I think you'll find at the re-trial that the supposed victim will be proven to be a liar, hence the quashed conviction.
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
-
She said she could not remember having any sex.
So if a guy shares a pizza and a taxi and goes to a hotel room, that is consent?
Undisputed BBC report from the trial:
An interesting read with some very pertinent bits highlighted - there seemed to be a determination to come down heavy on a professional footballer, no matter what.
Fez, yes the law assumes that if two people voluntarily get in a taxi, go to an hotel room any sex is consensual unless the "alleged" victim proves otherwise. The state of the victim is immaterial at the time of the sex unless it is proved he or she was drugged or encouraged to drink to excess. This is to stop any man or woman waking up in the morning and screaming rape because they've changed their minds.
In this case the taxi driver and the hotel porter confirmed the woman was not forced to go to the hotel room. The woman couldn't remember anything that happened so she couldn't prove she said no to MacDonald.
The question I asked given MacDonald and Evans' evidence was why did the jury think they were lying. To reach the verdict they did meant they didn't believe their evidence. It couldn't have been the evidence of the woman because she couldn't remember a thing. She did not contradict what they said. So there must have been other reasons.
Without being in the jury room these are my best guesses. Evans admitted lying to get the spare door key. He closed the curtains so his brother and mates couldn't film what happened. He then snuck out via the fire escape.
MacDonald didn't fancy a threesome and walked out after getting dressed.
MacDonald told the duty manager/porter she was ill and to look out for her but denied saying it in court.
The jury would expect the defendants to say she was sober enough to give consent and did so.
They may even have accepted she was sober enough but didn't give consent to having sex with Evans.
The only certain thing is the jury decided after seeing them in the witness box and hearing all the evidence they were not telling the truth and convicted Evans.
In this case the taxi driver and the hotel porter confirmed the woman was not forced to go to the hotel room. The woman couldn't remember anything that happened so she couldn't prove she said no to MacDonald.
The question I asked given MacDonald and Evans' evidence was why did the jury think they were lying. To reach the verdict they did meant they didn't believe their evidence. It couldn't have been the evidence of the woman because she couldn't remember a thing. She did not contradict what they said. So there must have been other reasons.
Without being in the jury room these are my best guesses. Evans admitted lying to get the spare door key. He closed the curtains so his brother and mates couldn't film what happened. He then snuck out via the fire escape.
MacDonald didn't fancy a threesome and walked out after getting dressed.
MacDonald told the duty manager/porter she was ill and to look out for her but denied saying it in court.
The jury would expect the defendants to say she was sober enough to give consent and did so.
They may even have accepted she was sober enough but didn't give consent to having sex with Evans.
The only certain thing is the jury decided after seeing them in the witness box and hearing all the evidence they were not telling the truth and convicted Evans.
Only it seems they didn't hear all the evidence, that's why there's a retrial.
They can't accept she was sober enough consent and at the same time believe she couldn't remember anything from that night, its one or the other.
It's interesting how you describe the events from vague and conflicting witness statements and manage to portray a very sinister, thought through manipulation of events.
The jury seemed to swallow McDonald's reasoning that he would not have gone to the reception if he had of committed rape; so why would a sober (ish), calculating, Evans think it prudent to go first to reception and ask the receptionist for a copy key (for his own room? Was it in his name, even though he paid for it?), when he could easily of just knocked on the door? Was there a corridor key entry system?
Could the reason for drawing the curtains be that he wouldn't want drunken posts made to the net (fiancé)?
Had McDonald had his fill of a spunk-bucket and simply wanted to move on?
The crux of the verdict was based on drunken inability to consent, but both said she consented - she could not remember.
I cannot recall reading anything whatsoever that referred to a situation where the girl was sober enough to refuse and did just that - I don't know where you get that nugget from.
The jury heard all available evidence, it would seem there is other, quite important evidence they did not hear.
You seem determined to construct the case against him and unprepared to tolerate there may be another version of events. I find your insistence strange and biased.
Equally strange I see nothing in your posts to suggest he might be guilty. I see you're just as good as making up scenarios as me.
Evans lied to get the key because he knew the hotel's policy on multi-occupancy of rooms. Its in his examination and cross-examination during the trial.
The jury accepted MacDonald had a reasonable belief that the woman consented. There was no evidence produced to suggest she didn't. Nothing to do with whether he left via the reception or not.
When Evans and MacDonald's said she consented to having a threesome the jury didn't believe them.
Whether Evans evidence is enough to get an acquittal we'll find out in October.
Of course Evans is going to lie to get the key. Please can I have the key I want to gang bang a tart my mates doing.
Some women do enjoy group sex but If there is a pause in the action then they there is the possibility they may have second thoughts. Its called striking while the irons hot.
The porter said he heard what sounded like consenting sex between Evans and the girl and left them to it.
I cannot believe someone who was not in that courtroom and did not hear all the evidence is prepared to come to a guilty conclusion.
