Best way to avoid rape accusations is to refuse to have sex with women. It works for Venom. Not once has he been accused of rape.
She did'nt take any action Jip, that again would be the CPS and the Police. If you want to believe that someone could Perjure themselves in open court - as Evans' supporters have claimed - then you have to ask why did his defence lawyer not point out this perjury? Did no one notice it? That sounds totally implausable. Like most of their claims, they do not - and did not - hold up in court, the alleged Tweets, the Facebook comments were not presented to the jury because they could not be authenticated.
If she was sober enough to walk steadily and unaided into the hotel, she was sober enough to consent to sex. And if she was sober enough to consent to sex to Evans' co-defendant, she was sober to consent to sex with Evans. The jury ****ed up badly with this one, Dev, and it baffles me that you can't grasp that.
I have to disagree with you here Jip. It's the law that's ****ed up. The jury was just doing as instructed.
Jip, read this: The jury was directed as follows: "When you come back .... you will be asked to return separate verdicts in respect of each of the two defendants. Accordingly, when you retire you must consider the case, that is to say the evidence for and against each of the two defendants separately. Whilst there is a considerable overlap in that evidence, the evidence is not identical, and whilst your verdicts may very well be the same in the case, they might be different. The important thing for you to remember is your approach to the case for and against the defendants must be considered separately." Given that direction, it was open to the jury to convict both defendants, to acquit both defendants, or to convict one and not the other defendant. That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. 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 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 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.
The desperate cries of a bunch of men who have to ply a woman with masses of alcohol to get their hole. That's all I'm reading here.
It clearly matters in the eyes of the law as I have shown you Jip, that bit I quoted came from the Judges decision at Evans' Appeal hearing, are you saying you know better than an appellant Judge? "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".
Men who would happily make their way to a hotel - without an invitation - to try and shag a drunken girl
