| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic 12:17 - Jan 4 with 53808 views | exiledclaseboy |
Apparently. Cue a few days of outraged reaction until Oldham change their mind. |  |
| |  |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 17:50 - Jan 9 with 1520 views | SkewenJack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 17:44 - Jan 9 by reddythered |
There was a trial with evidence provided. The discrepency was just one part of it. When you factor in other elements of Evans' behaviour, it establishes a pattern. A pattern which indicated Evans lied and cast doubt on Donaldson's claim of consent for Ched.
The fact the chedevans website, funded by his girlfriends daddy has cynically misrepresented tweets as "evidence", only partially shown CCTV cutting out the damning parts as to the girls state that night et al only fits that same pattern the jury believed to be the truth.
The drug abuse was a misnomer. She did not deny drugs; only difference was the timescale when the drugs were taken. The drugs had zero effect upon that night or the case; it was a tactic the defence used to try to establish the innocence of Evans. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Evans' behaviour? what behaviour?
Nobody knows which man got his statement wrong, and one getting his wrong doesnt mean the other did, it has no impact on the other. you seem to be looking at a situation and saying if its not a and its not b... then it MUST be x! when a whole host of letters are a possibility.
You have no idea if the tweets are misrepresented. |  | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 17:53 - Jan 9 with 1521 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 17:50 - Jan 9 by SkewenJack |
Evans' behaviour? what behaviour?
Nobody knows which man got his statement wrong, and one getting his wrong doesnt mean the other did, it has no impact on the other. you seem to be looking at a situation and saying if its not a and its not b... then it MUST be x! when a whole host of letters are a possibility.
You have no idea if the tweets are misrepresented. |
well they say one thing in the official court documents as presented in evidence and are changed on his website.
So actually, he does know that the tweets are misrepresented.
But you don't want to know do you. Not really. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 17:55 - Jan 9 with 1509 views | SkewenJack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 17:53 - Jan 9 by londonlisa2001 |
well they say one thing in the official court documents as presented in evidence and are changed on his website.
So actually, he does know that the tweets are misrepresented.
But you don't want to know do you. Not really. |
completely open to information I my not have, but thanks for assuming you know me.
feel free, im all ears. which part of the tweets have been misrepresented. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 17:57 - Jan 9 with 1511 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 17:50 - Jan 9 by SkewenJack |
Evans' behaviour? what behaviour?
Nobody knows which man got his statement wrong, and one getting his wrong doesnt mean the other did, it has no impact on the other. you seem to be looking at a situation and saying if its not a and its not b... then it MUST be x! when a whole host of letters are a possibility.
You have no idea if the tweets are misrepresented. |
LOL.
Rushing to the hotel after he got a text from Donaldson saying "I'm with a bird" - which on chedevans.com became "I'm with a woman".
Leaving via a fire escape rather than the conventional exiting of a hotel, ie through the f***ing front door. Which common sense would indicate was an attempt to evade beng seen.
Misrepresenting himself to get a key to the room when he could haven you know, knocked on the door.
All part of a pattern.
The tweets were misrepresented.
All the tweets referred to was what the victim would do if she had money - holidays for friends etc.
Ched Evans family claimed this to me magic proof she was a gold digger ergo lying about being raped. Except those tweets could hve been any kind of conversation between friends, ie what would you do if you won the lottery. The victim's tweets were shown in total isolation without any other tweets from the conversation hence context was completely removed. Hmm, ever wondered why?
Equally, media organisations have themselves pointed out the victim has turned down offers for her story. Which destroys the gold digger narrativ chedevans.com have cynically tried to portray.
Apart from all that... | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:06 - Jan 9 with 1480 views | SkewenJack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 17:57 - Jan 9 by reddythered |
LOL.
Rushing to the hotel after he got a text from Donaldson saying "I'm with a bird" - which on chedevans.com became "I'm with a woman".
Leaving via a fire escape rather than the conventional exiting of a hotel, ie through the f***ing front door. Which common sense would indicate was an attempt to evade beng seen.
Misrepresenting himself to get a key to the room when he could haven you know, knocked on the door.
All part of a pattern.
The tweets were misrepresented.
All the tweets referred to was what the victim would do if she had money - holidays for friends etc.
