically asking for it eh.
The things you said have nothing to do with the facts of this particular case though.
Threads like this make it harder to find the good threads, especially when they are constantly bumped.
Stop demonising men. Maybe certain people should learn to control their drink.