Ched Evans

[lost]

Correct me if I'm wrong though but both guys were charged? She was found to simultaneously be too drunk with one and not with the other?

As far as I can see the jury did take her actions before hand into consideration? the fact she arrived with one and the other arrived afterwards and then didn't leave by the main door. It all seems like there wasn't a definitive verdict and it could of gone any of 3 ways ( no pun intended)

[eFestivals]

Wrong analogy at the top. The guy isnt a victim in it like the drunk girl.

The analogy is fine. Your ability to see where the similarity lies is the failing.

 

A better analogy is if a guy is too drunk to give informed consent as to giving his car to a stranger. If he is clearly too drunk to give informed permission in that condition, is the person taking the car guilty of theft under law?

I'll agree that a better analogy.

There is no such thing as "too drunk to give informed consent" for anything but sexual encounters. My point! There is no absolvement in law from your actions when drunk ... unless a woman accusing a bloke of rape.

If we're to work by a different set of rules when drink is involved then lets have some full and consistent rules (or drop the inconsistency in the rape laws).

My real problem tho is that it re-enforces the 'little woman' idea, where women are reliant on the good behaviour of men for the upholding of their honour. It's a step back into Victorian values.

Edited October 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

Correct me if I'm wrong though but both guys were charged? She was found to simultaneously be too drunk with one and not with the other?

As far as I can see the jury did take her actions before hand into consideration? the fact she arrived with one and the other arrived afterwards and then didn't leave by the main door. It all seems like there wasn't a definitive verdict and it could of gone any of 3 ways ( no pun intended)

Basically chad evans got a hotel card by lying to the receptionist, sneaked into the hotel room, had sex with her and left by the fire escape.

The other guy went in from the front door with her.

So very different circumstances

[lost]

Basically chad evans got a hotel card by lying to the receptionist, sneaked into the hotel room, had sex with her and left by the fire escape.

The other guy went in from the front door with her.

So very different circumstances

So you think if a women agrees to goto your hotel room with you she's fair game?

Agreeing to goto a room isn't consent in the same way leaving by a different route isn't an admission of guilt.

[eFestivals]

Correct me if I'm wrong though but both guys were charged? She was found to simultaneously be too drunk with one and not with the other?

As far as I can see the jury did take her actions before hand into consideration? the fact she arrived with one and the other arrived afterwards and then didn't leave by the main door. It all seems like there wasn't a definitive verdict and it could of gone any of 3 ways ( no pun intended)

I think it's more the case for implied intent to have sex with the first guy (who got off), because they were seen together. The facts around Evans are unsavoury, but that doesn't necessarily make him guilty of rape.

 

Ultimately it comes down to nothing more than him claiming implied consent at the time via her actions, but the law saying that as she's no memory of it and there being no witnesses (apart from his mates) that it's therefore rape.

 

I've no idea either way if Evans might have perhaps been in court and convicted without the 'drunk' law, and from what I've heard of the case I'm not thinking it's an outrage that he was found guilty - maybe he was and maybe he wasn't; even with this law I'm sort-of happy for the jury to decide.

 

But none of that stops me feeling it's is a bad law for all sorts of different reasons.

[eFestivals]

Basically chad evans got a hotel card by lying to the receptionist, sneaked into the hotel room, had sex with her and left by the fire escape.

The other guy went in from the front door with her.

So very different circumstances

 

I'm happy for those different circumstances to see him convicted if that's how the jury thought.

 

I'm less comfortable about the 'drunk' law and it's many flaws.

[zahidf]

So you think if a women agrees to goto your hotel room with you she's fair game?

Agreeing to goto a room isn't consent in the same way leaving by a different route isn't an admission of guilt.

Um no. Im explaining the difference in why one was convicted and the other wasnt

[lost]

I think it's more the case for implied intent to have sex with the first guy (who got off), because they were seen together. The facts around Evans are unsavoury, but that doesn't necessarily make him guilty of rape.

Ultimately it comes down to nothing more than him claiming implied consent at the time via her actions, but the law saying that as she's no memory of it and there being no witnesses (apart from his mates) that it's therefore rape.

I've no idea either way if Evans might have perhaps been in court and convicted without the 'drunk' law, and from what I've heard of the case I'm not thinking it's an outrage that he was found guilty - maybe he was and maybe he wasn't; even with this law I'm sort-of happy for the jury to decide.

But none of that stops me feeling it's is a bad law for all sorts of different reasons.

me too, as I said it all seems messy with this law, I could easily see Evans winning his appeal based on the evidence I've read and then it's all going to kick off.

[pink_triangle]

me too, as I said it all seems messy with this law, I could easily see Evans winning his appeal based on the evidence I've read and then it's all going to kick off.

Someone told me the appeal court it has gone to reverses decisions more than 50 percent of the time, unsure if this is accurate.

If it is reversed it will be big news for a couple of days and quickly forgotten. He will resume his career and life will go on.

[mungo57]

 

I'm happy for those different circumstances to see him convicted if that's how the jury thought.

 

I'm less comfortable about the 'drunk' law and it's many flaws.

it was Ched's room technically - he paid for it on his card for the other guy to stay in.

