Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Harrowby Hall on October 05, 2015, 02:08:54 PM
-
Do you remember Ched Evans?
The footballer was convicted of rape. He has apparently appealed his conviction and the conviction has been overturned.
Can someone find the original thread?
-
It has been referred but not as yet overturned as far as I can see.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34441348
-
Presumably, they are saying that there is new information which could lead to a quash. In other words, 'there is new material not considered by the jury'. I guess this will raise his hopes.
-
It has been referred but not as yet overturned as far as I can see.
Forgive me - my hearing aid isn't working. I confused "referred" with "reversed".
I misheard the newsreader of the 2.00pm Radio 4 bulletin.
i apologise.
-
Presumably, they are saying that there is new information which could lead to a quash. In other words, 'there is new material not considered by the jury'. I guess this will raise his hopes.
Apparently the direction that the case should go to Appeal was made by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It appears that there may be new evidence and this carries a strong likelihood that had it been presented at the original trial the outcome may have been different. Cases forwarded from the CCRC stand a very much greater chance of being overturned than routine appeals.
-
One wonders if all those who called for his virtual castration when he tried to start working again will apologise to a man who always maintained his innocence (if he is found innocent of course)
-
One wonders if all those who called for his virtual castration when he tried to start working again will apologise to a man who always maintained his innocence (if he is found innocent of course)
I have been thinking about that. At the time he had been found guilty of rape and refused leave to appeal. All the people that objected to his playing football again did so in good faith. If his conviction is quashed, and any "body" is to blame, it is the British justice system. There will no doubt be compensation (again, I emphasise, if his conviction is quashed).
-
If his conviction is quashed, and any "body" is to blame, it is the British justice system. There will no doubt be compensation (again, I emphasise, if his conviction is quashed).
We don't know what this 'new evidence' is yet, but I wonder whether the British justice system is necessarily the only 'body' to blame? Should the 'new evidence' be that the 'victim' has given false information, shouldn't they be just as much to blame?
-
I don't think it appropriate to discuss a case which is yet to come to court again.
-
I don't think it appropriate to discuss a case which is yet to come to court again.
Whilst I agree to an extent, BA, I believe that there is a principle or set of principles that we can debate beyond the specific case.
-
I don't think it appropriate to discuss a case which is yet to come to court again.
Whilst I agree to an extent, BA, I believe that there is a principle or set of principles that we can debate beyond the specific case.
What particular principles, Hope?
-
What particular principles, Hope?
How evidence is collected, recorded, scrutinised. As I said, we don't know what the 'new evidence' in this specific case is, but we do know from past cases in general that forensic evidence can become contaminated thus resulting in misleading findings; police officers can accidentally or even intentionally misreport or leave out vital information; even witnesses can give misleading or incomplete evidence.
-
What particular principles, Hope?
How evidence is collected, recorded, scrutinised. As I said, we don't know what the 'new evidence' in this specific case is, but we do know from past cases in general that forensic evidence can become contaminated thus resulting in misleading findings; police officers can accidentally or even intentionally misreport or leave out vital information; even witnesses can give misleading or incomplete evidence.
I think there are many cases when accusations made are false, or grossly exaggerated, and it is often very difficult for a person to prove he didn't do something.
-
I don't think it appropriate to discuss a case which is yet to come to court again.
I am not sure that sub judice rules apply to appeal cases. In trials at first instance there is always the possibility that potential jurors may be influenced by press reports etc. Appeal cases, however, are tried only by senior judges who - presumably - are sufficiently experienced to be able to discount external influences.
Anyway, the details of the original trial are now in the public domain and are open for discussion. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Or is your objection simply a moral objection?
-
I don't think it appropriate to discuss a case which is yet to come to court again.
I am not sure that sub judice
rules apply to appeal cases. In trials at first instance there is always the possibility that potential jurors may be influenced by press reports etc. Appeal cases, however, are tried only by senior judges who - presumably - are sufficiently experienced to be able to discount external influences.
Anyway, the details of the original trial are now in the public domain and are open for discussion. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Or is your objection simply a moral objection?
I simply don't think it a good idea to even loosely fall foul of legal correctness.
-
We don't know what this 'new evidence' is yet, but I wonder whether the British justice system is necessarily the only 'body' to blame? Should the 'new evidence' be that the 'victim' has given false information, shouldn't they be just as much to blame?
The justice system is meant to find out the truth. If it failed to do so, it failed, no matter what the reason. If the alleged victim lied, the trial should have made that apparent and it didn't.
It's long been recognised that the justice system can fail people, that's why there is an appeals system.
-
The return of Ched Evans
His re-trial has started this morning.
-
Moderator link edited for length
http://tinyurl.com/jpdlcr6
-
I just read that report and it seems the new evidence is for prosecution as his original conviction in 2012 was later quashed.
-
I just read that report and it seems the new evidence is for prosecution as his original conviction in 2012 was later quashed.
That doesn't sound right. If there had been new evidence for the prosecution, why should the original conviction be quashed? He would have been guilty anyway and a new trial would have been a waste of resources.
"Quashing" followed by a retrial implies that there was a problem with the first trial and that another opportunity should be given to test the evidence. All that has been presented at the new trial is the prosecution case, which seems similar to that presented at the first trial. The new evidence, presumably from the defence, has yet to be presented.
Don't forget - there is a presumption of innocence. It is only in exceptional circumstances that you can be prosecuted for the same crime twice.
-
Details of the quashing of the conviction below. Note this is a new jury trial so will be sub judice
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36099522
-
There must be exceptional circumstances - new evidence - for this to be brought back to court.
It's all quite unpleasant. I hope the truth finally comes out this time. When the original conviction was quashed it was a relief in a way, believing that justice had been done. It was done, based on what was known at that time. Now I can't help thinking there wouldn't be a second trial unless the newly uncovered evidence was pretty strong.
He's still innocent until proved guilty of course so I'm not making any judgements, thank goodness that is up to others. It's a terrible time for everyone concerned and my resolve is to think of it no more until it is settled.
-
There must be exceptional circumstances - new evidence - for this to be brought back to court.
It's all quite unpleasant. I hope the truth finally comes out this time. When the original conviction was quashed it was a relief in a way, believing that justice had been done. It was done, based on what was known at that time. Now I can't help thinking there wouldn't be a second trial unless the newly uncovered evidence was pretty strong.
He's still innocent until proved guilty of course so I'm not making any judgements, thank goodness that is up to others. It's a terrible time for everyone concerned and my resolve is to think of it no more until it is settled.
The whole point of a quashing is that new evidence has surfaced - and therefore the whole needs to be (re)-tested in court.
-
There must be exceptional circumstances - new evidence - for this to be brought back to court.
It's all quite unpleasant. I hope the truth finally comes out this time. When the original conviction was quashed it was a relief in a way, believing that justice had been done. It was done, based on what was known at that time. Now I can't help thinking there wouldn't be a second trial unless the newly uncovered evidence was pretty strong.
He's still innocent until proved guilty of course so I'm not making any judgements, thank goodness that is up to others. It's a terrible time for everyone concerned and my resolve is to think of it no more until it is settled.
This new trial was ordered when the original conviction was quashed (on Ched Evans' appeal), so it's nothing to do with new evidence that has been found since the appeal, it was always going to happen.
-
I didn't remember that jeremy, thanks, but where does 'there is new material not considered by the jury' come from? Though presumably if there was going to be a new trial anyway, it would be happening with or without new evidence.
-
Footballer Ched Evans cleared of rape after retrial at Cardiff Crown Court
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009
-
Surprising new evidence from sexual partners of complainant, normally not allowed in rape trials, as it can be used to blacken the name of the victim. Quite complicated reasons for allowing it, but feminists will object all the same. Basically, they testified that she used similar words to that alleged by Evans, during sex, 'fuck me harder' basically.
-
Even though Evans was found not guilty of rape he is still a very unpleasant lecherous creep! >:(
-
Haven't followed this case to closely but I seem to remember that some time ago Evan's fiancée had offered a £50,000 reward to anyone who had new evidence to offer.
Does anyone know if the 2 guys who gave evidence at the appeal about the victims previous sexual activities would be eligible to get this "reward".
-
Haven't followed this case to closely but I seem to remember that some time ago Evan's fiancée had offered a £50,000 reward to anyone who had new evidence to offer.
Does anyone know if the 2 guys who gave evidence at the appeal about the victims previous sexual activities would be eligible to get this "reward".
One wonders if they will, and if they do if they would be in bother for doing so?
-
Even though Evans was found not guilty of rape he is still a very unpleasant lecherous creep! >:(
Which goes to show that mud sticks.
The problem with rape allegations like this is that there are only two people who know the truth. The jury have to do their best and obviously if there is any shadow of a doubt, they've no choice but to find 'not guilty'. As that is what has happened I sincerely hope he is not guilty and can move on; it won't be easy.
