Off Topic The Ched Evans to Oldham decision is...
- Thread starter South West 'Ulltra
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
What she said was irrelevant to the conviction. As you said she could have consented, fell asleep and then forgot what happened. It was the other evidence that convicted Evans not what she could or couldn't remember.
MacDonald had sex with her, it was deemed to be consensual and he was acquitted; Evans had sex with her, it was deemed to be non-consensual, he was found guilty and jailed.
Both men supported each other's claim that all sex was consensual.
She couldn't remember, she made no sex based allegations, it was just another blinding night out for her, but she mislaid her purse.
Why was MacDonald not deemed to have have aided Evans in his alleged rape?
As a so-called innocent party in the events, why was his (MacDonald) version of events not given more credibility and sway in decision making, when he was clearly capable of full recollection?
No matter how ****e any of them are, this is a legal ****-up and a point of law that needs closer scrutiny.
I look forward to the final verdict, if only to highlight how some poster's sanctimonious claptrap can try to dominate a case best left until it concludes.
Both men supported each other's claim that all sex was consensual.
She couldn't remember, she made no sex based allegations, it was just another blinding night out for her, but she mislaid her purse.
Why was MacDonald not deemed to have have aided Evans in his alleged rape?
As a so-called innocent party in the events, why was his (MacDonald) version of events not given more credibility and sway in decision making, when he was clearly capable of full recollection?
No matter how ****e any of them are, this is a legal ****-up and a point of law that needs closer scrutiny.
I look forward to the final verdict, if only to highlight how some poster's sanctimonious claptrap can try to dominate a case best left until it concludes.
If you are being so adamant on this, then you should spell out what the 'other evidence' is that you base your argument on.
I seem to recall there was sexual activity before he left; he set the scene and made it all possible.
I doubt MacDonald's evidence convicted Evans, but more likely the absence of evidence crucial to the verdict - which is why the verdict is squashed and the case to be re-tried.
When this is settled I believe the police and CPS will be heavily criticised.
the other evidence?
to me she is sober-ish in the pizza shop at 254 and walking into the hotel foyer on cctv
she has no more to drink
the porter hears her noshing him off and walks off hearing them having what sounded like consentual sex
what evidence was there that swayed the jury to convict him of rape?
Because I'll be looking for something I haven't seen or believe exists in the same way you do.
Why don't you just support your argument , as it is you making it?
It's been a long topic and there is no search on here, so fill your boots, if it's easy.
Because I'll be looking for something I haven't seen or believe exists in the same way you do.
Why don't you just support your argument , as it is you making it?
It's been a long topic and there is no search on here, so fill your boots, if it's easy.
It is so easy, like taking candy off a baby.
Childish ****e. Try being succinct and saying what it is you are arguing, instead of being vague and consistantly boring?
Do you realise that all evidential material is now subject to confirmation, until we know what the new evidence is and it has the opportunity of being challenged.
We're not talking about a disputed goal, this is about lives.
I thought I'd return to this smug nonsense.
Who the **** do you think you are? What makes you believe you have such a senior role?
Do you see a discussion as a contest? Are you playing a lonely-life one-up-manship?
Do you think that sentence embarrasses me or you?
****er.
A young woman has been threatened and hounded by friends of Ched Evans just because she couldn't remember whether she consented to having sex with him. Yes we are talking about people's lives. You are the one that wants to score points. I presume I'm the sanctimonious poster you referred to. I have set out why I think the jury convicted him scores of times.
But I'll answer your question.
Ched Evans lied to the hotel porter to get the key to the hotel room. Neither MacDonald or the woman knew he was going to turn up.
Evans asked if he could join in and MacDonald walked out. If she didn't consent MacDonald knew if he stayed and joined in it would have been rape.
On the way out MacDonald, according to the porter, asked him to keep an eye on her because she wasn't very well. In court MacDonald denied saying it.
Score points? You are the one who is constantly making statements and pronouncing judgement, instead of doing what the legal system advises - discard previous prejudice and take a new, own view with the benefit of fuller evidence.
Your evidence is flimsy and unreliable.
I have seen you use the subsequent harassment, as something to enforce his previously declared guilt, previously. Do you think that is fair or reasonable?
I think you might do well to await the new trial instead of holding it on here.
For MacDonald to have committed rape she needed to show she didn't consent to having sex. She said she couldn't remember therefore the only logical verdict was not guilty. When I read the evidence and the law I changed my view. Previously I thought MacDonald was guilty. Clearly he wasn't.
The reason why MacDonald is innocent is because she met him in the street, bought a pizza and went back to a hotel room with him. Her actions were sufficient to prove legal consent to having sex with MacDonald. She had to show she said no, which she couldn't do.
Evans is totally different. He didn't meet her in the street. He didn't take her for a pizza and he didn't take her to an hotel room. There is no evidence that the woman and MacDonald discussed a threesome with Evans prior to going to the hotel room. He appeared as if by magic in the room and asked to join in. He had to prove she said yes. He was convicted because the jury thought he was lying when he said she consented. I can understand why they came to that conclusion.
