right, glad we cleared that up. So it makes no difference as to whether he was out with her prior or not.Originally Posted by Vimana.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
right, glad we cleared that up. So it makes no difference as to whether he was out with her prior or not.
Nobody can definitely say there wasn't consent though can they?
On the other hand Macdonald said there definitely was consent.
Do we know if there was (still) consent right at the point where sex commenced?
If so, then that is all there is to it between her and Macdonald - at that time.
However, 'how about it then'? - yeah OK' in a bar sometime earlier doesn't stand as 'in the bag' for Macdonald for the rest of whole night. (let alone 'phone a friend').
She can change her mind. (as can he!)
Only if that consent is revoked or expired or doesn't cover 'other events' does it become something more sinister.
Last edited by Vimana.; 22-03-16 at 23:07.
I was referring to consent with Evans according to Macdonald.
I seem to remember the court papers saying she couldn't remember, which is different to saying "no". Especially when the only other witnesses say she did consent.
The part that sits most uncomfortably is that the emphasis was onto Evans to decide how sober she was, when it's proved she hadn't been drugged so it was stuff she'd drunk. If she is comatose then yes he's clearly a rapist, if she's drunk and consenting I think it's down to the individual.
The whole thing leaves more questions than answers.
Unlucky Ched me ol' china.
Good spot Jeff.
He wasn't convicted by 12 members of the jury - it was a majority verdict - not all found him guilty.
The judge insisted on a majority when it was not unnanamous because if they had gone back to look at the evidence again it would have gone in for another week
The prosecution case apparently had holes all the way through it, was inconsistent regarding the other bloke being let off, the girl didn't appear 'hammered' on the video, and the new evidence has been talked about in very strong terms since the middle of last year. The girl also didn't help her case when she allegedly gloated on FB the following morning about making a load of money from this event and even offering to take friends on luxury holidays with the proceeds. That was quickly deleted, but I wonder if this constitutes some of the new evidence that's been reported?
On the moral side, Ched had everything going for him at that time and so the mind boggles why he'd feel the need to get himself anywhere near such a situation. With his fame and profession, he shouldn't have had any problems finding consensual ladies to get aquainted with.
Even failing that, on his salary he could've easily hired as many high class escorts as he liked. A bizarre situation all round but hopefully the fully truth will now come out and the right decision will be arrived at, whether that be a rejection of his appeal or upholding the original conviction.
I've read the transcript of the original trial.
Ched incriminated himself. The girl had absolutely no memory of going to or being in the hotel. She woke up with no idea how she had got to the hotel, having wet the bed.
The hotel staff called the police who then found the two footballers. Clayton McDonald and Ched both told the police that CM had been having sex with the girl when Ched asked if he could join in and both CM and CE said that the girl had enthusiastically said "yes."
This has not been disputed. Ched was convicted because the prosecution contended that even if the girl has said "yes" she was way too drunk to know what she was doing.
The digital evidence was not Facebook it was Twitter. A New York firefighter who had become involved in the 911 "truther" movement happened to read about this case and did some investigation. He found, in google's French cache of Twitter posts, tweets from the girl about "winning big."
http://chedevans.com/the-disputed-tweets
The tweets were 5 months after the event, the girl could have been talking about anything.
Agreed, but, she could have also been talking about stitching up a footballer
Could be this, could be that ... which makes it pretty weak evidence if it can't be shown what she was referring to.
But the compensation she would receive doesn't depend on the income of the person committing the crime?
As said above Ched's undoing was his own fault because his statement incriminated him.
People always say we've all done this on a night out, but have we really? I've slept with plenty of women but never one who was too smashed to concent. I can't think of anything worse than shagging someone that drunk.
I think the notion of concent is what confuses most people, if a girl is in no fit state to make a decision then even saying yes doesn't really count as consent.
I do feel sorry for Ched though, such a silly mistake to make and one that could ruin his life. Surely as a footballer it's easy to pull a really fit girl anyway without going through the weird shenanigans him and his pal went through? I mean it's easy enough to pull a decent girl without being rich and famous ffs, why footballers keep putting themselves in compromising positions like this is beyond me.
If you've shagged a girl who has been drinking and said yes to it, you are putting yourself at the same risk as Evans is claiming to have done.
How could you know if she is going to remember it the next morning?
Well if she's comatose then obviously she can't consent, but if she's just had a few sherbets, bearing in mind you have too, how could you possibly tell, beyond all doubt, that she knows what she's doing? How could you possibly know that if she was sober, she wouldn't want to?
I know I've slept with women and woken up wishing I hadn't.
Which of us hasn't gone out on the lash on a Saturday night and hooked up with a girl? Any Friday/Saturday night most of the people pouring out of clubs are half-pissed, and we've ALL done something after a few beers that we might not have if we'd been sober.
None of us really know what went on, and what, if anything, was agreed between the relevant parties, but I'm glad I'm a happily married middle-aged man, otherwise I'd be worried about going anywhere with a girl unless she'd passed a drink/drugs test and signed a contract.
The woman in charge of hearing the case was responsible for over turning Sam Hallams prosecution - the youngest person to have a mis-carriage overturned...
Here's the appeal court transcript of the original trial:
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-...-chedwyn-evans
That's not a transcript.
It's a summary of the reasons for the Court of Appeal refusing his first appeal. Their own version is available elsewhere on crimeline.info, I think.
I'd love to see a transcript of the original trial, but for some reason - probably because of the amount of incriminating evidence from his own mouth - the Ched Evans website has never published the one his legal team doubtless have.
I suppose there's always a risk you've just got to use good judgement, I think you can usually tell if someone is absolutely hammered or just a bit drunk.
And even if they change their mind the next morning the fact they were happy to go home with you etc means you'll unlikely get convicted because there's plenty of evidence to show the consent was there. Sneaking into a hotel room during her sleeping with someone else and joining in without even meeting her prior is not something I've done, that's where the risk lies not the sleeping with someone who's drunk.
If she's sober enough to bend down on her haunches in high heels and pick up a pizza box she's sober enough to consent in my book.
bloody hell, let's be thankful you aren't a law maker.
Here's a good video about consent for the confused in here - http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
It misses out the part where the person asks for Tea but then doesn't remember asking for tea the next morning.
Here's a good video about consent for the confused in here - http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
Is the person who made them the Tea then at fault?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote