Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[mrmojorisin75]

Does the burden of proof have to be 'there is no evidence to say that she didn't consent'? Shouldn't it be - 'there is no evidence to say that she did consent'?

 

Aye, because you're talking about a man's life so really the burden of proof should be considerably stronger than the lass not remembering anything at all and then a jury deciding she wasn't capable to consent to it when they weren't there and there's no evidence to point to that being actually true.

 

As I said it's possible he did rape her, I don't know (but I doubt it), but in the absence of actual evidence that he did I'm afraid it should never have got where it did.

 

Honestly how could anyone reasonably expect Evans, or anyone taking a lass home from a nightclub they just met, to know with absolute certainty that the lass was on the right side of 'the line'?

 

It's an insane idea really. Totally different if she was unconscious or whatever but by all accounts she was actively involved.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Does the burden of proof have to be 'there is no evidence to say that she didn't consent'? Shouldn't it be - 'there is no evidence to say that she did consent'?

 

Well there's 2 witnesses that say she did consent, and 0 that say she did not. The girl herself does not know if she did or not.

They're not witnesses (if you're referring to Evans and McDonald) although the night porter reported something about him hearing it as consensual through the door.

 

Does McDonald not qualify as a witness in Evans' trial? My legal knowledge isn't brilliant, if not then one witness which was the night porter.

They're both defendants so I doubt it. Not that I know anything about law like.

[Guest alijmitchell]

Making the point in general that currently in rape cases it seems biased towards the 'victim' having to provide evidence of non-consensual sex, whereas, I believe we should be asking the perpetrator, where is the evidence the victim consented, and where is the evidence that the victim was capable of providing consent.

 

And please, asking to go to a hotel room does not mean someone has basically consented to sexual intercourse.

 

That's complete rubbish. Using that methodology you'd like to adopt a guilty until proven innocent system?

 

I think there should be more emphasis on defendants looking to provide evidence of consent (including if no verbal consent is given then things like, prior knowledge of the person, actions leading up to the event, how pissed the victim was, whether or not the person was high). Basically I think that if you're going home with a girl who has been described as 'extremely drunk', or sitting mortal on the ground, you need to put your dick back in your trousers. Rather than the 'opportunistic sex' described on here.

[Interpolic]

Has anyone ever had drunken sex and asked for consent? Am I wrong in thinking that not doing so unless they say no, or you use your intuition is the wrong way to go about it?

 

Seems like the ultimate mood killer.

 

I've never asked like but then again I'd hate to feel like I was pushing my luck so I've always been very, very sure.

 

I did wake up next to some absolute horror show once (in my youth) and had next to no recollection of what had happened for me to get there in the first place, not saying my drink was spiked but my drink was definitely spiked I reckon.

[mozy]

Making the point in general that currently in rape cases it seems biased towards the 'victim' having to provide evidence of non-consensual sex, whereas, I believe we should be asking the perpetrator, where is the evidence the victim consented, and where is the evidence that the victim was capable of providing consent.

 

And please, asking to go to a hotel room does not mean someone has basically consented to sexual intercourse.

 

That's complete rubbish. Using that methodology you'd like to adopt a guilty until proven innocent system?

 

I think there should be more emphasis on defendants looking to provide evidence of consent (including if no verbal consent is given then things like, prior knowledge of the person, actions leading up to the event, how pissed the victim was, whether or not the person was high). Basically I think that if you're going home with a girl who has been described as 'extremely drunk', or sitting mortal on the ground, you need to put your dick back in your trousers. Rather than the 'opportunistic sex' described on here.

 

In terms of what you've described there, I would guess most of that would be covered in a standard police interview anyway. I don't know what evidence anyone could provide really.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Making the point in general that currently in rape cases it seems biased towards the 'victim' having to provide evidence of non-consensual sex, whereas, I believe we should be asking the perpetrator, where is the evidence the victim consented, and where is the evidence that the victim was capable of providing consent.

 

And please, asking to go to a hotel room does not mean someone has basically consented to sexual intercourse.

 

That's complete rubbish. Using that methodology you'd like to adopt a guilty until proven innocent system?

 

I think there should be more emphasis on defendants looking to provide evidence of consent (including if no verbal consent is given then things like, prior knowledge of the person, actions leading up to the event, how pissed the victim was, whether or not the person was high). Basically I think that if you're going home with a girl who has been described as 'extremely drunk', or sitting mortal on the ground, you need to put your dick back in your trousers. Rather than the 'opportunistic sex' described on here.