I hadn't heard about the fiancee offering a big reward to people to come forward in his defence, in all honesty that sounds like an untrue rumour.
-
Haven't followed this case to closely but I seem to remember that some time ago Evan's fiancée had offered a £50,000 reward to anyone who had new evidence to offer.
Do you have any link to such an offer, john? Can't say that I'd heard of it. As someone who lives in Wales and watches the Welsh news most days, I think I'd have seen something about it.
-
Even though Evans was found not guilty of rape he is still a very unpleasant lecherous creep! >:(
You've met him, Floo? Whilkst not condoning what appears to have been pretty murky - if legal - behaviour, we have to accept that this is one possible outcome of the way in which society - via its media and educational outlets, not to mention sexualisation of young people - seems to be moving.
-
Which goes to show that mud sticks.
The problem with rape allegations like this is that there are only two people who know the truth. The jury have to do their best and obviously if there is any shadow of a doubt, they've no choice but to find 'not guilty'. As that is what has happened I sincerely hope he is not guilty and can move on; it won't be easy.
I hadn't heard about the fiancee offering a big reward to people to come forward in his defence, in all honesty that sounds like an untrue rumour.
I hope mud stick to him, I really do!
-
I hope mud stick to him, I really do!
Why? Is it the fact that he took part in a 3some, seemingly consensually, or is it because the legislation over rape might finally be revisited and clarified?
-
Why? Is it the fact that he took part in a 3some, seemingly consensually, or is it because the legislation over rape might finally be revisited and clarified?
For the disgusting things he has admitted to doing with women!
-
For the disgusting things he has admitted to doing with women!
But they are perfectly legal, under current social mores and laws. They take place day in and day out, if the media and social media are to be believed.
-
But they are perfectly legal, under current social mores and laws. They take place day in and day out, if the media and social media are to be believed.
They might be legal, but they don't show him up in a good light at all!
-
They might be legal, but they don't show him up in a good light at all!
In no less a 'good' light as many people we never quibble with/about, Floo.
-
In no less a 'good' light as many people we never quibble with/about, Floo.
As a footballer he is in the public eye and not a good role model for young people, imo. I am surprised with your take on faith you appear to be sticking up for him!
-
But as a footballer, he is in the public eye and not a good role model for young people, imo.
So why haven't you latched on to the many comparable media stories about other people in the public eye - be they footballers or whatever?
-
So why haven't you latched on to the many comparable media stories about other people in the public eye - be they footballers or whatever?
whether Floo has or has not, does not invalidate her position on this. If it did it would make your charitable work meaningless because you have not done charitable work for all equivalent issues.
-
So why haven't you latched on to the many comparable media stories about other people in the public eye - be they footballers or whatever?
I probably have if I have seen them, anyone behaving like that is despicable!
-
The worst part of the re-trial is that, according to the Metro, the jusge stated tht "drunken consent is still consent".
If he actually said this it sets a legal precendent, a dangerous legal precedent and is a rapists charter!
-
You're spot on there, Owl!
Floo, Evans may be an unsavoury character in many eyes but I see no point in relishing the idea of a young man suffering because of an alleged assault, when he has been found not guilty.
If he really is guilty the chances are he'll do it again; a horrible thought but these things are not usually one offs. However I sincerely hope the jury was correct in this case and that we never hear allegations of him doing anything like that in the future.
--------
Later: Just read a Guardian article from yesterday about Ched Evans and here is an extract:
"Following his conviction, a well-funded legal and PR campaign that included the offer of a £50,000 reward for information leading to his acquittal was launched by family and friends. The campaign eventually resulted in the case going to the court of appeal in London, where his conviction was quashed."
So it seems there was an offer of a 50 grand reward. That seems wrong to me.
-
I wonder how much he would have been aware of the fund - after all he was in prison by that time. I believe that many other convicted criminals have had similar funds established by friends and families - perhaps even cronies - to seek acquittal.
-
You could be right that he didn't know much about it, Hope. However there is a big difference between putting up money to fund deeper investigations and offering a reward, which could be an incentive to someone to bend the truth. Who knows?
-
It is interesting that the person who pushed for the change in the law - allowing previous victim behaviour - has said that this case puts us back 30-odd years. If she believes this, why push for the change of the law?
The evidence concerned two other men who claimed they had sex with the woman around the same time of the alleged offence and who described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were similar to Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.
