What she gets out of it is that now officially she was raped, rather than that she got piss drunk and had sex with two blokes completely out of her own volition, which is what by all accounts really happened. So now she's a victim, instead of a promiscuous drunk she really is. Well apparently women aren't responsible for what they do when drunk, they can use the spiked drink excuse, or claim they were raped when they decide they don't like the bloke. Some justice that is
I'm still unclear on how many units of alcohol she has to drink before a drunken shag becomes a drunken rape.
Toby has been banned - so the whole thing has to be worth the trouble... <tobyisafuckinggaybannedcunt>
I think that the verdict's wrong too, purely because it doesn't make any ****ing sense. If Evans is guilty, then McDonald either raped her too or called her rapist and arranged for him to do the deed, which surely makes him guilty of it anyway. Who even lodged the complaint? She couldn't remember what happened or who it happened with, so how did they come to accuse Evans and McDonald? The only evidence against them seems to have been supplied by them. Rape's a horrific crime and those that commit it should be dealt with very harshly, but this case seems like a ****ing mess to me. Even the judge seemed to indicate an incorrect verdict in his summation, when he said that the victim was extremely intoxicated when she bumped into McDonald. Surely he'd be in a better position to judge than Evans, yet he gets off and his mate gets convicted? I'd love to hear the jury's explanation of how they arrived at their verdicts.
To clarify: What is the current definition of rape in law? The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Act) came into force on the 1 May 2004. It repealed almost all of the existing statute law in relation to sexual offences. The purpose of the Act is to strengthen and modernise the law on sexual offences, whilst improving preventative measures and the protection of individuals from sexual offenders. Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if: _ A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis; _ B does not consent to the penetration; and, _ A does not reasonably believe that B consents. The Jury clearly did not believe the victim was in any condition to consent to sex OR they believed that Evans knew she was in no condition to consent, either belief was enough in itself to convict.
OK, it seems the jury decided that he did not reasonably believe that she consented. Puzzling then that they decided that her ability to give consent stopped between the first guy ****ing her and the second. I guess the jury must have decided that she would definitely be up for some but isn't the type of girl who does threesomes.
So if she did consent to have sex with the first guy then the jury should have automatically assumed she was consenting to every Tom, Dick (sic) or Harry who turned up at the Hotel? Is that what you are suggesting? It is nigh on impossible in the UK to get a rape conviction, very few accusations ever reach court let alone see a conviction for rape, the reason? Defendants tend to use the same excuses and from what I have read of this case, the same old tired excuses were rolled out by the defence counsel and the accused, so you'll excuse me if I shed no tears for a convicted rapist. If she did not consent to have sex with Evans then that is Rape. It's that simple really.
Nita Dowell, senior prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in Wales, said Evans, 23, "took advantage" of his victim "who was in no fit state" to consent to sex. Ms Dowell said: "He did so knowingly and with a total disregard for her physical or emotional wellbeing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17791881
So she was in a fit enough state to have sex with the first bloke but not the second? And I suppose someone was in the room to verify this fact?
Apparently she accepted an invitaion to go to the Hotel with the first bloke, maybe the Jury took that as consent? Evans and others (who were watching throught the window, classy) were not part of the deal. From the evidence I have seen Evans turned up after receiving a text message from his mate. Does that sound as if the girl; A: Knew Evans would appear B: Was up for a thresome Besides, the other guys who were watching through the window never took part, probably because they could see the girl was practically unconcious and they knew that if they had sex with her it would likely be classed as Rape.
The court heard that Mr McDonald met the woman and took her back to the hotel room, sending a text to Evans stating he had "got a bird". During Evans' evidence, he told the jury he had gone to the hotel, let himself in to Mr McDonald's room and watched his friend and the woman having sex. It was claimed Mr McDonald asked if his friend could "get involved", to which the woman said yes. (the Jury believed the woman was incapable of - or simply did not give CONSENT because by this stage she was so drunk as to be beyond giving consent). ========================================================================= It looks very much like McDonald "Pulled", texted Evans to tell him, got the girl back to the Hotel and Evans let himself in and had sex with the girl who was by this time out of it. That's what the jury believed it seems.