You are responsible for your own actions, not those of others. Obviously you have to make your own decision but what you're describing there is pretty much guilty until proven innocent. All someone can say is that they consented or didn't, I agree that it's difficult to know from the outside looking in, but it works both ways in terms of the impact on the accusers and defendants life. It has to be innocent until proven guilty.

[Guest alijmitchell]

Making the point in general that currently in rape cases it seems biased towards the 'victim' having to provide evidence of non-consensual sex, whereas, I believe we should be asking the perpetrator, where is the evidence the victim consented, and where is the evidence that the victim was capable of providing consent.

 

And please, asking to go to a hotel room does not mean someone has basically consented to sexual intercourse.

 

That's complete rubbish. Using that methodology you'd like to adopt a guilty until proven innocent system?

 

I think there should be more emphasis on defendants looking to provide evidence of consent (including if no verbal consent is given then things like, prior knowledge of the person, actions leading up to the event, how p*ssed the victim was, whether or not the person was high). Basically I think that if you're going home with a girl who has been described as 'extremely drunk', or sitting mortal on the ground, you need to put your dick back in your trousers. Rather than the 'opportunistic sex' described on here.

You are responsible for your own actions, not those of others. Obviously you have to make your own decision but what you're describing there is pretty much guilty until proven innocent. All someone can say is that they consented or didn't, I agree that it's difficult to know from the outside looking in, but it works both ways in terms of the impact on the accusers and defendants life. It has to be innocent until proven guilty.

 

Im not saying guilty until proven innocent, but that in order to ensure innocence, you have to provide a stronger case to say that the person did actually consent, or was capable of doing so - I'm sure that in these cases having the option to say 'don't know either way' would allow for an innocent ruling. In Scotland, I've sat jury where there were 3 possible options - two of which meant that the defendant was let off. (not a rape case though)

[mrmojorisin75]

Making the point in general that currently in rape cases it seems biased towards the 'victim' having to provide evidence of non-consensual sex, whereas, I believe we should be asking the perpetrator, where is the evidence the victim consented, and where is the evidence that the victim was capable of providing consent.

 

And please, asking to go to a hotel room does not mean someone has basically consented to sexual intercourse.

 

That's complete rubbish. Using that methodology you'd like to adopt a guilty until proven innocent system?

 

I think there should be more emphasis on defendants looking to provide evidence of consent (including if no verbal consent is given then things like, prior knowledge of the person, actions leading up to the event, how pissed the victim was, whether or not the person was high). Basically I think that if you're going home with a girl who has been described as 'extremely drunk', or sitting mortal on the ground, you need to put your dick back in your trousers. Rather than the 'opportunistic sex' described on here.

 

How would you ever provide evidence of how pissed someone was? You can drink the same drinks on different nights and have massively different reactions to it depending on a number of circumstances. A person could be wasted in public then sober up in private enough to want a shag, it's all so arbitrary and subjective.

 

I kind of get what you're saying but it's nonsense really.

 

 

[Klaus]

Reading a lot of this thread, It seems a lot of people have heard the main things which happened on the night, and are filling in the blancs based on nothing/assumptions. Ched Evans was found guilty of rape, beyond any reasonable doubt in a court of law. Yes some of the outcomes seem a little odd, such as the other person being found not guilty etc. But there would have been a lot more evidence presented in court, than what has been written in the papers or in this thread.

[Guest firetotheworks]

There's a link to the registered appeal that we've all been referring to.

[Hanshithispantz]

Although we haven't got access to the full story the fact he was convicted in this case isn't enough for me to want his life to be further ruined though, which is the point really. I know the same as the likes of Ennis and that other lass who stepped down from her role at Sheffield, and I don't think it's enough for me to be a) certain that the jury came to the right conclusion, and b) paint him as some kind of monster.

[Greg]

There's a link to the registered appeal that we've all been referring to.

 

Worth remembering that it was his application to appeal that was turned down, not an appeal, which I am not sure everyone in here has realised.

 

He's made an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, who will begin their investigation soon and may then review the case back to the Court of Appeal. Interestingly most of the cases they refer back to the Court of Appeal end are quashed, but the majority of cases aren't referred.

 

Case Statistics - Figures to 31 October 2014

Total applications*: 18513

Cases waiting: 688

Cases under review: 835

Completed: 16990 (incl. ineligible), 565 referrals

Heard by Court of Appeal: 543 (374 quashed, 153 upheld)

 

[TheHoob]

The appeal didn't refer to all of the evidence which would have been used in the initial trial so you've got to be careful what conclusions you draw from it.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Does anyone have a link to something that includes all of it? Being found guilty doesn't mean that much to me.