Ched Evans family claimed this to me magic proof she was a gold digger ergo lying about being raped. Except those tweets could hve been any kind of conversation between friends, ie what would you do if you won the lottery. The victim's tweets were shown in total isolation without any other tweets from the conversation hence context was completely removed. Hmm, ever wondered why?
Equally, media organisations have themselves pointed out the victim has turned down offers for her story. Which destroys the gold digger narrativ chedevans.com have cynically tried to portray.
Apart from all that... |
not really a laughing matter is it.
Ok so, saying bird instead of woman in a text (not a tweet) suggests he raped her?
So wanting to evade being seen suggests he raped her? id suggest this is what most famous people who are cheating on their other half would tend to do.
knocked on the door of a room where his mate is having sex with a girl. aye thatll go down well.
if that is the extent of the evidence then that is truly truly awful.
oh and you have no idea what those tweets regarded so cannot make conclusion they have been misrepresented. [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 18:11]
| | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:10 - Jan 9 with 1477 views | Musical_Swan |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:06 - Jan 9 by SkewenJack |
not really a laughing matter is it.
Ok so, saying bird instead of woman in a text (not a tweet) suggests he raped her?
So wanting to evade being seen suggests he raped her? id suggest this is what most famous people who are cheating on their other half would tend to do.
knocked on the door of a room where his mate is having sex with a girl. aye thatll go down well.
if that is the extent of the evidence then that is truly truly awful.
oh and you have no idea what those tweets regarded so cannot make conclusion they have been misrepresented. [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 18:11]
|
Why wouldn't he knock the door if the girl was consenting? |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:13 - Jan 9 with 1468 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:06 - Jan 9 by SkewenJack |
not really a laughing matter is it.
Ok so, saying bird instead of woman in a text (not a tweet) suggests he raped her?
So wanting to evade being seen suggests he raped her? id suggest this is what most famous people who are cheating on their other half would tend to do.
knocked on the door of a room where his mate is having sex with a girl. aye thatll go down well.
if that is the extent of the evidence then that is truly truly awful.
oh and you have no idea what those tweets regarded so cannot make conclusion they have been misrepresented. [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 18:11]
|
Why do YOU think chedevans.com editted the text to look more "palatable"? Please give some rational answers.
Evading being seen; clue - he didn't enter via the fire escape. He spoke to the duty guy at reception. So he wanted to evade being seen exiting, but not entering the hotel.
I somehow get the feeling that like many "lads", Ched could give a live interview admitting it and you'd still not believe that fact or try to blame the victim.
You with limited knowledge know more than the jury of court of appeal. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:14 - Jan 9 with 1461 views | SkewenJack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:10 - Jan 9 by Musical_Swan |
Why wouldn't he knock the door if the girl was consenting? |
because consent wasn't given at that point, they hadn't seen eachother. the question from memory was "can I join in" to which she replied "yeah".
That happened after entering the room he paid for - not prior to. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:14 - Jan 9 with 1465 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:06 - Jan 9 by SkewenJack |
not really a laughing matter is it.
Ok so, saying bird instead of woman in a text (not a tweet) suggests he raped her?
So wanting to evade being seen suggests he raped her? id suggest this is what most famous people who are cheating on their other half would tend to do.
knocked on the door of a room where his mate is having sex with a girl. aye thatll go down well.
if that is the extent of the evidence then that is truly truly awful.
oh and you have no idea what those tweets regarded so cannot make conclusion they have been misrepresented. [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 18:11]
|
It's not the extent of the evidence. Read the transcripts.
There was extensive CCTV footage which showed that the girl was completely 'out of it' - it is however, not able to be seen since the CCTV evidence is not allowed to be public (the part that the Evans family have shown is done so illegally hence they are being investigated for it) but is selectively edited.
Look, each bit of the evidence on its own doesn't say much, but put together it all adds up to a pattern which was enough to convict him. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:16 - Jan 9 with 1462 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:14 - Jan 9 by SkewenJack |
because consent wasn't given at that point, they hadn't seen eachother. the question from memory was "can I join in" to which she replied "yeah".
That happened after entering the room he paid for - not prior to. |
how do you know she replied 'yeah'?
You are twisting the evidence as it suits you. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:20 - Jan 9 with 1456 views | Musical_Swan |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:14 - Jan 9 by SkewenJack |
because consent wasn't given at that point, they hadn't seen eachother. the question from memory was "can I join in" to which she replied "yeah".
