You don't have to prove at the moment of penetration that she consented. You have to prove that it was reasonable that consent had been given. The evidence showed her bumping into MacDonald, getting in a taxi, getting out of the taxi and going to MacDonald's hotel room. They then had sex. She didn't remember what happened or whether she consented or not. Her time with MacDonald implied that she knew what was going to happen and was agreeable. As a result MacDonald was found not guilty. As to Evans. MacDonald texted Evans and said "I've got a bird". It didn't say I've asked her and she agrees to a threesome. Evans said in the witness box he was interested in who it was and if he knew her so he went to the hotel. No indication that he had been invited to join in. On getting to the hotel he lied to get the key. Thefirst MacDonald knew about a possible threesome was when Evans walked in whilst he was shagging her. MacDonald then stopped and let Evans take over. That is the moment when Evans has to show that she consented. It was the first time she'd meet him. If she was too pissed to consent he is guilty. When MacDonald left he told the porter to look out for her because she was sick, although he denied saying it at the trial. When Evans left he want down the fire escape. There is no evidence of her in Evans' company other than the video footage taken by his brother or mate. No evidence that she went willingly with him anywhere. He turned up unannounced in the hotel room and shagged her. If she'd passed out or blacked out she couldn't consent and it was rape. The jury decided she hadn't consented and it was rape.
He didn't prove it at all. He provided no definitive proof that he had consensual sex with the woman in question, as he couldn't, same as she couldn't prove that the converse. The jury merely gave him the benefit of the doubt, that does not constitute proof and holes your entire premise on this case.
It comes down to the state she was in when he arrived unannounced in the hotel room. The evidence included the video taken by his brother or his mate. It included the evidence of the porter, including MacDonald saying she was ill when he left. The jury would have made a decision after seeing the evidence and hearing him in the witness box. They didn't believe him and I can see why. If he thought she was that pissed he could have just watched. It was his choice. Maybe he thought he'd never get caught. Who'd believe a drunken 19 year old against an international footballer if she ever complained. Anyway she'd never remember what happened.
His barristers convinced the jury that she consented under the English criminal law, that's proof of his innocence, unless they go for a retrial, which I doubt they will.
The night porter also testified that he went and listened outside the room after Evans had game in and heard the sounds that he considered to be 'normal' consensual sex When Evans openly admitted having sex with her, before being charged, he stated that she asked him to perform aural sex on here. Given he didn't lie about penetration despite no forsensic evidence being present, why would he lie about that, at that stage? Listen, let's be right. One of the coppers wrote 'Titus bramble?' On his notepad during the first interview. If this had been a couple of ordinary blokes on a night out and the exact same scenario unfolded, the case wouldn't have made it past trying to help the girl find her bag (which was all she was bothered about before the suggestion of 'rape' by the police btw) This entire case was extremely tenuous from start to finish.
You should learn to read properly. They found that the evidence from the CCTV, the taxi driver, the porter and the woman herself showed MacDonald obtained consent to sexual intercourse. All that evidence proved consent. As to your general question, it depends on the circumstances and who you are with. Shagging your wife whilst you're both pissed is unlikely to result in a rape charge. Shagging your mate's one night stand whilst she's comatose is likely to get you convicted.
The judge said that she was incapable of making a decision "[the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."
Did the night porter hear the words Evans said she said? What did he consider normal consensual sex? For some of my generation normal consensual sex was lying back and thinking of England, but whatever you do don't move. I accept that there is no evidence of "violent" rape. The first stop for the police would have been the hotel and the porter. It is a reasonable guess that both Evans and MacDonald knew they'd had sex with her before they walked into the station. Oral sex may float his boat I don't know. She may have been asking MacDonald and he jumped in. He may have lied about what she said, or more importantly the jury thought he was lying. The case wasn't tenuous because he was convicted whilst on the same evidence MacDonald was acquitted. There is video evidence of the state she was in before Evans had sex with her which you haven't really mentioned. That may well have helped persuade the jury she was in no fit state to consent. Alternatively they have filmed the traffic going by because they were so pissed they had the camera the wrong way. If he'd have kept the curtains open he'd have had video evidence of her engaging in energetic consensual sex.
Yes he did after Evans had been found guilty. Its the way the English criminal system works. The defendant is innocent until found guilty. One being found guilty the defendant becomes responsible for his/her actions. It happens in all criminal trials where there is a conviction.
Other than pushing your post counts up, what exactly are you lot trying to achieve in this thread? You're never gonna change the mind of the people you're arguing with, and you're just repeating the same stuff over and over again. It's fascinating in a morbid way.
