I think he came on to her but the rest of what you say is correct and exactly why he wasn't found guilty and Evans was.
Having read it again, I'm not sure that's clear either way. But it seems undisputed that she willingly went with him.
I think he came on to her but the rest of what you say is correct and exactly why he wasn't found guilty and Evans was.
As I've said earlier, I don't know the details of the case, but if what you say here is true then that makes it even worse imo, not better.The 'accuser' was the police. The girl never brought the charge at all, the police did, she couldn't remember anything and gave no testimony.
The judge had instructed the jury that drunken consent could still constitute consent so it's obvious, having considered all the evidence, the jury found his behaviour consistent with a guilty verdict.
lets not forget, seeing as you are profiling Evans, we have a girl who chose to go back to a hotel with a stranger to get humped in dubious circumstances, so, where is the profiling of her character? No she was and is portrayed as this virgin in white.
So while you are clearly like the media making out Evans to be a monster this youngun who acted in a way that if she'd been my own daughter would have disgusted me, gets a free pass to act as she wishes without reproach.
The fact she acted as she did suggests being pretty loose in that context so therefor consenting to another guy is not such a stretch of imagination under those circumstances, but when painted as this poor defencless 19 year old, which she is not at all, then of course Evans looks evil.
Sisu, you keep saying they went after Evans because he was high-profile. I don't remember hearing much about it a t the time at all. Did I just completely miss it? As far as I'm aware, the ironic part about the uproar of him maybe playing again is that more people seem to have taken an interest, looked at the case, thought it seemed dodgy and don't think he's a rapist. If he'd been able to just quietly get a job, then he would more likely just be known as someone who was convicted of rape.
Unless I'm compeletely misreading the situation.

There's only Evans and his friends word that she consented but even if she did, a jury and an appeal 'board'? having viewed the evidence still found him guilty. Why do you not accept that? All parties concerned showed the morals of alley cats and I'm sure this sort of thing goes on all the time - except - for what Evans did which was unusual to say the least. Also questionable that it was pre-meditated and was going to happen whether the girl consented or not. He books a room for his friend, his friend texts him to say 'I've got a bird' then he sneaks into the hotel room to do what was planned ???? Who knows. And no the girl isn't being portrayed as whiter than white - how could she be given her loose morals? but she didn't bring the charges and doesn't deserve to have to go into hiding, move, change her name and be unable to go home for Christmas while Evans can walk around freely and carry on with his life - lack of employment aside!Nice way of circumventing the key point, as the judge managed to get the jury to to, her consent, she consented to Evans did she not, he asked and she consented, regardless of the other actions.
lets not forget, seeing as you are profiling Evans, we have a girl who chose to go back to a hotel with a stranger to get humped in dubious circumstances, so, where is the profiling of her character? No she was and is portrayed as this virgin in white.
So while you are clearly like the media making out Evans to be a monster this youngun who acted in a way that if she'd been my own daughter would have disgusted me, gets a free pass to act as she wishes without reproach.
The fact she acted as she did suggests being pretty loose in that context so therefor consenting to another guy is not such a stretch of imagination under those circumstances, but when painted as this poor defencless 19 year old, which she is not at all, then of course Evans looks evil.
Sisu, you keep saying they went after Evans because he was high-profile. I don't remember hearing much about it a t the time at all. Did I just completely miss it? As far as I'm aware, the ironic part about the uproar of him maybe playing again is that more people seem to have taken an interest, looked at the case, thought it seemed dodgy and don't think he's a rapist. If he'd been able to just quietly get a job, then he would more likely just be known as someone who was convicted of rape.
Unless I'm compeletely misreading the situation.
Yeah, you missed it![]()
He was an international footballer who was in great form prior to his arrest, he was high profile and it made plenty of headlines at the time.
I

Also, I have the feeling that this girl remembers a damn lot more than she admits to.
not remembering anything is crucial to this conviction because remembering giving consent literally means there could be no conviction.
Convenient much
That's the entire crux of the issue. That assertion is ridiculous. If consent is given, then who can be in a positon to judge the exact state of mind of the person who made the decision, at the point they made it?You've got that wrong as well. She could still be deemed unable to give consent in the same way a mentally ******ed individual, for example, could be regarded as not able to give the consent they actually gave.
You've got that wrong as well. She could still be deemed unable to give consent in the same way a mentally ******ed individual, for example, could be regarded as not able to give the consent they actually gave.
When the girl woke up in the hotel alone, having vomited all over the place and wet the bed, she couldn't remember what had happened and went to get her handbag to use her phone. There was no handbag and no phone, so she rang her mother from the hotel lobby and when she came to pick her up, she suggested they ring the police. The handbag was handed in to the kebab shop, she'd dropped it in the street outside the shop. Once the police were involved and cctv footage looked at the case began ....As I've said earlier, I don't know the details of the case, but if what you say here is true then that makes it even worse imo, not better.
Were the police present? Obviously not, so upon what did they base their decision to bring charges? The girl must have provided some statement to suggest that there was a case to answer or it wouldn't even be allowed to get to court, surely?
Having made my contribution, I think that we're most of us barking up the wrong tree anyway.
Unless we were at the court case none of us is qualified to pass judgement. We can express opinion on the case, obviously, but that's not really the issue. The point is, regardless of whether the ruling was fair or not, the sentence of the court has been carried out. It is not the prerogative of the media or any pressure group to then decide on whether or not he can continue his career. If they think there is some flaw in the legal process, that the sentence was too lenient perhaps, then they should follow the correct legal procedure- they should not be allowed to take the law into their own hands.
Threatening illegal retribution on a club who consider employing him is also a crime.
Wrong.When the girl woke up in the hotel alone, having vomited all over the place and wet the bed, she couldn't remember what had happened and went to get her handbag to use her phone. There was no handbag and no phone, so she rang her mother from the hotel lobby and when she came to pick her up, she suggested they ring the police. The handbag was handed in to the kebab shop, she'd dropped it in the street outside the shop. Once the police were involved and cctv footage looked at the case began ....
Wrong.
Her mother did collect her, but she took her to her mates house.
The woman then went to work and when she finished her shift at 11pm she went back to the hotel and asked to see the CCTV.
They refused to show her it, but told her that she'd been in a room that was occupied by a couple of footballers. It was at that point she went to the Police.......
££ KERCHING ££