Former solicitor general Vera Baird QC said the details of the woman's past should not have been heard in court.
She told the BBC's Today programme: "How, in this case, it was ever allowed for evidence that this woman had allegedly had sex with other men, when the questions in the trial were was she so drunk that she lost the capacity to consent and did he reasonably believe that she was not that drunk and in fact she was consenting?"
Since 1999, defence lawyers have been banned from cross-examining alleged rape victims in court about their sexual behaviour or history but the Court of Appeal said Mr Evans' case was exceptional.
Lady Justice Hallett ruled that the events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent.
Northumbria police and crime commissioner Ms Baird, who was instrumental in bringing about the change in law, added: "The only difference between a clear conviction of Mr Evans in 2012 and the absolute refusal of him having any leave to appeal at that time, and his acquittal now, is that he has called some men to throw discredit on [the woman's] sexual reputation.
"We've gone back, I'm afraid, probably about 30 years."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37666228
-
I wonder how much he would have been aware of the fund - after all he was in prison by that time. I believe that many other convicted criminals have had similar funds established by friends and families - perhaps even cronies - to seek acquittal.
offering money for evidence? Citation?
-
offering money for evidence? Citation?
I was referring to Brownie's piece from the Guardian. Also to john's earlier post: http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10954.msg640458#msg640458
-
offering money for evidence? Citation?
Several papers have carried the story his sister or his girlfriend offered £50,000.00 for evidence to help his appeal.
-
I was referring to Brownie's piece from the Guardian. Also to john's earlier post: http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10954.msg640458#msg640458
No, I was talking about this happening generally which you stated.
-
Several papers have carried the story his sister or his girlfriend offered £50,000.00 for evidence to help his appeal.
I know, I was replying to Hope's idea that this was common
-
You could be right that he didn't know much about it, Hope. However there is a big difference between putting up money to fund deeper investigations and offering a reward, which could be an incentive to someone to bend the truth. Who knows?
Hope. Brownie
Don't be daft, it was all over the papers and the TV - they get both in prison and they get visitors - of course he bloody knew about it!
-
Footballer Ched Evans cleared of rape after retrial at Cardiff Crown Court
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009
I remember arguing on here that the conviction did not make sense - because it seemed inconsistent for the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that Ched Evans raped her on the grounds that she was too drunk to consent, even if she had consented to the threesome. The reason it seemed inconsistent was that the same jury found his co-defendent, who was having sex with her at the same time as Ched Evans, had not raped her.
It was the CPS that made the decision to charge the footballers with rape on the basis that the girl, who was not accusing anyone of rape, said her bag had been taken and she thought her drink had been spiked and she could not remember having sex or whether she had consented or not consented. When the police questioned the footballers, Evans and his co-defendent willingly admitted to having sex with her because, as they told the police, she was calling the shots during sex and directing what she wanted each man to do to her, which made them believe in their somewhat drunken state that she was not too drunk to give consent and no more drunk than they were.
I think the £50k reward for information was reasonable, given the wealth of the CPS and State being brought to bear against Ched Evans to secure a conviction, and given that he was made a social pariah for cheating on his girlfriend and having a threesome with someone he believed was not too drunk to consent because she asked him to perform oral sex on her.
One of the witnesses said the girl had also done this with him - consented to sex, directed sexual positions, and then said the next morning she could not remember what happened the night before. If the CPS is consistent they should now prosecute the witness for rape - on the same basis as Ched Evans - if she says she can't remember sex with the witness she must have been too drunk to consent to the sex.
For now the law remains as it was - that drunken consent is still consent if the person can't remember NOT consenting and they were not unconscious or asleep during sex. It does not mean that the girl in the Ched Evans case consented - it just means there is enough reasonable doubt to find Ched Evans not guilty. This article sums up the questions the jury had to go through to find the Ched Evans not guilty.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ched-evans-rape-trial-not-guilty-hotel-teenager-judge-remarks-a7361956.html
-
Thank you Gabriella for a most informative, sensible and non-judgemental post.
-
I remember arguing on here that the conviction did not make sense - because it seemed inconsistent for the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that Ched Evans raped her on the grounds that she was too drunk to consent, even if she had consented to the threesome. The reason it seemed inconsistent was that the same jury found his co-defendent, who was having sex with her at the same time as Ched Evans, had not raped her.
