Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 17:19:48 GMT 1
Intoxication isn’t instantaneous though. So she may look ok on the CCTV footage, but by the time Evans turns up she could well be suffering the effects of excess consumption. The Ched Evans website invites people to form an opinion based on a small amount of footage. But a drunken consent is still a consent (I gather anyhows looking to that Crime Line website above)? Both men said she said yes when asked if Evans could join in, both men state that she was an enthusiastic participant (that she asked Evans to perform oral sex on her after agreeing he could join in). He's a dick head for getting himself in that situation but if what the two men say is true (and there is no one, not even the victim, who can disprove that) who wouldn't take that as consent? Its a ugly situation but the thing for me is that when it comes to this sort of thing (as is clear from what is happening to Evens now) you have to be 100% that he did indeed rape the woman. And with what information is available, I'm struggling as to how someone can be. The more you look to the information the more you can understand why he isn't willing to accept the judgement. I'm not talking about consent drunken or otherwise. I don't know enough about the case, or the law to comment, despite the link provided by CP. My point is that Evans supporters are using the CCTV footage as evidence to suggest that she wasn't that drunk. This doesn't take in to account how alcohol consumption affects different people and that getting drunk is a process that effects the brain from the outside in over a period of time.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Rickerton on Jan 4, 2015 17:42:28 GMT 1
It's just so grey isn't it? The only two people in the world who have testified that he had sex with her were the two footballers. If she hadn't consented, why would they incriminate themselves? There is no medical evidence linking Evans to having had sex with her, only his own testimony. If she wasn't so drunk she consented with the first chap, how could that extra ten minutes have made any difference? She passed out during sex? In the summary, it says the following - " It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his (McDonald's) part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant (Evans) knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency."It's not the ten minutes between her going to bed with McDonald and Evans arriving that make a difference as to her consent, but more that McDonald had reasonable grounds to assume that she had given her consent by coming back with him in the taxi to his hotel room. Evans had no such grounds. It's a complicated case and verdict, partly due to its nature and partly due to people's (often understandable) lack of awareness about consent and rape laws. What doesn't help though, and leaves a nasty taste in the mouth about Evans' character, are the myths surrounding the case which have often been inflamed by his legal team. For example, the video footage on his website in which we get to "judge for ourselves" the drunkenness of a rape victim. Sure, in the short clip shown on his website she doesn't look incredibly drunk (although she's clearly not walking in a straight line, so not sober either.) But CCTV footage from inside the kebab shop where McDonald met her shows her unsteady on her feet, squatting, falling over, forgetting her handbag, and the night porter at the hotel also said that she was "incredibly drunk." Funnily enough, none of this evidence appears on Evans' website or is used by his defendants.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jan 4, 2015 18:13:45 GMT 1
But a drunken consent is still a consent (I gather anyhows looking to that Crime Line website above)? Both men said she said yes when asked if Evans could join in, both men state that she was an enthusiastic participant (that she asked Evans to perform oral sex on her after agreeing he could join in). He's a dick head for getting himself in that situation but if what the two men say is true (and there is no one, not even the victim, who can disprove that) who wouldn't take that as consent? Its a ugly situation but the thing for me is that when it comes to this sort of thing (as is clear from what is happening to Evens now) you have to be 100% that he did indeed rape the woman. And with what information is available, I'm struggling as to how someone can be. The more you look to the information the more you can understand why he isn't willing to accept the judgement. I'm not talking about consent drunken or otherwise. I don't know enough about the case, or the law to comment, despite the link provided by CP. My point is that Evans supporters are using the CCTV footage as evidence to suggest that she wasn't that drunk. This doesn't take in to account how alcohol consumption affects different people and that getting drunk is a process that effects the brain from the outside in over a period of time. I see what you mean. By the same token I've seen a fair few people (who are clearly convinced that Evans is guilty) state that the lass was too drunk and unconscious and so couldn't possible have consented. I think that's incorrect as I understand it. Seems a line has been drawn in the sand and plenty are happy to position themselves on one side or the other... As for the video evidence, as you say, she might have been OK then but not a short time later. But then again, she might well have been feeling better a short time later with the effects wearing off.
