Dev, You seem to be under the impression that I think Evans is innocent. That isn't the case. I do understand what you're saying. Going by the law as it stands then Evans is guilty of rape. What, for me, casts doubt on the whole case is that another man committed the same crime, on the same night, but was found not guilty. Are you trying to tell me that there isn't a tiny part of you that thinks that if the first bloke to have sex with her is innocent then the same verdict should be applied to the second man?
From what I have read it appears that everything Evans said in his defence or under cross examination in the witness box appears to be at best untruthful and at worst blatant lies. The evidence shows that he turned up at the Hotel uninvited, MacDonald said he never invited Evans so that much is clear. But Evans says he was invited although he has no text message to prove that was indeed the case. Secondly, Evans said that the girl was not "Very Drunk", this evidence is contradicted by the receptionist at the Hotel who said she was falling down drunk. He also LIED to the receptionist and said the room was his, (it was booked in his name). That's how he got a key card, by lying. When MacDonald left the hotel he told the receptionist that the "Girl in that room" is a bit sick, and to keep an eye on her. Evans sneaked out the fire exit. Evans stated that the reason he left the Hotel immediately after sex was "In case his girfriend phoned him at the hotel". Now i'm pretty cynical by nature i'll admit, but that seems a trifle illogical to me. He was not concerned that she may have phoned him in the middle of him having sex in a hotel at 2 in the am but he was worried sick that she had some magic GPS tracking device planted in his phone? MacDonald claims that the girl returned with him to HIS hotel room and the jury believed him. They believe in his case that she gave consent. I personally don't see the logic but as I have said consistently, I never heard all of the evidence, only what has been reported. Due to Evans' evasiveness and apparent lies they probably simply did not believe Evans side of the story and were unwilling to give him the benefit of "Reasonable" doubt which they allowed MacDonald. Don't forget while they were both accused of rape the two men's actions were different so the jury did not have to acquit or convict both men or none at all, It may have gone the other way and MacDonald would have been found guilty and Evans acquitted, although that was always a doubtful outcome going by the evidence i've read.
This was like pulling teeth, every day for the last few days people were turning up on this thread and asking me as if I was on the jury.
One of the vagaries of Justice, i'm never allowed to sit on a jury, i'm barred because of my previous occupation, yet ex convicts can be called for jury service. Just as well, i'd find every **** guilty.
Good post Dev. In the last few days we've discussed plenty of holes and doubts, I'm sure his legal team will exploit those and more besides.
To be honest the first I heard about this case was when I read it on here a day after he'd been convicted.
It is interesting how the laws re rape have changed over the years. At one point, the woman had to say 'no' for it to be classed as rape. Up until relatively recently I believe it was legal to rape your wife too. I'm surprised BBC 2 haven't shown a program about it yet. It could be called "Rape Through The Ages" or something.
Read today that Radio 4/5? are soon to be broadcasting live abortions. I don't bother looking too deeply into court cases, I just post a load of questions on here and get Dev to do the research.
The reason I mentioned the judge is simple. Although it is the Jury who decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused, it is the Judge who decides what is correct in law. ST asked/stated "if Evans is guilty of rape then so should the first bloke", I specifically mentioned the Judge because if that statement/question was correct, then the Judge would have declared that both men were innocent. The fact is - as I explained - both men were on trial seperately, both men's actions were completely different and there is nothing in law which states that both men had to be convicted or both cleared. Besides, my response to ST was obviously rhetorical as the Judge clearly does know the law and ST obviously knew that.
Sorry Dev, but virtually none of what you've said above is relevant and McDonald seems to have indicated his own guilt when talking to the receptionist, not made himself sound innocent. As the guy had already noticed that she was "falling down drunk" when she entered with McDonald, this would suggest that not only was she in no condition to consent, but that he was well aware of it, too. His statement about her being a bit sick and needing an eye kept on her would support that.
About time skanky women started taking responsibility for themselves. Basically this woman is being told she can go out this weekend and get just as trollied, bag another guy and claim rape. If she didnt get so ****ing wasted she wouldnt get in these situations. This applies to half the ****ing creatures out in our towns and cities these days. Funny how its reported she had no trace of any alcohol in her system either only coke and weed........ shes a ****ing wreckhead thats the only thing for certain. £20 quid says shes out right now halfway to ****edville.