It was the CPS that made the decision to charge the footballers with rape on the basis that the girl, who was not accusing anyone of rape, said her bag had been taken and she thought her drink had been spiked and she could not remember having sex or whether she had consented or not consented. When the police questioned the footballers, Evans and his co-defendent willingly admitted to having sex with her because, as they told the police, she was calling the shots during sex and directing what she wanted each man to do to her, which made them believe in their somewhat drunken state that she was not too drunk to give consent and no more drunk than they were.
I think the £50k reward for information was reasonable, given the wealth of the CPS and State being brought to bear against Ched Evans to secure a conviction, and given that he was made a social pariah for cheating on his girlfriend and having a threesome with someone he believed was not too drunk to consent because she asked him to perform oral sex on her.
One of the witnesses said the girl had also done this with him - consented to sex, directed sexual positions, and then said the next morning she could not remember what happened the night before. If the CPS is consistent they should now prosecute the witness for rape - on the same basis as Ched Evans - if she says she can't remember sex with the witness she must have been too drunk to consent to the sex.
For now the law remains as it was - that drunken consent is still consent if the person can't remember NOT consenting and they were not unconscious or asleep during sex. It does not mean that the girl in the Ched Evans case consented - it just means there is enough reasonable doubt to find Ched Evans not guilty. This article sums up the questions the jury had to go through to find the Ched Evans not guilty.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ched-evans-rape-trial-not-guilty-hotel-teenager-judge-remarks-a7361956.html
You honestly think offering money for evidence is OK? So if I offer a million pounds for evidence to convict Evans and he gets done, you think that's fine?
-
Hope. Brownie
Don't be daft, it was all over the papers and the TV - they get both in prison and they get visitors - of course he bloody knew about it!
He may have known about the money put up for further investigation, Owl, and there's nothing wrong with that, but the suggestion is that a reward was offered to witnesses which puts a different slant on it.
Gabriella, just read your post and agree with what Trent said.
-
You honestly think offering money for evidence is OK? So if I offer a million pounds for evidence to convict Evans and he gets done, you think that's fine?
It depends on the particulars circumstances of the situation. In this case yes I honestly think offering money for evidence to clear Ched Evans is ok. It is not ok to bribe someone to lie as a witness in court. According to the witnesses who testified at the retrial, they did not receive any money for their testimony.
So if your million pounds was used to pay someone to lie as a witness to convict Ched Evans that would not be ok. If your million pounds was used to help find witnesses who presented evidence without getting paid for their testimony and that evidence somehow managed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was too drunk to consent to Ched Evans while not being too drunk to consent to Clayton MacDonald who was having sex with her at the exact same time as Ched Evans, then fair enough.
ETA: I was referring to the £50k reward offered on the website for evidence to clear Ched Evans. I do not think it is ok to pay witnesses.
-
He may have known about the money put up for further investigation, Owl, and there's nothing wrong with that, but the suggestion is that a reward was offered to witnesses which puts a different slant on it.
Gabriella, just read your post and agree with what Trent said.
Thanks Trent and Brownie for that.
Just wanted to add that in theory a jury could think that it was reasonable for Clayton McDonald to believe that the girl was consenting to sex with him while at the same time think it was unreasonable that Ched Evans believed the girl was consenting to sex with him, Based on what had been reported in the original case though, I could not understand how the jury in that case had been so sure that Ched Evans' belief in her consent was unreasonable that they returned a guilty verdict. Especially given that she was not accusing Ched Evans of raping her or saying that she had been too drunk to consent or that she had not consented, but was saying she could not remember what happened that night.
-
ETA: I was referring to the £50k reward offered on the website for evidence to clear Ched Evans. I do not think it is ok to pay witnesses.
You what! What was the reward if it was not paying the witnesses who received the reward?
For fifty grand I'll testify that Jesus Christ was resurrected and swear to it on the Christian oath. I will also swear on oath that the noon landings were faked - anything the donor of the fifty K wants me to swear to.
This does not make it the truth - why did these witnesses not come forward at the original trial?
-
It is possible witnesses lie - the trial is about whether the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. If the jury have a reasonable doubt about whether the girl was too intoxicated to consent or a doubt about whether Ched Evans unreasonably believed he had her consent, they will return a verdict of not guilty.
The question for the jury is how sure are they that she was too intoxicated to consent and how sure are they that Ched Evans' belief that she was consenting to sex with him was an unreasonable belief - she says she had a blackout so she can't remember the night, and thinks her drink might have been spiked.
There is video evidence of her squatting down in heels to pick up a pizza - so she could balance and squat and walk when she went into the hotel room.
