It was her evidence that she had two glasses of wine, four large vodka's and a sambuca, she arrived at 1.30 and left at 4.00 and when tested by the police they found barely any trace of alcohol. At the end of the day, there was almost no evidence in this case, it was her word against his and they believed her. Personally, I remain amazed that he was convicted, it's nowhere near convincing enough for me and considering she claimed that she couldn't remember consenting with either player, I can't see how the he'll they found one guilty and one innocent when the evidence against them both was the same. Obviously only those involved know what really happened, but the more I read about this case, the less convinced I am about his guilt.
The evidence wasn't the same. She went to the hotel room willingly with one, but not the other. It clarifies that in the transcripts.
She did go willingly with him, but the whole case was based on the fact she was too drunk to be capable of consenting and that applied to both of them. I'd initially thought that she'd consented with one, but not the other and that's why he got off, but her evidence was that she couldn't remember consenting with either.
The text elaborates the difference. I think it suggested an implied consent. There's certainly a clear difference in the evidence between the two, and Evans defence team are arguing against the initial 'memory' expert they introduced. Three or more QC's looked at the specific elements of the case Evans defence put forward and supported the original verdict.
For the appeal to be granted, Evans had to prove that the original judge got something wrong, they failed to do so, but having read the judgement, I think they failed to understand that the judge's directions to the jury were flawed.
4 double vodkas, two "large" glasses of wine and a Sambuca according to the Daily Mail. She went to the kebab shop at 3:00am and has no recollection of anything after that time. According to that she had around 20 units of alcohol in 3 hours as she finished work at midnight. It could be more depending on what a large glass of wine is and whether the Sambuca was more than just one shot. How that would affect her depends on her tolerance to alcohol, her build and many other factors. It is also dependent upon whether she accurately remembered what she had to drink. Then there is the video evidence from the kebab shop and the footage taken by his friends before the curtains were "unfortunately/fortunately" closed. The kebab footage showed her falling over. She was so pissed she left her handbag there. If she said yes to MacDonald and then passed out she wouldn't have been aware that Evans was even in the room. If she didn't know he was in the room she couldn't consent. The jury saw the video footage taken by his mates, it may have convinced them that she wasn't in a fit state to consent.
In what respect are you saying the three or four judges that reviewed the original decision all got it wrong? One of the applications seems to be requesting a reduction in the sentence, which seems to imply guilt. It's interesting to read the discussion on the distinction between memory loss, and the ability to still consent.
We still disagree. I can't prove that Sheffield United offer facilities to offenders, its just the way it appears to me. As it appears to be important I'll do some more research. Marlon King asked the PFA to help him contest his dismissal from Wigan because he claimed he was innocent, this request was allegedly refused.
She drank enough to make her drunk, but enough to make her forget everything that happened that night? Not for me. This isn't some innocent little girl, she was out on the piss tooting coke two nights earlier, I'm just not buying it.
I've had nights where people have met me and had conversations (and much more) with me, yet I have absolutely zero recollection and no idea how I ended up where I slept. Other nights I can drink more and recall everything.
The three judges didn't retry the case, they were just tasked with finding flaws in the original judge's handling of the case, on specific points raised by Evans lawyers. They thought there was nothing wrong with the judge telling the jury that drugs taken two days earlier may have affected her ability to remember, but I believe it was very wrong. There's no way that drugs taken two days earlier had any bearing at all on that night and considering that the entire conviction was based on her claim that she was too out of it to consent, I believe he was wrong to direct the jury on that point.
I've never said they did retry it, it's always just been about the specific points raised by Evans Lawyers. I think that ability to scrutinise those finer points makes their decision far more robust. Did he direct them that she was too far out of it? He clearly gives a number of options for the jury to consider and even clarifies that drunken consent is still consent. "So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."
We do. It only appears to be important to you. Allegedly? Is that the basis of your argument? Like I said, you seem to go out of your way.
I've watched the video footage of her walking into the hotel and she looks perfectly fine. No staggering whatsoever and even goes back outside to get the pizza. It stinks this.
Why? They are seperate elements of the application; one is seeking an appeal (which takes time) and the other is seeking a reduction of jail time while the appeal may or may not proceed. It is really quite telling that you interpret it as an implication of guilt.