That happened after entering the room he paid for - not prior to. |
So he let himself into a room, where his mate was having sex with a girl and asked if he could join in?
If that was one of my mates I would of booted the dirty cnt in the balls!
Each to their own though I guess.  | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:21 - Jan 9 with 1450 views | SkewenJack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:13 - Jan 9 by reddythered |
Why do YOU think chedevans.com editted the text to look more "palatable"? Please give some rational answers.
Evading being seen; clue - he didn't enter via the fire escape. He spoke to the duty guy at reception. So he wanted to evade being seen exiting, but not entering the hotel.
I somehow get the feeling that like many "lads", Ched could give a live interview admitting it and you'd still not believe that fact or try to blame the victim.
You with limited knowledge know more than the jury of court of appeal. |
To drum up support for their family member that they are convinced is innocent quite clearly. but that has nothing to do with the case, he wasn't convicted because they changed the word bird to woman was he. this website is an irrelevance.
Evading being seen leaving the room after sex has been explained. why would him leaving through the front door mean he raped her? that doesn't make sense. If the nightguard saw him enter then there is no harm in seeing him leave.
If Ched admitted it, then he would be roundly condemned by everyone, don't be so pathetic.
As explained, in a court of appeal the requirements are not the same. Proving your innocence is a lot harder than proving your non guilt. two subtle statements but both massively different. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:39 - Jan 9 with 1427 views | trampie |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 17:30 - Jan 9 by reddythered |
The post you quoted contains your answer.
Both defendants gave a conflicting statement when it came to consent for Ched.
One therefore was lying. When other elements of Ched's behaviour were factored in, it becomes obvious why he was found guilty and Donaldson wasn't. |
They both said consent was given did they not ?
You can't say one must have been lying as one might have asked for his friend and the other might have asked himself in person also, its hardly here or there if they say consent was given and the victim can't remember anything is it. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:43 - Jan 9 with 1419 views | skippyjack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 17:16 - Jan 9 by perchrockjack |
Men as trustworthy as women>/?
Now we are in la la land
Most of the ills in the world are caused by men..
I simply cannot believe what Im reading in this thread..
As I stated previously, seems (some)Welsh men have attitudes from a bygone age.
And we look at others and scoff. You couldnt make it up.
Women are trashed pretty regularly on here, some long term fans too.
Its simply the sewer state again..
We need this game to come along and take us away from this morass. |
Perch I'm young.. they're like rabbits.. trust me.. young 'girls' are not the angels you think they are.. I know about 20 boys who have slept with over 1000 different young girls.. a few of the lads have long lists on their laptop notepad.. one bloke has slept with over 200 women.. I'm sticking to prostitutes. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:54 - Jan 9 with 1406 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:21 - Jan 9 by SkewenJack |
To drum up support for their family member that they are convinced is innocent quite clearly. but that has nothing to do with the case, he wasn't convicted because they changed the word bird to woman was he. this website is an irrelevance.
Evading being seen leaving the room after sex has been explained. why would him leaving through the front door mean he raped her? that doesn't make sense. If the nightguard saw him enter then there is no harm in seeing him leave.
If Ched admitted it, then he would be roundly condemned by everyone, don't be so pathetic.
As explained, in a court of appeal the requirements are not the same. Proving your innocence is a lot harder than proving your non guilt. two subtle statements but both massively different. |
you're right about the last bit in some ways.
But don't you agree that in the first trial it's the other way round. Since he was innocent until proved guilty, the onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he did it.
In other words it is harder to prove guilt than to just prove that there was a good chance he did it but they did just that.
There are 2 requirements for them to find him guilty of rape. First is that sex occurred and second is that there was no consent.
The first of these things is without question.
When it comes to consent, there are again 2 parts to it. One did the girl consent (or actually the way that it works for juries in these cases is often whether the man reasonably thought that consent had been given, hence the acquittal for the first bloke). The second part is whether consent was capable of being given
Now it's that second part which is relevant in all sorts of scenarios - for example, it is the case that minors are always adjudged to be incapable of giving consent.There are also certain cases of mentally handicapped people being judged incapable of consent as well.
Relevant to this case is the following piece of law:
"Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:
- The complainant's assertion of force or threats;
- Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent;"
This was the crucial bit of the trial.