[koven]

Does anyone who has read that link KI posted think the lad should have gone down for rape? Genuine question.

 

Providing that the jury had to make a decision without reasonable doubt, no I don't think he should have. The opinions that have gone beyond that which are more in line with saying that she should have expected something bad to happen to her through getting pissed and sleeping around is honestly making me feel sick though. It's fucking revolting and those saying it should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

 

I'm not getting involved in that shit like, if that want clear from my posts, I'm just genuinely astounded the lad went down.

 

The more surprising thing is that his mate was found not guilty. That's truly baffling.

 

The Lord Justice explains in the transcript why different verdicts were possible and logical.

 

There are 2 elements to rape.  That the victim doesn't consent (or can't consent) and that the suspect does not reasonably believe the victim consented.

 

If the jury felt that she couldn't consent to either defendant (due to her condition) then they would need to go to consider whether either reasonably believed she consented.  Perhaps they felt that McDonald may have reasonably believed she consented (or at least, they couldn't be sure that he didn't reasonably believe she consented), in view of how she came to be in the hotel room with him, but they did not consider Evans could have reasonably believed she consented.

 

Only the jury will know for sure.

[The Prophet]

The main point, regardless of whether she gave consent or not, is whether she was in a sound state of mind in order to do so.

 

That to me is extremely dodgy and open to interpretation.

 

I've been wondering how the whole thing might have went down like:

 

Hi I woke up in a hotel room at 11.30 after drinking shitloads of booze and don't remember what happened. I was naked and I'd p*ssed the bed. I think I had sex as well but don't remember.

 

(Rape test later presumably confirms sex with 2 people and no signs of violence, no signs of roofies or whatever, the two people involved are identified)

 

Did you consent to have sex with the 2 guys? I don't know, I was very drunk and have zero recollection of the events whatsoever. I absolutely cannot say I did or did not consent to sex with either guy.

 

OK love I'm very sorry but the two guys involved state you consented to have sex with both of them, in the absence of any recollection from your side, and no signs of sexual violence or coercion I'm afraid there's very little we can do here.

 

 

...

Isn't that how it should have went? Surely.

 

Any sane being would argue this. But in todays PC climate the conclusion = " you cant remember consenting? Well thats rape then - you should report them etc".  You got drunk, went home with a guy and ended up having sex. Thats life.  Dont want to have drunken sex, simple 1. dont get that drunk and 2. Dont go home with a bloke.  If you go home with a guy he is going to attempt to shag you, you are free to say so and go home. If you are so drunk that are unable to object then obviously the guy SHOULD know better but in reality this rarely happens. Does it make him a bit of an arsehole if he is sober enough to see it? Yes, but locking him up for several years and labelling him as a sex offender is very very harsh. Im sure most of us would have experienced similar without never really having had that intention.

Pretty much this, if you consented to consume enough alcohol to put you in a situation where you can't remember then surely you are consenting to these sorts of possibilities.

 

Lets reverse the situation, what happens if a girl was more sober than a guy and the guy woke up with a big heffa next to him the next morning and runs like f***. The guy is classed a dick for just running off yet no one blames the girl for taking advantage. How many bi-sexual or straight men get drunk and wake up with another guy next to them after getting so drunk?, who is to blame there, my guess is people will blame the straight guy for getting so drunk.

If you reverse the situation where a man is victim to the affects of alcohol no one says he was raped, if a girl does though then it's rape, double standards. Isn't it about time we started realising that women have just as much freedom to do what they want as men do and can be just as bad?

How the f*** is it possible to hold such dangerously right wing viewpoints?

My points was showing the difference in accountability between genders, and if we are to assume being intoxicated makes you in able to consent then it should be equal across both genders and surely someone has take responsibility for being so drunk?

 

If being intoxicated means you can no longer consent then surely a lot of people will be guilty of rape by having a drunken 1 night stand, or even by having a few drinks with their partner and then having sex? You can't say being intoxicated and then having sex is rape and only apply it to women on a night out, if your going to do that then it has to be applied to everyone.

"if you consented to consume enough alcohol to put you in a situation where you can't remember then surely you are consenting to these sorts of possibilities" 

 

You're views are incredibly rigid, like. I cannot even be bothered to explain the differences between the 2 scenarios though, they're obvious, but if a bloke believes he was 'raped' he has every right to report it and it'll be dealt in the same manner as if a female was to.

