Apology accepted, Bob. But firstly, you didn't respond 'in kind', it was over the top and I didn't insult you. I made a mistake on your name and suddenly I'm a 'twat', but hey I'm over it. Says more about you than me. Move along. Look, you can stamp your foot as long as you like and make this a black and white issue with your proclamation that "murder is murder, rape is rape" but we both know, as do most other posters by the looks of things, that's a pile of horsehit. If you cannot understand the simple concept of degrees in criminality then fair enough. Pointless to keep doing this isn't it?
I would take exception to this statement, just because someone is found guilty of a crime by a Jury doesn't mean they are actually guilty, history is littered with miss carriages of justice, every day someone is found guilty, while being innocent. The justice system is far from perfect, and the Jury system has it's flaws too, if you have ever sat on a Jury (I have twice, last time on a ****phile case), then you will realise it's limitations, and many on the Jury are thick as two short planks. The court do select in their view the most academic Jury group from the waiting pool, for complicated and difficult cases, and on sexual matters such as Rape and Child abuse, there is a significant number of women on the Jury panel, but that said it's not a full proof system by any means..................... PS: You only have to have one or two women on the Jury who are men haters, and the lad is stuffed?
The defence did have their own "expert opinion" that of which stated that the drink consumed was not enough for her to have lost her memory. Maybe the fact she had Coccaine and Heroine (?) in her system made matters worse, but that does not mean that no consent was given. It just means she forgot. So why was McDonald not convicted of rape? She clearly was able to give consent else McDonald would have been in prison too. Or have you an explanation why one got off and the other convicted. There is plenty of doubt, no credible witness, not even the bloody defendant, as she couldn't remember a thing. It all balanced on how drunk she was. Which if the case, and she was deemed too drunk, McDonald should be in prison too. Your jury of peers ****ed up along the line, whichever way you spin it. Who would show any remorse for something they believe or know they did not do, he has always maintained his innocence. Are you in the habit of lying just to make a deal? And as stated, he does not need to show remorse for a crime to be let out early, its part of the whole miscarriage of justice, as innocent people, whether you like it or not, get put away incorrectly by a jury of their peers. And they shouldn't have to be remorseful for something they haven't done to be eligible for parole. yes, that he has served his time that was given to him by the courts. This was not rape in the sense that he drugged her, knocked her out, kidnapped her and forcefully raped her. This is rape in that the courts believe she was not able to give proper consent due to her drunken nature, not that she didn't give consent, there is a BIG difference, its why from now on, us lads have to be careful on a night out.
Phill is right in that juries are fallible - I tend to prefer a judge-led trial system. But as Bob says that's not the point. Evans has the conviction and that's that. But if as a society we are to make convicted criminals continue to pay for their crimes by depriving them of their livelihood after they come out then we're no better than a tinpot country like Saudi Arabia.
What part of convicted without any shadow of DOUBT don't you understand...the lad is a scumbag and i hope he gets everything he will get if he ever plays infront of a crowd again....
So why was McDonald not convicted? Evans was convicted because they said she was too drunk to give proper consent. Fair enough, but then that consent was good enough to get McDonald off for rape. But not Evans, why? Does she look really drunk in this cctv footage, too the point she cannot stand on her own two feet and that she cannot give proper consent. - "CLICK HERE" Because that is what the case hinged on, how drunk she was. And in the same case, 1 was let off, the other convicted. Explain that to me Dai, why is there no DOUBT there for you. Which one is it, too drunk or not? You cannot have it both ways, should both be in prison, or should both be innocent of rape? How they managed to come to two different conclusions when it was all about how drunk she was, beggars belief. And to show that is what the case revolved around Uhhh, she looked just fine in that video.
