dont say this Dev. that is an awful thing to say to any father. in this instance why would a jury believe someone who is comatose? if evans is guilty then throw away the key.
Why does he need to - the conviction rate for rape in courts is ridiculously low showing that for someone to actually be convicted, it's gotta be pretty damn obvious. Shows the courts are far from biased towards rape victims, definitely more than this one case (where you don't know the facts past what you've read in the Sun) shows they are biased.
What facts? I can't say if he's guilty or not - I wasn't in the courtroom, I didn't hear evidence and cross examinations so therefore I'm not in a position to make a judgement. All I know is, if a rape case ends in conviction, it's normally a pretty clear case.
Try and look at it from someone else's view is what I meant of course, I though that was clear. Ok let me play Devil's Advocate and look at as if Evans was my son or brother. I would be asking serious questions as to why he was at that Hotel oin the first place, I would also have concerns regarding his overall behaviour, so whether or not he did rape her he at the very least took advantage of a drunk girl. From what I have read and by the letter of the law he was guilty, I don't understand why anyone would think he was deserving of any sympathy or even worse, be made out as if he were the victim. He's not.
I don't think anyone is Dev. I do think that people see something strange about a verdict where a young woman agrees to go back to a hotel with men and agrees to sleep with at least one of them and then has sex with another one and then cries rape. If she cannot remember saying yes to sex with Evans, then we must also assume she cannot remember saying no either. At the very least there is a huge amount of doubt surrounding his conviction and I wouldn't be surprised if he appeals and wins.
Since when did you have to say no to not consent? That seems like a huge can of worms - "you didn't say no so you must have consented"? If you're lying nearly unconscious in a hotel bed with the guy you went back there to have sex with (therefore consented to), he pulls out and let his mate who just showed up take over, how have you consented to the second guy having sex with you? Because you were already having sex, so no biggie? Because you didn't tell him to **** off, so he could "assume" you wanted him?
I would'nt be surprised if he's cleared on appeal because I have zero faith in the Justice system. A couple of things you have said are wrong though, "a young woman agrees to go back to a hotel with men", she did not agree to go back with men, the jury belived she may have agreed to go back to the Hotel with MacDonald but she did not know Evans would turn up uninvited. "If she cannot remember saying yes to sex with Evans, then we must also assume she cannot remember saying no either". That's not what the laws on rape say. The Jury believed that Evans knew she was in no condition to consent, that's why he was convicted. And a few people have argued that he may be innocent.
So if you see a girl passed out in a club, you're allowed to carry her home and **** her unconscious body because she can't say no? Sounds good to me.
May? See, before anything has even happened we have doubt. She may have consented. She may not have. There are so many doubts in this case. There is an assumption of guilt because she says she cannot remember. The only hard evidence that was provided was CCTV footage of her stumbling into the first bloke she slept with. There are so many holes in this case that you've got to ask who was defending him? Himself?
As I said from what I have seen I think it's quite clear he's guilty, the two defendants even contradicted each other's evidence directly, therefore the jury knew at least one of them was lying. They obviously did not think Evans was a reliable witness and the fact that - by his own admission- he tracked down his mate on the off chance that he could have sex with a drunken girl. Why would anyone take what he says at face value.
She had sex with the first man while in an intoxicated state but he is found innocent meaning she was in a stable enough condition to have consented. She had sex with the second man while in an intoxicated state but he is found guilty of rape. She cannot remember having sex with the first man yet he is found not guity. She cannot remember having sex with the second man yet he is found guilty. Does that not strike you as odd?
It looks odd when stripped of the other facts in the case. I've already explained several dozen posts back exactly what the law sates and some of the other evidence in the case. If a drunken man is lying in the street and another man takes his wallet, could the thief reasonably argue that because the drunk did not say "No" then he had received consent to take his wallet? Burglars, do they have consent because homeowners never told them no?
Going by your logic the first bloke must be guilty too as he had sex with her when she was in an unfit state to consent.
Exactly. How did the jury decide that the bloke who had more contact with her before going into the room knew less about the state that she was in?