I want to know how you have earhole sex. How far in do you go? Do you use lube or is the wax alone enough? Does it come out your nose like when you get a swallow with a little reflux? Is it normal practice in a 3way, take an ear each & go for a little "eye to eye contact" between the lugs, so to to speak. Do you both go in together at the same time or do you use the one in, one out, flossing rhythm? On a serious note, is Ched saying he asked for consent but she may not of heard as she had willies in her ears? The plot thickens.
(1) No, Obi, I haven't jumped to any conclusion you want him stoning, that's really quite daft to be honest. It's a play on what the author wrote to emphasise how daft it is and you have done a far better job than me. To be accurate, knowing the way to the gallows doesn't mean you support hanging. You have your opinion and constantly exclude those of others with what comes across as an officious insider knowledge you presume none of us may share. I don't see the point in this part of your response, it's not what I asked you; but what about someone taking a moral standing and making a decision on that (either way) and not being subjected to the mixed messages of the 75,000 Oldham supporters - even the retaliatory gangbangers? (2) Evans said she gave consent, I believe MacDonald said she gave consent (perhaps her mouth was full and it was a tad mumbled - I mean, the pizza must have been delicious ) and the woman herself says she can't remember and was not too concerned about it the next day - just another night out, but lost her bloody handbag and had her drink spiked, she thought, maybe, well possibly, who really cares when she got her man (men), her shag and her pizza (it's rhetorical, don't get indignant)? All he can do is say what he heard, as could Macdonald, no one heard anything different so perhaps he has proven it? But wait, lets see that video again, as she was incapable wasn't she! This lot is the same old circumstantial bollocks being used to prop up a piss poor summary and guidance by the judge. (3) The judge gave them full guidance and some of it looks very suspect, whether from his personal judgment or from the constraints of the justice system he works within. Either way I think it fully deserves a review and do not see how all of your ifs, buts and maybes can make you such an authority - there is too much, it would appear, that we don't know (your posts echo that), but what if we find out there isn't any more to know than what we have now?
He didn't prove anything, he said the same as Evans, that she consented. Any so-called proof came from how the judge, defence, prosecution and, eventually, the jury, read the evidence within the parameters they were given.
Fez, this is what the Appeal Judges said about the Judges' summing up. "The second matter was a direction to the jury that if they found (contrary to the evidence given by the expert called for the applicant) that the complainant had no memory of events in the bedroom, that did not mean that she did not consent. The judge addressed this issue in clear terms. He began by directing the jury in the precise words of the relevant statutory provision: "A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree to sexual intercourse." He then addressed the implications and consequences of the evidence that the complainant had been drinking and had possibly taken cocaine. He said: "There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an individual who is intoxicated. First, it can remove inhibitions. A person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do, or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness. So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be. Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed her capacity to exercise a choice?" He went on to explain: "A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. 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." He went on to direct the jury about the requirement relating to the individual defendant's belief about whether or not the complainant was consenting. He gave clear directions to the jury about how they should approach that issue in the context of the alcohol which had been consumed by the complainant. The court said that those directions to the jury amply encapsulated the concept of the drunken consent amounting to consent. The judge did not use those express words; there was no obligation on him to do so. On occasions when those words are used or the issue is put in that way, it causes umbrage and indeed distress. But that he covered the concept of capacity and choice in his directions to the jury seemed to be clear. The contrary was not arguable. They continued; it was true that the judge did not direct the jury that the complainant had no memory of these events and that they should not take that into account in deciding whether or not she consented to what was happening. But that did not need to be said. That was not the issue in the case. If the judge had indeed suggested that the absence of memory was of possible relevance to the question, he would have had something to say about it. The issue of memory, it will be remembered, was addressed in the course of the trial on the basis that it went to the credibility of the complainant. The defence expert said, in effect, that it was open to question whether she was telling the truth when she asserted that she had lost her memory. In those circumstances the absence of any specific direction on the subject by the judge did not seem to amount to an arguable basis for allowing the appeal. The court examined each of the passages identified in submissions to see whether, taking them individually or cumulatively, they suggested that, having warned the jury against the risk of speculation, the judge then indulged in speculation of his own and offered theories of his own, in particular in relation to the possibility that the complainant had taken drugs on the night in question. In the summing-up the factual issues were carefully identified to the jury and appropriate directions were given to them by the judge. The observations of which criticism is made seem to amount to no more than legitimate judicial comment designed to assist the jury to reach their verdicts. Indeed, on one view the acquittal of McDonald demonstrates that the jury was not improperly influenced, certainly against him. Looking at the summing-up as a whole, it would have been impossible improperly to influence the jury against the applicant without the same occurring in the case of McDonald."
I've just read that the 'fast-tracking' of the investigation into this case by The Criminal Cases Review Commission could take nine months. Seems a ridiculously long time,