Two other men who had sex with her around the same period as Ched Evans had sex with her described her saying very similar things during sex that Ched Evans reported she said during sex with him, that led to his belief that she was consenting. One of the witnesses in the retrial said he had gone to the police during the initial investigation but that he had been questioned about her loss of memory after sex, not about what she said during sex. The witnesses, Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald could all be lying and have somehow communicated before being questioned by the police or before the retrial and agreed their story about what she said during sex in order to make it seem like she was not too intoxicated, was aware of what was happening and consented - it's possible. So I am NOT saying that it is NOT POSSIBLE that she was raped - but it does create reasonable doubt IMO, which means the prosecution haven't proved Ched Evans raped her beyond reasonable doubt.
This is why rape cases are so difficult to prove when it is unclear if someone had sex consensually or not. It's not like being mugged - getting assaulted and having valuables taken is not something people sometimes consent to and at other times don't, depending on the person assaulting them. If there is evidence that someone dishonestly took goods belonging to someone else - you have the basis for a conviction. If there is a reasonable doubt they may not be convicted.
But being mugged or robbed is a lot less intimately invasive than rape, hence people find it harder to accept that if there is reasonable doubt the accused, who might be a rapist, is found not guilty. Especially when idiots then claim this proves the woman was lying and start abusing her. Especially in this case, where she has not accused anyone of rape, but just kept saying she can't remember what happened.
-
Re the 50K, was this separate from the fund that was set up to pay for Mr Evans' appeal? In other words was it a stand alone 'reward', or was it part of the expenditure by his legal team, and perhaps paid as expenses (for legal services?) to the people who came forward.
-
Which goes to show that mud sticks.
The problem with rape allegations like this is that there are only two people who know the truth.
Why is not in dispute is that his mate picked up a woman who was extremely drunk and he and Mr Evans had sex with her even though Mr Evans already had a girlfriend.
You can be an arsehole without breaking the law.
I hadn't heard about the fiancee offering a big reward to people to come forward in his defence, in all honesty that sounds like an untrue rumour.
It's absolutely true.
-
You honestly think offering money for evidence is OK?
People often offer rewards in order to obtain convictions. Crime Stoppers do https://crimestoppers-uk.org/give-information/rewards/ Why shouldn't the offer money for information that leads to a acquittal?
-
jeremy: You can be an arsehole without breaking the law.
Certainly can!
As to the fifty grand, I've read up about it since I first posted. Agree with what you said about it being quite reasonable to put up money to further an investigation, as they do in Crime Stoppers. The police are particularly good when it comes to crimes of violence but they have limited resources so anything that can be done to help is useful. I think most of us would do our utmost to help someone we cared about, if we believed they were innocent. Ched Evans served two and a half years in prison, a lot seem to forget that.
-
Why is not in dispute is that his mate picked up a woman who was extremely drunk and he and Mr Evans had sex with her even though Mr Evans already had a girlfriend.
You can be an arsehole without breaking the law.
In that case what should not be in dispute is that the girl and the two men are all assholes, unless her drink really was spiked.
Knowing that alcohol impairs your judgment, she made the decision to get drunk, put herself at risk of meeting an asshole, and then decided she wanted to climb into a taxi with said asshole - a man she had never met before - and go have sex with Clayton McDonald, who was also under the influence. Neither Clayton McDonald or Ched Evans are responsible for her poor decision-making - otherwise that would set back the equality of women if we treat them like children who are incapable of making decisions about not drinking too much because it makes them hornier than they would have been if they were sober.
-
I thought one flaw in the initial trial was that the woman had not alleged rape. The police had inferred it, based on her being drunk, and so on. But to be sure that it was rape? That's a helluva judgment call, but the jury made it.
-
I agree that it sounds illogical for a jury to be so sure she didn't consent that they found him guilty of rape, given she could not remember whether she consented or not.
Juries are human - apparently Ched Evans did not come across well in the first trial - maybe he has had presentation and deportment lessons prior to the 2nd trial. His statements to the police about how women throw themselves at footballers probably made him sound entitled and led to the jury making the judgment that they were sure he had not obtained consent before having sex with the girl.
Or maybe the jury were under the impression that a girl would have to be drunk to the point of where she was incapable of giving legal consent for her to agree to having sex with a complete stranger who had walked into a hotel room. Not sure why they would think that - if Ched Evans could have sex with a complete stranger while being drunk, it seems plausible that a girl could behave the same way.
