Reading all the comments here, it still doesn't make sense, so am awaiting the written judgement which will hopefully clarrify a few issues.
There is no 'written judgment' in a criminal trial. You can get a transcript of the evidence, speeches, directions by the judge and the sentencing remarks but the views of the jury and how they came to their conclusion remain within the jury room. If there is an appeal then the judgment of the Court of Appeal is written.
I suspect any professional e.g doctor, solicitor, accountant, teacher etc. would have been shown the door by their employee once the conviction was delivered and would have probaly been suspended from work once charges had been laid. I fail to see why professional footballers, with comparable salaries and who are in the public eye and often act as role models for youngsters, should be treated more leniently.
I suspect they would not SM. in Britain you are innocent until proven guilty are you not? Why would your boss think he could be judge, jury and executioner? Clayton McDonald was accused of the same thing, and found not guilty, but his career should have suffered because of a "false" accusation?
To those suggesting that he should never play again, I will also ask the same question I posed on the Lee Hughes thread ( at least, I think I did ). Which criminals should be allowed to return to their job after serving their sentence, and which shouldn't? Which crimes would this ban apply to? Would their fate be decided by a bunch of folks on an internet forum?
Employers ( clubs ) may well decide not to take him on when he comes out, and understandably so, but it is not quite the same as those in a REAL position of responsibility such as doctors and the others you mention SM.
Don't get me wrong, Evans deserves all he gets, but I have never been comfortable with the lynch mob mentality.
She consented to going back with McDonald and having sex with him. Evans turned up and had his wicked way which she didn't agree to.
Why does it seem that difficult for people here to grasp why one is guilty and the other one isn't!?
And he will be allowed to continue his career when he comes out, of course he will. Its fairly obvious that he's going to try as well considering he's not going to stand a chance getting employment doing anything else.
Unfortunately there are clubs out there like Oldham and Notts County who only care about getting results.
What disturbs me is that you just know that there is a meeting scheduled where some suits are gonna sit around a try to justify why they need to hold on to Evans and not sack him immediately just in case there is any small chance there is still a few quid in it. But I suppose that's what football has become.
Henry, you're right but the verdict means she WAS in a fit state to consent (after all she accused both, not just Evans).
Therefore the jury's verdict means there was sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she DID consent to McDonald (see above) but DIDN'T consent to Evans. If the evidence presented (or at least as reported) is sufficient then I'm a Palace fan.
No, it means the jury considered that there was evidence sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that she didn't consent to Evans, but not sufficient beyond reasonable doubt that she DIDN'T consent to McDonald.
"I'm not sure if she consented to McDonald or not, but she definitely didn't consent to Evans" would result in yesterday's verdict.
What disturbs me is that you just know that there is a meeting scheduled where some suits are gonna sit around a try to justify why they need to hold on to Evans and not sack him immediately just in case there is any small chance there is still a few quid in it. But I suppose that's what football has become.
How can there be a few quid in it, he's out of contract at the end of the season.
Henry, you're right but the verdict means she WAS in a fit state to consent (after all she accused both, not just Evans).
Therefore the jury's verdict means there was sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she DID consent to McDonald (see above) but DIDN'T consent to Evans. If the evidence presented (or at least as reported) is sufficient then I'm a Palace fan.
No, it means the jury considered that there was evidence sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that she didn't consent to Evans, but not sufficient beyond reasonable doubt that she DIDN'T consent to McDonald.
"I'm not sure if she consented to McDonald or not, but she definitely didn't consent to Evans" would result in yesterday's verdict.
This
As a criminal case which carries the burdern of proof as beyond reasonable doubt as opposed civil cases which would be on a balance of probabilities . Maybe Macdonald would have also been guilty had this been a civil case brought by the young woman concerned .
This is why I feel Sheffield United could have done something ,the CPS do not bring these charges lightly and their likely promotion has been largely down to Evans's goals as I said earlier I can say that now knowing it didn't adversely affect us. As someone said earlier had he been a fringe reserve player would they have done the same ?
They should have done the same, innocent until proven guilty is a very important part of our legal system.
