Well the excesses of football players are brought into the real world. A 23 year old jailed for rape , a career ruined and all because he thinks he's above the law! No excuses here he should be ashamed of himself I hope he learns his lesson in life.
No sympathy for the lad, hope he rots in jail and never plays football again. Also think that that scumbag Lee Hughes should have never played football again after what he did.
This could run a bit longer,as there is every chance he will appeal,since the other guy walked free. Either way,they both behaved outrageously.
I'm not going to judge this situation, as I don't have all the facts, but if he did rape the girl, then he deserves all he gets, but it's a bad combination, young players ego's, drink, and the girls that latch on to this situation. How could she accuse them of spiking her drinks, when they only first met her on a street corner while waiting for a taxi to go back to their hotel, and she apparently wanted to go back, the trouble is she consumed large amounts of alcohol, and so did they, and we have all seen the state of youngsters on closing time, and some of the girls are worse than the boys, so I'm not going to make a judgement on this, as there is too much contributing factors by the female involved, and I'm in no way excusing there disgusting behaviour in taking advantage, but they had all been drinking heavily by the looks of things. What I'm disappointed with is the fact that these players should be above reproach, and are supposed to be roll models!
Fact is Phill, the law says that if she's too pissed to give consent then there's no consent. Court of Appeal will only overturn a conviction on an error of law - usually if the judge got the summing up wrong which I doubt. The jury heard everything and believed the girl. My only concern is that if she didn't remember much of what happened how can she remember whether she gave consent or not? But then again I haven't heard the evidence. The jury must have been sure to convict. Silly boy.
CCTV footage played to the jury showed McDonald being approached by the complainant and getting into a taxi which she flagged down. He then took the woman, whom he and Evans had earlier seen fall over in a kebab shop, to a Premier Inn hotel room that Evans had booked in McDonald's name. In an interview with the police, she said she believed her drink was spiked that night because she was used to drinking heavily and had never 'blacked out' before. The court heard that both men admitted they had sex with the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, but the prosecution said she was too drunk to consent to sexual intercourse. The jury first returned a not-guilty verdict on McDonald after four hours. So they both have sex with a woman that had had a few, one is found not guilty while the other is? very strange! She admits to being a heavy drinker, and assumes that this night because she had gone too far with her drinking, her drink was spiked? CCTV footage shows her in the street going over and approaching McDonald, she by her own admission wanted to go back with him to his Hotel room? She was apparently to drunk to consent to sex, but not to drunk to walk over to McDonald in the street, and agree to go back to his hotel room?? So what was she thinking would happen in the hotel room! Tiddlywinks? Every question put to her, regarding consent, was met with I can't remember!! but yet she remembers the kebab shop, she remembers eating a piece of Pizza, there too! If as the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. then why was McDonald found not guilty? McDonald was the main player in this situation, and Ched Evans arrived late in the proceedings, yet is found as the guilty one, because she could not remember consenting, simply not being able to remember consent, does not constitute rape. I hope he gets off on appeal, the whole thing just doesn't add up.
"why was McDonald found not guilty?" From the above his case is clear cut. She agreed to go to his hotel room (not for tiddleywinks!) but didn't agree to sex with Evans. I agree it does sound ropey though.
Ropey is an understatement, so she didn't agree to have sex with Evans? how does she know? By her own admission she can't remember? or is she saying she can remember having sex with Evans, but can't remember giving consent, but then the judge concluded that no force or violence had ever taken place either??? ....................
For all the points you raised, Phil, points that also occurred to me, I think that this decision is highly dubious. There seems to be selective recall, or non recall, going on here and I'm wondering if there was more concrete evidence against against Evans that convicted him. If that is the case, why wasn't it reported? How can one man, the man that instigated the situation, be found not guilty whilst the other is convicted? If the lady can't remember whether she gave consent or not, does that not constitute REASONABLE DOUBT? To be honest, had I been on that jury, armed with the "evidence" thus printed, I might well have voted not guilty. I have a daughter and I make no bones about it, should she be a victim, I would kill the man responsible if I ever got my hands on him. I do not condone rape in any way, shape or form. It is a vile, disgusting and filthy crime deserving of life imprisonment in my opinion. BUT let's be certain the accused is guilty; that there were no extenuating circumstances to cast doubt on things. In this case it seems to me that Evans has a strong case on appeal - just a layman's opinion, of course. If nothing else, this verdict fires a very real warning shot across the bows of footballers who seem to get caught up in this type of situation all too often.
Sorry but he's been convicted, he's guilty ! No excuses here, and unless something new comes into the case his appeal if he goes for one will be unsuccessful.
Agree there Ivor, regarding every word you have said, and while what these boys have done is shameful to say the least, there is to me far to much doubt, to bring a conviction, and had I been on this Jury too, they both would have been found not guilty, I've had some extensive experience of Jury service, having been called no less than three times in the past, and have sat on a jury that convicted a *****phile, back in 2008. I think It's now high time for clubs to educate footballers regarding these types of situations.......... I'm off to watch the Swans somewhere!...............
One of their brothers and a mate were watching and supposedly tried to film through the window. So perhaps what may have been filmed lead to the conviction.
"He's been convicted, he's guilty!" Is that a fact, Valleyswan? In 1949 Timothy Evans was convicted of murdering his wife and child and hanged in 1950. Guilty? Absolutely not!!!! It transpired that John Christie was responsible, along with other murders, and Evans was innocent. Christie was also hanged. Fat lot of good that did Evans. That dismissive statement of yours is dangerous. Mistakes can be made and it is admitted that many innocent people have been executed in this country; people who were "convicted" and therefore "guilty". Judges, juries, the entire legal profession and most certainly, the police, are human beings who are flawed. We all are. I'm not saying that Evans is innocent. I'm not saying he's guilty. Like you, I DON'T KNOW. I'm not sure that all the facts have been revealed in the media but, from what I have read this far, it seems to me that reasonable doubt exists and, on that basis, Evans is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. Whether or not he is guilty of rape, his conduct is absolutely shameful, but shameful conduct alone does not merit a five year jail sentence, the trashing of a person's career and a criminal record. I will reserve further judgement until further facts emerge as they surely will but I will end by saying that if he IS guilty then he deserves everything he gets.
Yes mistakes happen, but to say that there are doubts on the conviction suggests you have heard all the evidence, have you ? Point is that he has been convicted, he is guilty, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty, now that has been done you question that.
