Quote Originally Posted by the leader View Post
Personally, i think it is this that lies at the heart of Evans' defence. The woman herself says she remembers nothing after the pizza place other than being in a hotel lobby. She then wakes up the next morning. It is this recollection, or lack thereof, that could see Ched Evans aquitted. The original jury cannot reasonably take the same evidence to free one and imprison another?
If she doesnt remember, they are taking Donaldsons word against her, but her word against ched Evans.
Any reasonable person can surely see that either both men are innocent, or both guilty - based on the evidence presented. Again, and ive touched on this before, the judge did not direct the jury correctly regarding consent when drunk. He should have told the jury that a woman can now be classed as capable of giving consent under the influence. Why he did not is critical because if the jury are not directed thus, any with doubt as to the womans 'unconscious state' could still in their own mind convict Evans because the woman was inarguably drunk.
The issue could also be as to if Ched attempted to get consent. "It wasn't the time to have a conversation" would tend to indicate Evans almost certainly wasn't worried about getting consent.