Evans Conviction overturned (ed. signs for Chesterfield)

NomadicAddick said:

Really not surprised by this. Looked at the case a lot when it first went to trial and I'm no expert but there was a lot on there that looked suspect to me. There still is a real trial but I reckon it's unlikely he will be conivcted again after this was overturned. Fair play to him for fighting to clear his name...if he's found not guilty again I hope he finds a club and can get on with his life tbh.

You're right on one thing; you are NO expert.....

killerandflash said:

PaddyP17 said:

A comment taken from elsewhere:

You're right, there was no evidence to suggest spiking at all - here's a transcript of the case at appeal if anyone wants to know the facts. The problem is this:

- She stopped drinking before 3am.
- Shortly after 4am, she spoke to McDonald (Evans's friend) for the first time. It isn't in question that she was making a variety of decisions at this point.
- At about 4:15am, she arrived at the hotel and went to a room with McDonald. She was still walking in high heels, holding drunken conversations and so on.
- Around ten minutes later, Evans arrived and entered the room.

To convict Evans, the jury must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a) she didn't consent to have sex with him, and b) he didn't reasonably believe that she consented to have sex with him. Her testimony was that she couldn't remember any of the events, and nobody else was able to contradict McDonald's and Evans's accounts of what happened in the room, so the jury can't be sure that she didn't consent unless they are sure that she couldn't possibly have done so, i.e. in practice, that she was too intoxicated to have consented.

The law on that point after R v Bree is 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".

We know that she had the capacity to make choices at 4am, an hour after she stopped drinking, but according to the verdict she must have lost her capacity to make choices by about 4:30am. This is the problem. How could the jury be sure - beyond reasonable doubt, remember - that she had become significantly more drunk between 4am and 4:30am when she last had a drink before 3am?

--------------------------------------

Personally, I think the trial is following due processes. I also know from a variety of lawyer friends that it is pretty difficult to get a rape conviction, so there must be more than what I've just put above.

We'll see what happens in time enough.

Isn't the law that if a woman is drunk then it is considered that she wasn't in a fit state to give consent.

Thus, even if she said "yes" the man could still be charged with rape...

I think the key phrasing is "lost her capacity to make choices". I am not a lawyer, though.

PaddyP17 said:

killerandflash said:

PaddyP17 said:

A comment taken from elsewhere:

You're right, there was no evidence to suggest spiking at all - here's a transcript of the case at appeal if anyone wants to know the facts. The problem is this:

- She stopped drinking before 3am.
- Shortly after 4am, she spoke to McDonald (Evans's friend) for the first time. It isn't in question that she was making a variety of decisions at this point.
- At about 4:15am, she arrived at the hotel and went to a room with McDonald. She was still walking in high heels, holding drunken conversations and so on.
- Around ten minutes later, Evans arrived and entered the room.

To convict Evans, the jury must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a) she didn't consent to have sex with him, and b) he didn't reasonably believe that she consented to have sex with him. Her testimony was that she couldn't remember any of the events, and nobody else was able to contradict McDonald's and Evans's accounts of what happened in the room, so the jury can't be sure that she didn't consent unless they are sure that she couldn't possibly have done so, i.e. in practice, that she was too intoxicated to have consented.

The law on that point after R v Bree is 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".

We know that she had the capacity to make choices at 4am, an hour after she stopped drinking, but according to the verdict she must have lost her capacity to make choices by about 4:30am. This is the problem. How could the jury be sure - beyond reasonable doubt, remember - that she had become significantly more drunk between 4am and 4:30am when she last had a drink before 3am?

--------------------------------------

Personally, I think the trial is following due processes. I also know from a variety of lawyer friends that it is pretty difficult to get a rape conviction, so there must be more than what I've just put above.

We'll see what happens in time enough.

Isn't the law that if a woman is drunk then it is considered that she wasn't in a fit state to give consent.

Thus, even if she said "yes" the man could still be charged with rape...

I think the key phrasing is "lost her capacity to make choices". I am not a lawyer, though.

Reading that appeal the issue seems to be between making an ill judged decision through intoxication, and not being able to remember events the next day. The jury, it is suggested, assumed if she could not remember 7 hours later what happened earlier, she must have been incapable at the time.

The expert evidence countered this and said that just because alcohol had affected your short term memory does't mean you had no consciousness at the time.

Making a bad choice through disinhibition caused by alcohol, it is argued, is not the same as having no capacity to make any choice.

Difficult these cases. I've definitely been quite drunk while having sex as I'm sure some of my partners have been.

I'm not sure how one could prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were incapable of acquiescing and it was therefore rape.

se9addick said:

iaitch said:

se9addick said:

The Organiser said:

Weegie Addick said:

Spare a few thoughts for the victim in all this - will have to go through the trial all over again.

Who is the victim? We don't know. IF she's been lying all along then Ched is the victim.

Steady - I think the girl said she was so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened, it was the police who took this as a sign that she was too drunk to consent to sex and was therefore raped by Clayton Donaldson & Ched Evans. Donaldson was subsequently and Ched has had his conviction overturned.

Whatever the outcome I'm not sure the girl in question could be said to be lying.

Think you should get the other players name right, it was Clayton Mcdonald not Donaldson.

Oops, sorry

It's ok with me but Clayton Donaldson may have something to say about it!!!!

A lot of people on here played the line "the court say he's guilty so he's guilty".

Well the court now say he isn't guilty so let's stick to previous principles and view him as such.

Not guilty (if that is what the ultimate outcome is) does not mean innocent. It just means the prosecution cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. There may still have been a crime and thus a victim.
So before the trial they're presumed innocent but after being found not guilty they're not innocent. Most suspect thing I've read in the whole thread.

JiMMy 85 said:

cafcnick1992 said:

A lot of people on here played the line "the court say he's guilty so he's guilty".

Well the court now say he isn't guilty so let's stick to previous principles and view him as such.

Played the line? That's not playing a line, it's fair and decent logic. What else have we got but to trust in the people who were given all of the evidence to decide?

There's no reason to assume anyone who had the mindset of trusting the courts will suddenly ignore them, unless either of you can point toward some actual hypocrisy? Like other such CL cliches - "the PC brigade will have a field day!" - It's arguing with an undefined opponent. I've never understood that.

I know?

I never said it wasn't fair and decent logic. I'm arguing people should carry it through.

PWR but what are all those 'I 100% believe whatever 12 men and true said without bothering to read the case file' saying now?

DA9 said:

Still don't understand, that how, in the first trial, if she was that drunk, she therefore could not give in the eyes of the law, consent to anyone, how CD was not found guilty on that basis?

Its difficult to understand. CD had the defence that it was he she went back to the hotel with. She did not go back with Ched Evans.


I think.

He's back to his position before the 1st trial. Innocent unless proven guilty. If he's found not guilty in a 2nd trial he should return to football.

addickfanatic said:

Unfortunately if he's guilty or not,he's already been judged by a lot of the public and it will be hard for him to be viewed with out thinking of the original outcome of the case. could he ever be a pro footballer again?

abroad

How many of us have had sex with a drunk woman , how many of us have been drunk when we had sex

oohaahmortimer said:

How many of us have had sex with a drunk woman , how many of us have been drunk when we had sex

Happens all the time, but how often have you responded to a mate's phone call inviting you over to take advantage of a random drunk women irrespective of if she really wants to and just because you can?