In other words, even if the girl replied 'yeah' to a question of whether Ched Evans could join in (which is a matter of debate anyway given the conflicting testimony of the 2 men) the jury found that the complainant was not sufficiently aware of what was happening and / or incapable of giving valid consent.
This point is not the same as 'drunken consent' which the court specifically stated in summing up and direction of the jury is valid consent.
So the jury found that the girl was actually incapable of giving consent, not drunk, incapable.
The did this based on quite a lot of evidence:
- medical evidence (toxicology reports showing blood alcohol levels and a mixture of drugs)
- CCTV footage (several pieces including one that apparently shows her lying face down motionless for some time, on the floor)
- the evidence of witnesses including the night clerk who stated that he was worried enough about her state that he went to check up on her
- evidence of the men themselves - for example, one of them, actually asked the night clerk to keep an eye on her and stated that she was ill when he left the hotel
- evidence of the girl in question who stated categorically that she had no memory of the night at all (which is, at least to some extent born out by her initial reports to the police before she (a) knew anything of the rape and (b) before she knew who the men involved were. Under extensive and fairly hostile cross examination, the court believed her (and, in fact, even Evans' own medical expert said that it was possible that she had genuinely no memory at all of events)
Now all of this was put together with a general feeling in the court that Evans was lying. Why? Well because his testimony was inconsistent with the other bloke, he lied to the desk clerk to get a key to the room, he left through a fire escape and so on.
So why wasn't the other bloke convicted? Well this comes down to the first part of what I said (in my view) about consent and also the reasonable expectation of consent. Although the court didn't believe (and the police didn't hence the charge) that she consented while in the hotel (because she couldn't at that stage), the jury believed there to be some doubt as she had specifically agreed to go back to the hotel with the first man.
Now there would be a number of women that would violently disagree with me on this, and a woman has the right to say no until the last moment etc, but I think that if a woman has agreed to go back to a hotel with a man she has just met, there would at least in my mind, be a reasonable expectation that she had agreed to have sex, and as such, consent in the hotel (even if by that point she wasn't in a fit state to give it so by itself it wouldn't count) could be assumed to at least a reasonable doubt level.
That is not the case with Evans though. She hadn't agreed anything with him beforehand and that was what made it so different.
Edited to add the following explanation from the CPS - apologies for the length, but it's nothing compared to the length of this discussion:
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.
In cases similar to Bree, prosecutors should carefully consider whether the complainant has the capacity to consent, and ensure that the instructed advocate presents the Crown's case on this basis and, if necessary, reminds the trial judge of the need to assist the jury with the meaning of capacity.
Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant's intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. In addition, it may be possible to obtain expert evidence in respect of the effects of alcohol/drugs and the effects if they are taken together. Consideration should be given to obtaining an expert's back calculation or the opinion of an expert in human pharmacology in relation to the complainant's level of alcohol/ drugs at the time of the incident.
[Post edited 9 Jan 2015 18:57]
| | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:59 - Jan 9 with 1397 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:43 - Jan 9 by skippyjack |
Perch I'm young.. they're like rabbits.. trust me.. young 'girls' are not the angels you think they are.. I know about 20 boys who have slept with over 1000 different young girls.. a few of the lads have long lists on their laptop notepad.. one bloke has slept with over 200 women.. I'm sticking to prostitutes. |
so you say women are like rabbits and then give an example of 20 boys that have slept with over 1000 girls??
You really are very stupid aren't you? | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:06 - Jan 9 with 1392 views | skippyjack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:59 - Jan 9 by londonlisa2001 |
so you say women are like rabbits and then give an example of 20 boys that have slept with over 1000 girls??
You really are very stupid aren't you? |
Nope.. just unskilled.. get patronised a lot.. Well most boys are like rabbits.. most girls are like rabbits.. what's stupid about that?.. I'm striving for equality.. not a one way street.. some women are not Angels. | |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:10 - Jan 9 with 1382 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:06 - Jan 9 by skippyjack |
Nope.. just unskilled.. get patronised a lot.. Well most boys are like rabbits.. most girls are like rabbits.. what's stupid about that?.. I'm striving for equality.. not a one way street.. some women are not Angels. |
what's stupid is saying girls are like rabbits and then giving examples of boys. You don't know whether each of those girls had slept with 1, 5 or 100 do you?