Everything Ive heard including your latest "evidence" points to a lass who was taken advantage of. Not raped.
Some women do enjoy group sex but If there is a pause in the action then they there is the possibility they may have second thoughts. Its called striking while the irons hot.
The porter said he heard what sounded like consenting sex between Evans and the girl and left them to it.
I cannot believe someone who was not in that courtroom and did not hear all the evidence is prepared to come to a guilty conclusion.
Everything Ive heard including your latest "evidence" points to a lass who was taken advantage of. Not raped.
Of course Evans and MacDonald are going to say she consented. They weren't going to say yes we raped her was they?
You see nothing in my posts to say he is guilty because I believe he is guilty when proven to be; something you, despite the verdict being quashed and a retrial pending, seem unable to grasp.
So, you accept there was a technically viable reason for Evans to lie to get a key. A reason other than an intent to rape. He worked the system, perhaps.
I only referred to McDonald using his trip to the reception to explain why he thought his public openness gave him credibility- as is explained in the BBC article.
Was there any evidence produced to prove the woman didn't consent to Evans, too?
I may be mistaken but I thought it was all based on the law change of consent not being essential in a rape decision. This was a point of law on which the judge gave guidance and direction, to the jury, in regards to their deliberations.
How do you know they didn't believe the threesome claim? Did they need to disbelieve it to deliver a guilty verdict?
Why wait until October, you've already hung him.
You claimed he was innocent before the Court of Appeal quashed the verdict despite the initial application being refused.
I didn't say Evans had any intention to rape the woman when he got the key. You make so many assumptions.
The burden of proof is on Evans to prove she consented. He failed to do that at the original trial. The jury thought he and MacDonald were lying.
Is there a typo in the sentence about consent? I don't understand the point. Sorry. The jury decide the issue of consent. Consent is required unless the defendant can show they had a reasonable belief that consent had been given. The jury found MacDonald had a reasonable belief consent was given.
I don't know whether they believed the threesome story or not. They didn't believe MacDonald or Evans which is why they found Evans guilty. I can only guess at which bits of evidence they based that decision on. But it had nothing to do with the evidence presented by the woman.
I haven't heard the new evidence yet. When I do I'll decide whether I still think he's guilty. I changed my mind about MacDonald I could change my mind about Evans.
I believe I said it was a very contentious verdict that left a lot to be desired; it would appear I was not alone in that opinion.
I didn't say you said it was his intent to rape when he took the key, but tell me, why did you feel the need to highlight that particular action, if it was not to give it some form of bad intent? No assumptions from me, but you are being strangely evasive.
That burden of proof was always an unsatisfactory aspect of his conviction, it made no reasonable sense and is rightly being challenged.
An innocent man gave evidence that consent was given, as did the accused and convicted man. The jury ignored this and that was a strange thing to do.
The essence of the law change is counter-intuitive to rational thinking and the Judge gave heavy direction to ensure the letter of the law was followed, but the letter of the law is wrong and socially inept.
It might have been better had you not have passed judgement, again.
The jury concluded Evans was lying. He admitted lying before the jury about the key. It may have helped the jury decide on his honesty.
MacDonald was also charged with rape. The jury could disbelieve his statement that she consented and still find him not guilty if they thought he had a reasonable belief she'd consented.
The burden of proof remains the same in the new trial. Evans has to prove she consented to having sex with him.
You like passing judgement as well as me.
The issue of consent seems fairly rational to me. If a woman or man says no it means no. If a woman or man is incapable of saying no, either through drink, drugs or mental health, then that is rape.
If a man or woman has a reasonable belief that consent has been given then it isn't rape. The only change in the law was making that belief to be reasonable.
MacDonald was also charged with rape. The jury could disbelieve his statement that she consented and still find him not guilty if they thought he had a reasonable belief she'd consented.
The burden of proof remains the same in the new trial. Evans has to prove she consented to having sex with him.
You like passing judgement as well as me.
The issue of consent seems fairly rational to me. If a woman or man says no it means no. If a woman or man is incapable of saying no, either through drink, drugs or mental health, then that is rape.
If a man or woman has a reasonable belief that consent has been given then it isn't rape. The only change in the law was making that belief to be reasonable.
I have not said he is either innocent or guilty; what I have said is that the conviction was not sound, too many half answers and vague assumptions.
The only other thing I've done is to question (challenge) someone who issues opinion as fact to support their judgement that Evans is guilty - this after his conviction has been quashed. That someone is you.
Edit: the rest is your usual never-ending circles.
Jurys found the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven guilty, too. Mistakes happen.
You have subsequently argued the toss that the evidence was as sound as you believe the verdict is, arguing with anyone who questions the soundness of the verdict as not understanding your understanding, which really is amusing.
Luckily the law has seen cause for concern. As I have said before, you would be better served awaiting the final verdict, rather that lecturing us all in your view of the evidence and how it was applied.