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Jan 4, 2015 18:18:26 GMT 1
The jury heard the whole case and were convinced he was guilty. The rest of us base our views on what we have put together from the press and the web.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 18:25:50 GMT 1
I'm not talking about consent drunken or otherwise. I don't know enough about the case, or the law to comment, despite the link provided by CP. My point is that Evans supporters are using the CCTV footage as evidence to suggest that she wasn't that drunk. This doesn't take in to account how alcohol consumption affects different people and that getting drunk is a process that effects the brain from the outside in over a period of time. I see what you mean. By the same token I've seen a fair few people (who are clearly convinced that Evans is guilty) state that the lass was too drunk and unconscious and so couldn't possible have consented. I think that's incorrect as I understand it. Seems a line has been drawn in the sand and plenty are happy to position themselves on one side or the other... P As for the video evidence, as you say, she might have been OK then but not a short time later. But then again, she might well have been feeling better a short time later with the effects wearing off. Then those people are just as ignorant and misinformed as the pro - Evans lobby.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jan 4, 2015 18:34:17 GMT 1
The jury heard the whole case and were convinced he was guilty. The rest of us base our views on what we have put together from the press and the web. I've only ever been involved in one court case (in a very minor way) but it struck me at the time how much extra was revealed in court that wasn't reported by the press. Suspect the same in this case that actually the judgement revolved around more than just one bit of evidence or witness statement
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Jan 4, 2015 19:34:33 GMT 1
Big call from Oldham this.
You can look at it one of two ways, either Oldham pride themselves on the fact that they don't discriminate against ex-offenders and in some way aid their rehabilition in football like they did with Lee Hughes or they're in desperate need of a striker and they don't give two sh*ts about what crime potential signings are alleged to have committed.
Many of us agreed that the best route for Ched Evans back into football would be to ply his trade abroad for a while but since it has come to light that this would not be possible due to probation commitments of him being a registered sex offender, he is left with no choice but to hope someone in this country takes a big gamble on him.
I fully support Oldham's decision to offer him a contract if that is the road they want to go down and hope they will not be bullied into backing down by so-called 'mob justice' on social media and Z-list celebrities who might claim themselves to be Oldham fans to get themselves back in the public eye.
It harrows me that allegedly 165,000 people signed a petition for Sheffield United not to take him back as a player. What is the average gate at Brammall Lane? One percent of that at best.
Non-football people should not be interfering in non-football matters and if Oldham are to offer Evans a contract it should be for a footballing reason and nothing else. He should then be allowed to get on with his life, whichever way his appeal verdict goes.
No one has ever been 'banned' from playing professional football as far as I am aware and if we've forgiven serial racists, cannibals and people responsible for murder than there has to be room for Evans to come back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 19:46:16 GMT 1
It harrows me that allegedly 165,000 people signed a petition for Sheffield United not to take him back as a player. What is the average gate at Brammall Lane? One percent of that at best. Sheffield United average home attendance 19,554 which is 11.85% of 165,000.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Jan 4, 2015 19:46:30 GMT 1
It's not mob-mentality it's business.
If nobody turns up to watch because they disagree with his appointment then you're business is effectively finished!
Not only that, how will his teammates feel playing with him? What about your sponsors?
Not only that, how much extra security will be needed with him on the football pitch? How much will this cost? How long before he is attacked on the pitch?
If it was my business I wouldn't be taking the punt on him.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Jan 4, 2015 19:50:44 GMT 1
It harrows me that allegedly 165,000 people signed a petition for Sheffield United not to take him back as a player. What is the average gate at Brammall Lane? One percent of that at best. Sheffield United average home attendance 19,554 which is 11.85% of 165,000. Ah yes, I had my decimal point in the wrong place
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 19:50:53 GMT 1
Non-football people should not be interfering in non-football matters. I think you mean football matters and not non-football matters. You makes I laugh
|
|
|
Post by jonbond on Jan 4, 2015 19:53:59 GMT 1
It's not mob-mentality it's business. If nobody turns up to watch because they disagree with his appointment then you're business is effectively finished! Not only that, how will his teammates feel playing with him? What about your sponsors? Not only that, how much extra security will be needed with him on the football pitch? How much will this cost? How long before he is attacked on the pitch? If it was my business I wouldn't be taking the punt on him. Some daft comments , he won't have any trouble with team mates the PFA are right behind Evans which you would expect . Likewise extra security that won't be needed . I think the mob justice and twitter self rigteousness has gone over the top . He should be given a chance and a club shouldn't be hammered for giving him such .