The CPS were the ones who decided to take this to court - maybe the prosecution influenced the jury by spinning them some story about sending a message that drunk men need to be protective of drunk women and sober up enough to NOT act on both of their lowered inhibitions and greater risk-taking behaviour brought on by alcohol. Which sends the message that men are required to be more responsible while drunk than women.
-
Yes, I did wonder if there was an element of moral indignation, that people have multiple sex, while being filmed, and so on, and therefore, somebody should be punished? However, there is no way of knowing this, unless one of the jurors coughs up. But for some reason, people seem to find it untoward. Maybe it's envy!
-
Interesting blog on the case
https://thesecretbarrister.com
-
I doubt many women would envy that! It's the sort of situation sometimes shown in drama series or written about in a certain genre of popular fiction. Ched Evans was in a world he was ill equipped to deal with - how many young men of 21/22 would have the opportunity to do something like that? Most wouldn't, they might have a little fantasy about such things if that is their wont but a guy working in an insurance company or as a bricklayer is not going to have it handed to him on a plate. The football world is something different and so many otherwise quite ordinary young men, who happen to have a talent for the game, get into similar hot water because they cannot handle the lifestyle. It's tragic. Tragic too for the girl whose life is, by all accounts, ruined - she can't go home! People forget she was 19 at the time, a lot of girls of that age have not long left school.
They were not much more than kids when it all happened, whatever it was. They're different now but no-one is going to let them leave it behind. Curse of being in the public eye.
NS, excellent blog. This bit is so true: (10.) What does this whole affair say about our society?
Christ knows. Nothing good.
-
Interesting blog on the case
https://thesecretbarrister.com
Thanks for that NS. It is what I had understood from listening to various reports - but to see it all together in this way is very helpful.
-
Brownie, I remember stuff like this 50 years ago. It wasn't in hotels, the people were not millionaires, and there were no phones to film things with, but I remember people having multiple sex.
Yes, good blog.
-
Hippy type era? I also heard of things like that, orgies etc. Someone on another forum, long time ago, was part of a commune and described it. (NB, I do know not all 'hippy types' took part in orgies.)
Can't see Evans and the other guy as hippy types though. I wonder how all this would have panned out if they hadn't been in the footballing world with no media interest?
-
No, I'm talking about working class kids, you know, bricklayers and so on.
-
One of my close friends described taking part in a sex session with 2 men she met while travelling on her gap year - so Middle Class types were up for it too. I don't remember her saying she was drunk. Clever girl - became a City solicitor.
-
In that case what should not be in dispute is that the girl and the two men are all assholes, unless her drink really was spiked.
Knowing that alcohol impairs your judgment, she made the decision to get drunk, put herself at risk of meeting an asshole, and then decided she wanted to climb into a taxi with said asshole - a man she had never met before - and go have sex with Clayton McDonald, who was also under the influence. Neither Clayton McDonald or Ched Evans are responsible for her poor decision-making - otherwise that would set back the equality of women if we treat them like children who are incapable of making decisions about not drinking too much because it makes them hornier than they would have been if they were sober.
Being drunk doesn't make her an arsehole. If the footballers had done the right thing which is not to take advantage of somebody who is drunk (especially when Ched Evans already had a girlfriend), none of this would ever have happened. Please stop blaming the victim.
-
The footballers were drunk - their judgment was impaired and they engaged in risky behaviour including unprotected sex, including oral sex on a woman who had just had another man inside her.
She was drunk, her judgment was impaired and she engaged in risky behaviour - asking to go home with a man she just met and having unprotected sex with him and his mate.
That's all we know for sure.
Ched Evans cheated but his girlfriend appears to have got over it for some strange reason - maybe because he was drunk, maybe because she felt sorry for him, who knows - I certainly don't know what she gets out of getting back into a relationship with him.
Ched Evans was convicted of a crime, served time in prison, lost earnings, lost opportunities and will get abuse from rowdy football fans every time he plays.
The girl has had to move away from home and faced online abuse from trolls.
Why did you say victim in the singular? There were 2 victims of drunkeness - 3 if you count Clayton McDonald - and yes I blame all 3 of them for getting too drunk to make good decisions but it wasn't their fault it went to a rape trial - the CPS decided that when they decided that if a woman states she could not remember consenting, she was too drunk to consent.
-
The footballers were drunk - their judgment was impaired and they engaged in risky behaviour including unprotected sex, including oral sex on a woman who had just had another man inside her.
