Perhaps actually sitting through all the evidence as the jury did would demonstrate why. But the answer in law is very simple - it isn't rape if you 'reasonably believe' that the woman consented. It is perfectly possible that the woman was unable to consent because she was drunk but one defendant persuaded the jury that he was unaware of this and the other couldn't. The reason I feel so strongly about this is that most of the 'facts' which people are using seem to originate from the Ched Evans is innocent web-site which in itself seems to me to be despicable because it contains footage of the complainant.
You mean footage like this that shows her walking completely unaided. Even going back to retrieve a pizza box. Yet allegedly, she could hardly stand up!....
Not absolutely sure whether they saw the video, but who would say this girl was incapable. There were different cameras, thought they said this one turned up after the trial and was part of the application for quashing the verdict
Please can the mods delete that video. It is outrageous to post that as you can see the complainant. The Jury saw it and convicted Evans anyway so it is of no relevance in any appeal.
You may have thought that but you are wrong. Part of Evans' problem is that he has already lost an Appeal and this evidence is not new so can't affect an appeal anyway. Give the jury some credit. they saw this at the trial as well as all the other evidence and convicted him, how can you watch one video and know he is innocent?
I haven't visited that site, so perhaps people have come to similar conclusions by following the trial? How could the jury have decided that Clayton McDonald was less aware of the victim's state than Evans, despite having spent more time with her? See the complainant? Her face is totally obscured. The two women whose faces you can see are Evans missus and, rather bizarrely, Judy Finnigan. Do you really want the fairly useless footage deleted? It's impossible to tell much from it, so I'm not bothered either way.
PowerSpurs, I'm not arguing that Evans was wrongly convicted, but there are grounds for some doubt and this is why the CCRC has been asked to review this case. I don't criticise you in any way for the view you hold, but I think there are more grey areas than you are prepared to concede. Evans hasn't behaved very well. Whether he's a rapist or not, he's had casual sex with a woman he barely knew whilst already in a relationship. That doesn't earn him my support, but neither do I seek to condemn him now he's served his sentence of imprisonment. Many young men put themselves in the same situation, but don't face the same consequences. He acted immaturely and irresponsibly, thought with his c*ck and not his brains and is no sort of role model to anyone (although I don't think footballers should be judged as such anyway). But I don't accept that he poses a great risk to others by returning to play professional football, I don't think he should be treated differently to other less high profile offenders and I don't think it's right that mob rule should decide what type of criminality merits a person being given a second chance or not by others who are free to make a decision themselves by reference to their own views on the issue.
It was alleged at the trial that when the girl arrived at the Godfather pizza shop that she could hardly stand. In which case she must have sobered up remarkably by the time she arrived at the motel. There is nothing outrageous about the video. It neither names the girl, nor shows her face. The mods may delete it, if they wish. That will not alter the facts, which are plain to see.
I understand that the Ched Evans web-site is under investigation by the CPP for revealing then identity of the complainant. I wouldn't want it up if I was her - she is the innocent party. And as I said it is irrelevant to the argument because it is not new evidence. I see that you are now joining in with those who are second guessing the jury on the basis of seeing a portion of the evidence. Who knows why they convicted but it doesn't seem odd to me that they acquit the guy who took her to the room and convict the guy who came unannounced into the room while the other two were having sex and then claimed she consented for him to in join in.
You are missing the point of my argument. Any double standard that is being applied is in favour of Ched Evans because of his clever publicity. Any normal person would have lost his job and his future career prospects for many years with little comment on being convicted of rape.
How do you know this? And why do you think it is relevant as the jury saw the video which according to you proves the opposite.
If you care to look at the video, you will clearly see the girl walking completely unaided, and not even staggering.
And what relevance is that to whether she then consented to sex with a man she hadn't even met at that point? The Jury saw the video and a whole pile of evidence you seem completely unaware of and convicted Evans. Why do you know better? You have no idea whether the video was relevant to their deliberations.
It doesn't matter what she said if she was intoxicated enough because then its uninformed consent and a 'yes' in that case is the same as a 'no'. The staggering (or lack of) COULD be a sign of her being intoxicated enough for the consent, if even given, to be uninformed, and thus worth jack ****. Or, it could not be, its impossible to tell truly because a person's body and mind can be affected in very different ways and to very different extents by alcohol or substance consumption.
I removed the link to the Evans' website, but I can't see any reason to remove the Youtube link. It doesn't identify the victim in any way and I don't see why people can't come to their own conclusions based upon the available evidence. Could the jury have had other evidence available to them that allowed them to reach their verdicts? Of course, but they're hardly infallible and we can only go by what we have.
Why do you seemingly know better? You seem to miss the whole point of this debate in trying to ram your opinion down everybody else's throat. Yes, the jury delivered a guilty verdict, whilst aquitting the other party. What is very much open to debate, is why? We have seen no evidence, physical or otherwise to suggest that the girl was raped.
And of course people do many things under the influence of alcohol they wouldn't dream of doing sober. That might include "consenting" to sex. Or drinking Jagerbombs. Or driving their car home. In the latter two examples, being too drunk to know what you're going isn't a get out.
This might clear it up a bit, NSIS: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans My problem with it isn't that Evans was convicted, but that both men weren't given the same verdict. I can't understand that at all. I have mixed feelings about his future in the game, too.