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jan 4, 2015 19:54:24 GMT 1
It harrows me that allegedly 165,000 people signed a petition for Sheffield United not to take him back as a player. What is the average gate at Brammall Lane? One percent of that at best. Sheffield United average home attendance 19,554 which is 11.85% of 165,000. Good post.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jan 4, 2015 19:56:08 GMT 1
Non-football people should not be interfering in non-football matters. I think you mean football matters and not non-football matters. You makes I laugh Another good post.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Jan 4, 2015 20:00:55 GMT 1
It's not mob-mentality it's business. If nobody turns up to watch because they disagree with his appointment then you're business is effectively finished! Not only that, how will his teammates feel playing with him? What about your sponsors? Not only that, how much extra security will be needed with him on the football pitch? How much will this cost? How long before he is attacked on the pitch? If it was my business I wouldn't be taking the punt on him. Some daft comments , he won't have any trouble with team mates the PFA are right behind Evans which you would expect . Likewise extra security that won't be needed . I think the mob justice and twitter self rigteousness has gone over the top . He should be given a chance and a club shouldn't be hammered for giving him such .
It doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters in business is what the reality is likely to be.
Even Jess Ennis said she would withdraw her name from the club !
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Jan 4, 2015 20:20:21 GMT 1
Non-football people should not be interfering in non-football matters. I think you mean football matters and not non-football matters. You makes I laugh Okay I've had a shocker. But it unfairly diverted the attention away from Matron's claim that he's slept with 'plenty of women over the years' Care to elaborate Pab? A ball park figure perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jan 4, 2015 20:25:33 GMT 1
My money is on him getting acquitted in the end That's what Oldham will be banking on. It's not Evans that is being contested per se, it is the law itself and the way it was applied.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 20:27:40 GMT 1
Yep. I agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 20:44:31 GMT 1
I think you mean football matters and not non-football matters. You makes I laugh Okay I've had a shocker. But it unfairly diverted the attention away from Matron's claim that he's slept with 'plenty of women over the years' Care to elaborate Pab? A ball park figure perhaps? More than you Simon would be a pretty fair call
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Jan 4, 2015 21:12:56 GMT 1
Okay I've had a shocker. But it unfairly diverted the attention away from Matron's claim that he's slept with 'plenty of women over the years' Care to elaborate Pab? A ball park figure perhaps? More than you Simon would be a pretty fair call You've scored more runs perhaps, but I reckon I've got the better batting average
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 21:47:53 GMT 1
It should not be forgotten that he had one appeal already turned down.
"Rejecting the conviction challenge by Evans, Lord Judge, said: "We can see no possible basis which would justify us interfering with the verdict of the jury, which heard all the evidence and reflected on it after careful summing up by the judge."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 21:54:22 GMT 1
Since this news broke today, I have spoken to 6 of my work colleagues, all of whom are Oldham season ticket holders. Of the 6, only one agrees with the move for Ched Evans. The remaining 5 were strongly against the move and 4 said that they would no longer go and watch Latics whilst Evans was at the club.
Whether or not this strength of feeling will be reflected across the rest of the fan base is anyone's guess, but from what I have read so far on the local media there is a majority against this move.