After the way Evans played last season getting his 20-something-k a week wages of the books may have been a easier decision for the club to take, there was no garuntee he would perform this season.
They should now tear his contract up as he has been found guilty.
"I'm not sure if she consented to McDonald or not, but she definitely didn't consent to Evans" would result in yesterday's verdict. "
It isn't the job of the jury to construct theories about what happened but to unemotionally and logically assess the evidence presented (and nothing else).
If two of the three people present state under oath that she consented, and the third person can not provide any recollection, then how could the jury conclude that a 'reasonable person' would be left in 'no reasonable doubt' of his guilt (the burden of proof required)?
Despite their accounts of what happened in the room (again said under oath) they both could have been convicted on the grounds that she was not in a fit state to consent, but this is obviously not what happened.
Thus the jury must have concluded she either consented to CM (or it was reasonable for him to think that she had) but that it was not reasonable for CE to think this. However none of the evidence (reported at least) points to this, unless you think they lied in the witness box in which case this is another serious offence.
I bet the police/CPS brought the case on both thinking the girl was totally unfit to consent (and rightly so), yet they've ended up seeing this perverse outcome.
She consented to going back with McDonald and having sex with him. Evans turned up and had his wicked way which she didn't agree to.
Why does it seem that difficult for people here to grasp why one is guilty and the other one isn't!?
I think what is confusing many people is that the argument seems to be not whether she did consent to either/both but whether or not she was in a fit state to consent to sex at all. The issue that concerns me is how she can have been fit to consent to one but not the other.
What disturbs me is that you just know that there is a meeting scheduled where some suits are gonna sit around a try to justify why they need to hold on to Evans and not sack him immediately just in case there is any small chance there is still a few quid in it. But I suppose that's what football has become.
How can there be a few quid in it, he's out of contract at the end of the season.
Purely supposition but could a scenario where an agreement between Evans and SU is made that Evans gives them first dibs when he comes out ? I think the delay between verdict and SU sacking him is starting to appear a bit smelly. As a footballer Evans is worth serious money. I accept I am very cynical about the morals within football.
Posters are not applying the correct legal test. Here is the relevant section in the Sexual Offences Act 2003: (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
There are also evidential presumptions set out in sections 75 and 76 which are too long to post here.
Note that it is not just that the girl did not consent BUT also that the defendant did not reasonably believe that she was consenting. On the brief accounts in the papers there seems to be sufficient difference in the circumstances of the incidents involving McDonald and Evans which could (and it seems did) leave the jury in some doubt whether the prosecution proved that McDonald did not reasonably believe that the girl had consented.
Nice to see his team mates still support him.........jesus
I very nearly posted above that I thought his team mates might do something like wear vests with we support Ched or similar. Deleted it because I thought ...nah even they will want to distance themselves from a convicted rapist. Just shows how gut insticts about all that is wrong in football are often correct.
Posters are not applying the correct legal test. Here is the relevant section in the Sexual Offences Act 2003: (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
Agreed (obviously) but I think those of us confused or worried by the verdict have concerns about the evidence presented (especially as the victim could not provide any recollections) in the context of how high the burden of proof is (or should be), and in the context of one of the defendants being acquitted.
Nice to see his team mates still support him.........jesus
I very nearly posted above that I thought his team mates might do something like wear vests with we support Ched or similar. Deleted it because I thought ...nah even they will want to distance themselves from a convicted rapist. Just shows how gut insticts about all that is wrong in football are often correct.
This.
Of course, I could be totally wrong, but I reckon on the whole we have a reasonable bunch of human beings for a football team. Would be difficult if there were wankers like these playing for Charlton.
The young woman has now been allegedly abused on Twitter
Police are investigating reports that the woman raped by footballer Ched Evans was being named and abused online.
It follows a complaint to North Wales Police by a leading rape charity which said the alleged comments on Twitter were "profoundly disturbing".
Sheffield United and Wales striker Evans, 23, was jailed for five years at Caernarfon Crown Court on Friday after being found guilty of raping the woman who was "too drunk to consent".
A spokeswoman for North Wales Police said tonight: "We are aware of some comments made on social media sites and we are collating all relevant information."
