0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Lipsy on January 05, 2015, 09:21:19 pmWoman in question would be covered, I would have thought. Wasn't even aware that she had been raped and doesn't remember the rape at all. There was no physical evidence to suggest she had been raped; it was only CE's admitting that sex had taken place when questioned that led to the trial/proceedings. I am working from memory here, mind.I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "The girl was too drunk to consent. Evans had sex without her consent. Get it? No consent = RAPE. How much more do you want it spelt out?And again:"The jury believed her story, and found Evans guilty. Read my lips: "The jury believed her." He was found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. In a criminal case this is what defines whether the defendant is guilty or not.
Woman in question would be covered, I would have thought. Wasn't even aware that she had been raped and doesn't remember the rape at all. There was no physical evidence to suggest she had been raped; it was only CE's admitting that sex had taken place when questioned that led to the trial/proceedings. I am working from memory here, mind.
It's really quite bizarre this isn't it? I can see that, in the circumstances you describe Lipsy, the state would take steps to uphold the law and to bring charges against those involved. But if the victim doesn't know anything about it and made no complaint about it, who on earth brought the event into the light of day???? The whole thing is mind boggling tbh.BobG
The jury was directed as follows: "When you come back .... you will be asked to return separate verdicts in respect of each of the two defendants. Accordingly, when you retire you must consider the case, that is to say the evidence for and against each of the two defendants separately. Whilst there is a considerable overlap in that evidence, the evidence is not identical, and whilst your verdicts may very well be the same in the case, they might be different. The important thing for you to remember is your approach to the case for and against the defendants must be considered separately."Given that direction, it was open to the jury to convict both defendants, to acquit both defendants, or to convict one and not the other defendant. That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency.https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
Now then all you bandwagon jumpers, where was all your moral outrage when we signed 2 players involved in a certain incident with a 16 year old girl that she certainly didn't consent to being filmed?I accept the difference that one incident has resulted in a conviction, the other not but there must be a very fine line between the morality of the individuals involved in each case.The difference between club hero and pariah
I assume you mean the Sunderland gang bang? Have you seen the film? It's freely availible on the internet, she was 18 years old and was in full knowledge that it was being filmed, she obviously consented to what went on and did n't raise one objection, mind she did have her mouth full at the time of filming
When asked on a questaire if they would sign Evens Yet to respond – Barnsley, Bradford, Colchester, Doncaster, Leyton Orient, Rochdale others said no. So we could then !
I'm wondering how many of you have gone out on a night out, got pissed and then got laid ....... I know I have on several occasions and I don't ever remember asking for written consent! In fact on some occasions I've struggled even to remember what happened. So what if one of those girls then decided after sobering up that she maybe wished she hadn't ..... is that rape? I could turn it round however and say that maybe I regretted it the next day, is that then rape on the girls part!This seems like a very grey area to me, if a girl gets drunk and then puts herself in that sort of situation then in some ways she must take some of the blame. This wasn't just a case of some innocent girl getting jumped on her way home from a night out, had that happened then I could understand the stick that Evans is getting but from how I see it it could have just been a misunderstanding or the girl in question simply changing her mind.