She was drunk, her judgment was impaired and she engaged in risky behaviour - asking to go home with a man she just met and having unprotected sex with him and his mate.
That's all we know for sure.
Ched Evans cheated but his girlfriend appears to have got over it for some strange reason - maybe because he was drunk, maybe because she felt sorry for him, who knows - I certainly don't know what she gets out of getting back into a relationship with him.
Ched Evans was convicted of a crime, served time in prison, lost earnings, lost opportunities and will get abuse from rowdy football fans every time he plays.
The girl has had to move away from home and faced online abuse from trolls.
Why did you say victim in the singular? There were 2 victims of drunkeness - 3 if you count Clayton McDonald - and yes I blame all 3 of them for getting too drunk to make good decisions but it wasn't their fault it went to a rape trial - the CPS decided that when they decided that if a woman states she could not remember consenting, she was too drunk to consent.
I've been pretty drunk on occasion. I've met drunk women but I've never felt the need to take advantage o a woman's inebriation in the way Shed Evans did.
Like I said earlier: you can be an arsehole without breaking the law.
-
I've been pretty drunk on occasion. I've met drunk women but I've never felt the need to take advantage o a woman's inebriation in the way Shed Evans did.
Like I said earlier: you can be an arsehole without breaking the law.
Who said they took advantage of her. Maybe she enjoyed the sex at the time, given what she is supposed to have said during sex. How were they supposed to know she wouldn't remember she had a good time in the morning?
Some people need to be pretty drunk to let their inhibitions go and have a good time. How is a man or woman supposed to differentiate between those who want to lower their inhibitions, who can willingly get into a cab, collect a pizza etc, have sex with a stranger and those who are being taken advantage of?. Is a woman going to be accused of taking advantage of a drunk man?
-
I've been pretty drunk on occasion. I've met drunk women but I've never felt the need to take advantage o a woman's inebriation in the way Shed Evans did.
Like I said earlier: you can be an arsehole without breaking the law.
Yes, there are plenty of men who just would not, Full Stop. Also many would find a drunken woman distasteful.
I've been drunk too and done and said things I regretted. Once, when I was young, I fell into a deep sleep and when I woke up I honestly did not know if anything bad had happened. it's frightening to think of now but at least I didn't see my face in the newspaper afterwards.
There's something about this sorry story that makes me want to weep, the thought of these young people who behaved badly and stupidly more than five years ago, in an unrelenting and unforgiving spotlight.
-
Fortunately I have never been drunk in my life. Drink is not a good bed fellow with sexual activity, imo.
-
Yes, there are plenty of men who just would not, Full Stop. Also many would find a drunken woman distasteful.
I've been drunk too and done and said things I regretted. Once, when I was young, I fell into a deep sleep and when I woke up I honestly did not know if anything bad had happened. it's frightening to think of now but at least I didn't see my face in the newspaper afterwards.
There's something about this sorry story that makes me want to weep, the thought of these young people who behaved badly and stupidly more than five years ago, in an unrelenting and unforgiving spotlight.
Which, maybe, is a good thing if it prevents even one girl/woman from winding up in the same situation.
I, for one, do NOT believe that drunken consent is still consent.
-
Which, maybe, is a good thing if it prevents even one girl/woman from winding up in the same situation.
I, for one, do NOT believe that drunken consent is still consent.
So what blood alcohol level do I have to ensure people who I have sex with are under when I breathalyse them after gaining consent for sex?
-
So what blood alcohol level do I have to ensure people who I have sex with are under when I breathalyse them after gaining consent for sex?
Surely it isn't difficult to tell if someone is drunk or not!
-
Lots of people up and down the country have been having sex after getting drunk - men and women. They like it that way. They wake up afterwards and might think "what the hell just happened" or "did anything happen?" or if they don't fancy the person in the cold light of soberness "what the hell was I thinking?!" and they chalk it up to experience.
Have all these men and women been raped, been assholes or made a mistake?
-
Surely it isn't difficult to tell if someone is drunk or not!
drunk is a continuum, not a binary position. Quite often both parties will be drunk, or perhaps even indulged in party pharmaceuticals.
-
Well what do I know having never been drunk, or been in close company of anyone who was.
-
Well what do I know having never been drunk, or been in close company of anyone who was.
You seem to have led a very sheltered life.
-
You seem to have led a very sheltered life.
Yeh right, I doubt it! My life has been in grave danger, often due to my own stupidity, more times than I care to count! :o