Rape and other sexual assault victims are guaranteed the legal right to lifetime anonymity.
But victims' groups fear the current criminal justice rules could be inadequate to guarantee anonymity in the age of social media.
And the latest revelations would add credence to the argument that the law needs updating to prevent victims being identified on the internet.
Holly Dustin, director of the End Violence Against Women coalition, and Rape Crisis England and Wales, said: "It is profoundly disturbing that the victim in the Ched Evans trial has been named and abused on Twitter and other social media sites.
"It has long been law that rape complainants are protected by lifetime anonymity and those who have named her have been reported to the police for committing a criminal offence.
"This raises serious questions about the adequacy of the criminal justice system to deal with offences that occur online and we are calling for an urgent review of laws and practices."
Evans admitted having sex with the victim, then aged 19, at a hotel in north Wales last May.
In her evidence, the woman said she has no memory of the incident and the prosecution argued she was too drunk to consent to sexual intercourse.
Evans' co-accused, Port Vale defender Clayton McDonald, 23, who also admitted having sex with the victim, was found not guilty.
Ms Dustin added: "We want to see football clubs and the Football Association take a strong stance against sexism in the sport.
"We also want the Government to take concerted action to address attitudes that condone violence.
"This must include ongoing public campaigns to challenge rape myths, work with young people in schools as well as action to tackle sexism online and in our daily newspapers.
"We cannot afford to shrug our shoulders any longer and hope that this problem will go away."
If the claim in that Daily Mail is true then Connor Brown has got to be too thick for his own safety. Holding that kind of view is bad enough but actually trumpeting it in public...?
There is a rumour on Twitter that he has been voted L1 Player of the Year .If true I can't believe the PFA would have gone through with this after Friday's verdict. What a mad world we live in.
There is a rumour on Twitter that he has been voted L1 Player of the Year .If true I can't believe the PFA would have gone through with this after Friday's verdict. What a mad world we live in.
Posters are not applying the correct legal test. Here is the relevant section in the Sexual Offences Act 2003: (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
There are also evidential presumptions set out in sections 75 and 76 which are too long to post here.
Note that it is not just that the girl did not consent BUT also that the defendant did not reasonably believe that she was consenting. On the brief accounts in the papers there seems to be sufficient difference in the circumstances of the incidents involving McDonald and Evans which could (and it seems did) leave the jury in some doubt whether the prosecution proved that McDonald did not reasonably believe that the girl had consented.
I was just about to post something similar. It seems likely that this is about the reasonable beliefs of the defendants rather than the consent of the girl.
Comments
To those suggesting that he should never play again, I will also ask the same question I posed on the Lee Hughes thread ( at least, I think I did ). Which criminals should be allowed to return to their job after serving their sentence, and which shouldn't? Which crimes would this ban apply to? Would their fate be decided by a bunch of folks on an internet forum?
Employers ( clubs ) may well decide not to take him on when he comes out, and understandably so, but it is not quite the same as those in a REAL position of responsibility such as doctors and the others you mention SM.
Don't get me wrong, Evans deserves all he gets, but I have never been comfortable with the lynch mob mentality.
Why does it seem that difficult for people here to grasp why one is guilty and the other one isn't!?
And he will be allowed to continue his career when he comes out, of course he will. Its fairly obvious that he's going to try as well considering he's not going to stand a chance getting employment doing anything else.
Unfortunately there are clubs out there like Oldham and Notts County who only care about getting results.
"I'm not sure if she consented to McDonald or not, but she definitely didn't consent to Evans" would result in yesterday's verdict.
How can there be a few quid in it, he's out of contract at the end of the season.
As a criminal case which carries the burdern of proof as beyond reasonable doubt as opposed civil cases which would be on a balance of probabilities . Maybe Macdonald would have also been guilty had this been a civil case brought by the young woman concerned .
This is why I feel Sheffield United could have done something ,the CPS do not bring these charges lightly and their likely promotion has been largely down to Evans's goals as I said earlier I can say that now knowing it didn't adversely affect us. As someone said earlier had he been a fringe reserve player would they have done the same ?