When you consider the competence of a Jury, many issues are in force, the gender, the academic ability, the inborn prejudice of individual jurors, religious background, professional and class bias etc etc, this list is endless. It's why a Judge directs the Jury so many times throughout a trial, and getting a unanimous verdict is difficult, and why a Judge will send the Jury back down for a majority verdict. In my own experience I have seen first hand on two occasions how this all works out, and how easy it can be for a Jury to get things so badly wrong. When it comes to sexual offenses men rarely like to convict, and see the subject as taboo, and so are prone to let the guilty get off, while woman are more likely to see and feel the situation to the correct outcome as long as they are well balance women on the Jury. I have been on a hung jury where we could not agree upon a verdict and only after extended deliberation from the judge arrived at a majority verdict. It was an experience that taught me how easy it could be to give a wrong verdict. In this particular case I felt sure the accused was guilty, and it took me 2 hours of persuading three jury men that they needed to wake up and smell the coffee, I had no doubt he was guilty as hell, and so did all the women on the jury that day, but one of the doubting men was a police officer in the admin at Swansea central police station, and it was his stubborn refusal to accept the evidence that had the other two lads standing on the fence, I finally convinced the other two male Jurors but not the stupid officer, once we had a majority, and the guilty verdict was announced, out came all his previous convictions for child abuse, YES!! I thought got the bastard, and the officer who was still not convinced at the end shook my hand and apologised for being so doubtful. Not everyone can grasp these issues and my story which is true shows this, If I had not backed the women on the Jury and stood up and forcefully confronted the men sitting on the fence who did not want to convict him, a ****phile would have got away again!..................
Do you think for one second that every aspect of the case was not looked into. the actual case was a long drawn out affair with every avenue taken, you cannot in this country be convicted if there is a shred of doubt and in evens case it was proved without any shadow of doubt he was the main person guilty, as for the others then its obvious the case against them had a doubt and they got off on a technicality ....
It's almost impossible to dissect a case after it's been decided without looking at the transcript so you're all wasting your time. No offence.
There was no proof lol, thats the point. What proof is there that she was raped Dai, she can't remember a bloody thing, or so she syas, maybe she can't, but where is this proof. The only thing that the jury had was words, ideas and expert opinions. No proof whatsoever.
It would be interesting to see the Judge's directions to the jury for sure, but the OP asked whether Evans should be allowed back into football. Judging by some poster's views I honestly think they'd prefer to live in a country where we cut thieves' hands off. "A lot of legal experts" - yes. Some actually are though.
I have the transcript of the appeal in front of me. As I said, it was all about how drunk she was and if she was capable of giving consent. So she has no memory of sex with either, she has no memory from 3am onwards, so does not remember leaving the bar, so how the hell can the jury convict one and not the other lol
This statement is not true and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how our Justice system works and in particular the Jury system.............
Didn't realise you had the transcript, swanselona - good work! Clearly you'd think both men should have been convicted. That would have been the logical result. Phill. I found your jury story interesting but that doesn't make you an expert, mate. . Btw I agree with your points.
the sexual offences act 2003 slightly changed the definition of rape from that of a subjective belief of consent to an objective belief (would a reasonable man think she was consenting).. its very difficult for a court to get inside the mind of the defendant, it does suggest that they had compelling evidence that he should and would have known she was not capable of consenting to sex, though. according to the new legislation, its also possible to be convicted of rape with a genuinely held belief (but not one that a reasonable man would have) of consent, thats how far the law has changed. it is less serious than a violent rape. as a footballer he's probably used to slags being all over him and wanting to get with a footballer, he made a mistake, but the sentence he got reflected that he took advantage of someone drunk, but as dragon says, unless we have access to the full transcript then discussing it on here is neither here nor there!
I agree with you, but for me the cctv footage of her walking into the hotel is enough to say she was not so far gone that she would be deemed not able to give consent, she walks back outside in them silly shoes, alone, unaided, bends over and picks up a pizza box from the floor, if she was as drunk as they made out, she would have been flat on her backside, and not able to walk so easily. There was no way on this earth she was that drunk. The reason he got 5 years, is that is the minimum sentence for rape.