[zero000]

So Ched's won his appeal and now faces a retrial...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/21/ched-evans-wins-appeal-against-conviction

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, zero000 said:

So Ched's won his appeal and now faces a retrial...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/21/ched-evans-wins-appeal-against-conviction

Blimey. I wonder what the new evidence is, as it's hard to imagine where they might have found something of relevance.

[ThomThomDrum]

The interesting words here were uttered by his solicitor that his original conviction was deemed to be "unsafe and should be quashed". What sort of evidence makes a conviction look "unsafe"? 

Intriguing.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, ThomThomDrum said:

The interesting words here were uttered by his solicitor that his original conviction was deemed to be "unsafe and should be quashed". What sort of evidence makes a conviction look "unsafe"? 

Intriguing.

Any relevant evidence that wasn't considered at a trial would make the conviction unsafe.

It's hard to think what of the circumstances of the incident might not have been covered originally, so i'm guessing it's something around the character of the victim - as that's a line that Evans has tried to push in the past.

If it is that I hope it's something properly strong rather than a tittle-tattle thing. Victim blaming isn't a great angle.

[pink_triangle]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Any relevant evidence that wasn't considered at a trial would make the conviction unsafe.

It's hard to think what of the circumstances of the incident might not have been covered originally, so i'm guessing it's something around the character of the victim - as that's a line that Evans has tried to push in the past.

If it is that I hope it's something properly strong rather than a tittle-tattle thing. Victim blaming isn't a great angle.

What concerns me about the case is I got the impression some people were actively hoping for a particular result rather than the right result. I have to hope justice has got it right, liked I did before.

 

[feral chile]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Any relevant evidence that wasn't considered at a trial would make the conviction unsafe.

It's hard to think what of the circumstances of the incident might not have been covered originally, so i'm guessing it's something around the character of the victim - as that's a line that Evans has tried to push in the past.

If it is that I hope it's something properly strong rather than a tittle-tattle thing. Victim blaming isn't a great angle.

Could it be jury bias, or something connected to that?

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Could it be jury bias, or something connected to that?

Nope, doesn't sound like it. A retrail was ordered because of some new evidence, tho they've not said what the evidence is.

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, doesn't sound like it. A retrail was ordered because of some new evidence, tho they've not said what the evidence is.

Well if the evidence is about the girl, I hope it's something that sheds light on the specifics of that night. I can't imagine the girl's history could be used as evidence.

So if it's not the jury, it must be something new, or that was omitted, surely?

I hope justice gets done, anyway.

[pink_triangle]

Is it guaranteed there will be a retrial now, or could the cps decide against it? Is there a possibility he could be found guilty again and sent back inside if they thought the punishment wasn't harsh enough.

Interestingly a case could be made that as an innocent man accused of a serious crime he has less right to play than a guilty man who had served his time.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, feral chile said:

Well if the evidence is about the girl, I hope it's something that sheds light on the specifics of that night. I can't imagine the girl's history could be used as evidence.

So if it's not the jury, it must be something new, or that was omitted, surely?

I hope justice gets done, anyway.

It's difficult to know what any new evidence might be, tho I'm pretty sure there's articles out there of Evans claiming to have new evidence about the girl. I think I remember reading something like that around the time he was trying to get back into football.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Is it guaranteed there will be a retrial now, or could the cps decide against it? Is there a possibility he could be found guilty again and sent back inside if they thought the punishment wasn't harsh enough.

I guess if the new evidence might deem his crime to be worse than previously thought he might end up inside again, but I don't think that's particularly likely given that he seems to think this new evidence might clear him rather than further damn him.

 

 

[lost]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Any relevant evidence that wasn't considered at a trial would make the conviction unsafe.

It's hard to think what of the circumstances of the incident might not have been covered originally, so i'm guessing it's something around the character of the victim - as that's a line that Evans has tried to push in the past.

If it is that I hope it's something properly strong rather than a tittle-tattle thing. Victim blaming isn't a great angle.

Thats what the papers are reporting though a previous false rape allegation against another party with an attempt to extort money and witness statements of promiscuity were used in the original trail but deemed non-permissible so I can't think what would be permissible if that isn't?? 

[Guest]

So much rape goes unreported. This sends a completely shit message to victims of assault who remain silent out of fear.

Edited April 21, 2016 by GETOFFAMYLAWN

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, GETOFFAMYLAWN said:

So much rape goes unreported. This sends a completely shit message to victims of assault who remain silent out of fear.

I agree with the first sentence, but can't agree with the idea people wrongly convicted of rape shouldn't have a right to appeal in fear of deterring others from reporting. Ched Evans is an innocent man until the courts decide otherwise.

[Guest]

Just now, pink_triangle said:

I agree with the first sentence, but can't agree with the idea people wrongly convicted of rape shouldn't have a right to appeal in fear of deterring others from reporting. Ched Evans is an innocent man until the courts decide otherwise.

They did decide otherwise, but they've gone back on that. Long drawn out years of hoighty strangers debating whether or not you are a slag who was asking for it is nobody's idea of fun, especially after you've already been horribly violated and traumatised for life.