Oldham prides itself on being a family club, I just hope that the Oldham board and management know what they are doing.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 4, 2015 22:21:35 GMT 1
My money is on him getting acquitted in the end That's what Oldham will be banking on. It's not Evans that is being contested per se, it is the law itself and the way it was applied. How so? Evans is either innocent or guilty under the law. He's not in any position to challenge the law itself. Until and unless he is successful in appealing he remains a man convicted of rape by a jury that heard all the evidence and legal arguments, unlike anyone on here. Oldham aren't acting on principle, they just want a decent striker. I suspect they'll pay a heavy price if they sign this one - and justifiably so.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jan 5, 2015 0:10:56 GMT 1
That's what Oldham will be banking on. It's not Evans that is being contested per se, it is the law itself and the way it was applied. How so? Evans is either innocent or guilty under the law. He's not in any position to challenge the law itself. Until and unless he is successful in appealing he remains a man convicted of rape by a jury that heard all the evidence and legal arguments, unlike anyone on here. The case is being reviewed by the body who look at miscarriages of justice. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-30310785 It is interesting it is being fast tracked. They won't take on a case unless there is new evidence or a challenge to the application of the law itself. There was plenty in the appeal which could swing this one www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evansYou can say that a jury of 12 decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt, but the defence says that was on the basis of an incomplete police investigation, a slanted use of expert witnesses and a misapplication of the law itself. Hence ultimately the law itself is under scrutiny - what is the law on alcohol and consent? So whatever his future in football or without, this one ain't going away in a hurry. And frankly, whatever the law says the whole thing is really, really unpleasant. Even if it's not rape, he's cheating on his girlfriend, she's in a hotel with two footballers and their friends are videoing from an outside window. That's an awful situation.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jan 5, 2015 0:34:18 GMT 1
The commission which the case is being looked to by is not actually the appeal body. They are just looking at whether there is any part of the legal process that needs looking at that might then lead to a further appeal, or possibly a retrial
They stressed when the case was reviewed it would take upto 35 weeks to complete, and even if they found cause for a review it would then go back to the courts to review the evidence. So it could well be 18 months to 2 years before this gets decided. That's assuming the commission actually find a reason to review it
Do feel Evans is clutching at straws a bit, but if he genuinely believes himself to be wronged its a long long time to wait, and probably another trial to go through and his life plastered over the papers. No easy ride for a club taking him on either
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jan 5, 2015 1:38:07 GMT 1
Do feel Evans is clutching at straws a bit, but if he genuinely believes himself to be wronged its a long long time to wait, and probably another trial to go through and his life plastered over the papers. No easy ride for a club taking him on either That is true. But then they told the Hillsborough families to get over it and move on. I know that wasn't a criminal case but they were protesting innocence no matter what the papers had said, and if twitter had existed then it would have been awful. The idea that one jury in one trial is always right is clearly not true - you only have to look at the number of cases eventually changed. I certainly hope we don't sign him - the whole thing is corrosive.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jan 5, 2015 18:11:59 GMT 1
My advice to Oldham: he's not Vic Halom.
|
|
|
Post by Riversider on Jan 5, 2015 18:17:17 GMT 1
Since this news broke today, I have spoken to 6 of my work colleagues, all of whom are Oldham season ticket holders. Of the 6, only one agrees with the move for Ched Evans. The remaining 5 were strongly against the move and 4 said that they would no longer go and watch Latics whilst Evans was at the club. Whether or not this strength of feeling will be reflected across the rest of the fan base is anyone's guess, but from what I have read so far on the local media there is a majority against this move. Oldham prides itself on being a family club, I just hope that the Oldham board and management know what they are doing. Yet they were happy to see Lee Hughes ply his trade at the club? Strange that....
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jan 5, 2015 18:22:54 GMT 1
Since this news broke today, I have spoken to 6 of my work colleagues, all of whom are Oldham season ticket holders. Of the 6, only one agrees with the move for Ched Evans. The remaining 5 were strongly against the move and 4 said that they would no longer go and watch Latics whilst Evans was at the club. Whether or not this strength of feeling will be reflected across the rest of the fan base is anyone's guess, but from what I have read so far on the local media there is a majority against this move. Oldham prides itself on being a family club, I just hope that the Oldham board and management know what they are doing. Yet they were happy to see Lee Hughes ply his trade at the club? Strange that.... They might not have been, mind. Be interesting to know whether they did still attend when Hughes was playing for them and why they might see this differently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 18:31:20 GMT 1
Yet they were happy to see Lee Hughes ply his trade at the club? Strange that.... They might not have been, mind. Be interesting to know whether they did still attend when Hughes was playing for them and why they might see this differently. In response to the question I do know that 3 of my colleagues were certainly far from happy and as a result stopped going to watch Latics after Hughes was signed. One didn't renew his season ticket for a number of years.
|
|