After the way Evans played last season getting his 20-something-k a week wages of the books may have been a easier decision for the club to take, there was no garuntee he would perform this season.
They should now tear his contract up as he has been found guilty.
It isn't the job of the jury to construct theories about what happened but to unemotionally and logically assess the evidence presented (and nothing else).
If two of the three people present state under oath that she consented, and the third person can not provide any recollection, then how could the jury conclude that a 'reasonable person' would be left in 'no reasonable doubt' of his guilt (the burden of proof required)?
It is worth reading this rather graphic account of some of CE's evidence (which didn't appear in national papers): http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/ched-evans-speaks-in-rape-trial-i-left-hotel-through-emergency-exit-in-case-girlfriend-rang-1-4459182
Despite their accounts of what happened in the room (again said under oath) they both could have been convicted on the grounds that she was not in a fit state to consent, but this is obviously not what happened.
Thus the jury must have concluded she either consented to CM (or it was reasonable for him to think that she had) but that it was not reasonable for CE to think this. However none of the evidence (reported at least) points to this, unless you think they lied in the witness box in which case this is another serious offence.
I bet the police/CPS brought the case on both thinking the girl was totally unfit to consent (and rightly so), yet they've ended up seeing this perverse outcome.
Purely supposition but could a scenario where an agreement between Evans and SU is made that Evans gives them first dibs when he comes out ? I think the delay between verdict and SU sacking him is starting to appear a bit smelly. As a footballer Evans is worth serious money. I accept I am very cynical about the morals within football.
Nice to see his team mates still support him.........jesus
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
There are also evidential presumptions set out in sections 75 and 76 which are too long to post here.
Note that it is not just that the girl did not consent BUT also that the defendant did not reasonably believe that she was consenting. On the brief accounts in the papers there seems to be sufficient difference in the circumstances of the incidents involving McDonald and Evans which could (and it seems did) leave the jury in some doubt whether the prosecution proved that McDonald did not reasonably believe that the girl had consented.
I think we understand the law which is clear.
Of course, I could be totally wrong, but I reckon on the whole we have a reasonable bunch of human beings for a football team. Would be difficult if there were wankers like these playing for Charlton.
Police are investigating reports that the woman raped by footballer Ched Evans was being named and abused online.
It follows a complaint to North Wales Police by a leading rape charity which said the alleged comments on Twitter were "profoundly disturbing".
Sheffield United and Wales striker Evans, 23, was jailed for five years at Caernarfon Crown Court on Friday after being found guilty of raping the woman who was "too drunk to consent".
A spokeswoman for North Wales Police said tonight: "We are aware of some comments made on social media sites and we are collating all relevant information."
Rape and other sexual assault victims are guaranteed the legal right to lifetime anonymity.
But victims' groups fear the current criminal justice rules could be inadequate to guarantee anonymity in the age of social media.
And the latest revelations would add credence to the argument that the law needs updating to prevent victims being identified on the internet.
Holly Dustin, director of the End Violence Against Women coalition, and Rape Crisis England and Wales, said: "It is profoundly disturbing that the victim in the Ched Evans trial has been named and abused on Twitter and other social media sites.
"It has long been law that rape complainants are protected by lifetime anonymity and those who have named her have been reported to the police for committing a criminal offence.
"This raises serious questions about the adequacy of the criminal justice system to deal with offences that occur online and we are calling for an urgent review of laws and practices."
Evans admitted having sex with the victim, then aged 19, at a hotel in north Wales last May.
In her evidence, the woman said she has no memory of the incident and the prosecution argued she was too drunk to consent to sexual intercourse.
Evans' co-accused, Port Vale defender Clayton McDonald, 23, who also admitted having sex with the victim, was found not guilty.
Ms Dustin added: "We want to see football clubs and the Football Association take a strong stance against sexism in the sport.
"We also want the Government to take concerted action to address attitudes that condone violence.
"This must include ongoing public campaigns to challenge rape myths, work with young people in schools as well as action to tackle sexism online and in our daily newspapers.
"We cannot afford to shrug our shoulders any longer and hope that this problem will go away."
those footballers/ friends of Evans need to be reprimanded for saying things on twitter too.