As I explained, perhaps the jury thought she had given consent to MacDonald. I don't know for sure, only the jury knows.
Ched Evans
- Thread starter PleaseNotPoll
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
As I explained, perhaps the jury thought she had given consent to MacDonald. I don't know for sure, only the jury knows.
It doesn't appear to make any sense though, does it?
Even the judge seemed to be suggesting that.
It makes sense if the Jury believed that Evans turned up at the Hotel uninvited, which is what MacDonald claimed in court.
That doesn't prove she didn't agree to have sex with him.
If she cannot even remember having sex with the first bloke how can anyone say with any certainty what she agreed or didn't agree to with the second bloke?
That's my issue with this case.
She did not have to prove anything ST, I don't believe i'm still having to explain this.
She was drunk (out of her head), the jury believed Evans knew that. If Evans knew she was steaming and in no condition to say "No" to his advances then that is "Rape" under English Law.
You are a clever guy, figure it out for yourself.
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 woman said she had no memory of the incident and the prosecution successfully argued she was too drunk to consent to intercourse".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17810574
It's not complicated is it? The Prosecution did not convince the Jury that MacDonald was guilty of rape, so he was cleared. Probably because she agreed to go to his hotel in the first place, but as I have said (for what seems the millionth time) I don't know.
Whether he was invited to the hotel or not is irrelevant.
You're suggesting that she wasn't in any condition to consent to sex, which would apply to both of the accused in the case, not just Evans.
She told the jury the last thing she remembered was being in the kebab shop. So basically from that point on she was too drunk to consent to intercourse WITH ANYONE.
"but as I have said (for what seems the millionth time) I don't know."
Yet you seem pretty certain that he is guilty.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...-not-very-drunk-91466-30787182/#ixzz1ssQhk662
Read Evans's explanations (under cross examination) and decide for yourselves if he's a lying ****.
His whole story is a tissue of lies.
Read Evans's explanations (under cross examination) and decide for yourselves if he's a lying ****.
His whole story is a tissue of lies.
Again, I see nothing there that convinces me that the first bloke did anything different to Chad Evans.
That's my problem with the story. I'm not pretending to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination but if Evans is guilty of rape then so should the first bloke. It may sound simple but, for me, it's either they're both guilty or they're both innocent.
And you know that how? What he said isn't exactly a smoking gun. In fact, the main issue seems to be what state the woman was in. Whatever your opinion about this case, his remarks certainly don't amount to 'a tissue of lies.'
Explain to me what Evans did that was different from what the first bloke did?
Keep in mind the 'victim' can't remember anything after being in the kebab shop.
Look folks it's been a pleasure but if you want to know what I think on any given part of the case "read the whole thread" and stop asking me stupid questions.
I'm a patient person but some of you are taking the piss.
I'm a patient person but some of you are taking the piss.