We have to be responsible for our actions even when drunk. If someone got drunk and drove and caused an accident then they are responsible, if someone dies then usually they go down for manslaughter because their intention wasn't to hurt someone but they took actions that resulted in it. In the eyes of the law they are still responsible, so if someone is responsible for killing someone when they are drunk then surely they are responsible for having sex?

 

I can't believe what I'm reading.

 

Rape trials are so complex, neither party ends of being protected at the end of the day. Most cases end up in he said/she said so reasonable doubt is impossible to find. On the other hand the accused's identity is dragged through the mud and he's stigmatised regardless of whether he's found guilty or not.

 

Anyway that's beside the point. Comparing a woman having a drink and getting raped to a woman having a drink and getting into a car isn't even the same ball park and you'd have to be a dangerously moronic individual to even entertain it. It's victim blaming of the highest order.

[BlueStar]

This girl initiated wanting to go back to the hotel room with McDonald though. To compare it to Bluestar's analogy it's like someone quite pissed giving you their phone and saying have this.

 

Except in your example the 'victim' is instigating the act, in this case the suggestion that Ched come along and join in was made by the defendants in the case, by their own admission. So, more like my original example.  The fact that the girl initiated going back to the hotel room with McDonald may explain why he was found not guilty.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

They're not witnesses (if you're referring to Evans and McDonald) although the night porter reported something about him hearing it as consensual through the door.

 

They are not prosecution witnesses but both gave evidence in their Defences so would be witnesses for their own Defence.

 

Does anyone have a link to something that includes all of it? Being found guilty doesn't mean that much to me.

 

You'd really need to see the Court transcript if you wanted everything. They are not readily available and very expensive to obtain. Even then you wouldn't get much of a sense as to how people came over giving their evidence, which I suspect played a part in Evans' conviction.

 

[oldtype]

None of us have access to the full slate of evidence. Twelve people (or whatever number juries have in England) who did thought he was guilty.

 

It's inherently pointless to question the decision based on a bunch of rumors/hearsay/conjecture. It's like trying to argue whether a goal was offside or not based off nothing but BBC text updates.

[loki679]

You got something against BBC text updates like?

[Guest firetotheworks]

None of us have access to the full slate of evidence. Twelve people (or whatever number juries have in England) who did thought he was guilty.

 

It's inherently pointless to question the decision based on a bunch of rumors/hearsay/conjecture. It's like trying to argue whether a goal was offside or not based off nothing but BBC text updates.

No one's doing that, they're doing it based on a submitted appeal that includes witness and professional accounts. That's a lazy post, Oldtype.

[oldtype]

None of us have access to the full slate of evidence. Twelve people (or whatever number juries have in England) who did thought he was guilty.

 

It's inherently pointless to question the decision based on a bunch of rumors/hearsay/conjecture. It's like trying to argue whether a goal was offside or not based off nothing but BBC text updates.

No one's doing that, they're doing it based on a submitted appeal that includes witness and professional accounts. That's a lazy post, Oldtype.

 

Okay, there is a decent summary of relevant facts in this appeal filing. Post amended to "trying to argue whether a goal was offside or not based off nothing but the match report."

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

That analogy man. Jesus.

[loki679]

Needs moar cars.

[UV]

There's rules about why you can't tattoo someone while they're pissed, why you can't get people to sign legal documents when they're intoxicated, why you can't get your gran to change her will when she's off her tits on anesthetic.  Not being able to consent to things when you're intoxicated is a pretty well established concept, it's not special treatment for women.

 

Ergo any sex with someone who is intoxicated (to any degree) is sex without consent and is therefore by definition rape should that person later decide they would not have made the same decision if sober.

 

That is the logical conclusion of this line of argument, and I'd suggest that if that is the case, then there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of non-convicted rapists (of either sex) walking the streets of Britain today. Some of these rapists will be famous footballers, pop stars, actors, etc, others will be treating you at the doctors or in hospital, and many will even be teaching your children.

 

Frightening.

 

 

This is the actual stance of the law btw: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/ and this would seem to be the most relevant section to this case:

 

The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.

 

In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.

 

It would seem that the jury decided that at the point of getting into the taxi and going back to the hotel the woman was capable of offering consent, but subsequently lost that capacity later in the evening without further consumption of alcohol or drugs.