No one has said that girls are angels - I'm certainly not saying that - but it doesn't matter - rape is still rape.
If a girls says yes to 99 out of 100 boys and no to the 100th and the 100th thinks - she's a tart, I am still going to sleep with her, that's rape Skippy. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:15 - Jan 9 with 1374 views | skippyjack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:10 - Jan 9 by londonlisa2001 |
what's stupid is saying girls are like rabbits and then giving examples of boys. You don't know whether each of those girls had slept with 1, 5 or 100 do you?
No one has said that girls are angels - I'm certainly not saying that - but it doesn't matter - rape is still rape.
If a girls says yes to 99 out of 100 boys and no to the 100th and the 100th thinks - she's a tart, I am still going to sleep with her, that's rape Skippy. |
No.. but the amount of women who sleep with these sleazy 'men' is incredible.. this is why I'm prostitutes for life.. women are clearly insane.. they love man slags. | |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:16 - Jan 9 with 1371 views | trampie |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:54 - Jan 9 by londonlisa2001 |
you're right about the last bit in some ways.
But don't you agree that in the first trial it's the other way round. Since he was innocent until proved guilty, the onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he did it.
In other words it is harder to prove guilt than to just prove that there was a good chance he did it but they did just that.
There are 2 requirements for them to find him guilty of rape. First is that sex occurred and second is that there was no consent.
The first of these things is without question.
When it comes to consent, there are again 2 parts to it. One did the girl consent (or actually the way that it works for juries in these cases is often whether the man reasonably thought that consent had been given, hence the acquittal for the first bloke). The second part is whether consent was capable of being given
Now it's that second part which is relevant in all sorts of scenarios - for example, it is the case that minors are always adjudged to be incapable of giving consent.There are also certain cases of mentally handicapped people being judged incapable of consent as well.
Relevant to this case is the following piece of law:
"Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:
- The complainant's assertion of force or threats;
- Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent;"
This was the crucial bit of the trial.
In other words, even if the girl replied 'yeah' to a question of whether Ched Evans could join in (which is a matter of debate anyway given the conflicting testimony of the 2 men) the jury found that the complainant was not sufficiently aware of what was happening and / or incapable of giving valid consent.
This point is not the same as 'drunken consent' which the court specifically stated in summing up and direction of the jury is valid consent.
So the jury found that the girl was actually incapable of giving consent, not drunk, incapable.
The did this based on quite a lot of evidence:
- medical evidence (toxicology reports showing blood alcohol levels and a mixture of drugs)
- CCTV footage (several pieces including one that apparently shows her lying face down motionless for some time, on the floor)
- the evidence of witnesses including the night clerk who stated that he was worried enough about her state that he went to check up on her
- evidence of the men themselves - for example, one of them, actually asked the night clerk to keep an eye on her and stated that she was ill when he left the hotel
- evidence of the girl in question who stated categorically that she had no memory of the night at all (which is, at least to some extent born out by her initial reports to the police before she (a) knew anything of the rape and (b) before she knew who the men involved were. Under extensive and fairly hostile cross examination, the court believed her (and, in fact, even Evans' own medical expert said that it was possible that she had genuinely no memory at all of events)
Now all of this was put together with a general feeling in the court that Evans was lying. Why? Well because his testimony was inconsistent with the other bloke, he lied to the desk clerk to get a key to the room, he left through a fire escape and so on.
So why wasn't the other bloke convicted? Well this comes down to the first part of what I said (in my view) about consent and also the reasonable expectation of consent. Although the court didn't believe (and the police didn't hence the charge) that she consented while in the hotel (because she couldn't at that stage), the jury believed there to be some doubt as she had specifically agreed to go back to the hotel with the first man.
Now there would be a number of women that would violently disagree with me on this, and a woman has the right to say no until the last moment etc, but I think that if a woman has agreed to go back to a hotel with a man she has just met, there would at least in my mind, be a reasonable expectation that she had agreed to have sex, and as such, consent in the hotel (even if by that point she wasn't in a fit state to give it so by itself it wouldn't count) could be assumed to at least a reasonable doubt level.
That is not the case with Evans though. She hadn't agreed anything with him beforehand and that was what made it so different.
Edited to add the following explanation from the CPS - apologies for the length, but it's nothing compared to the length of this discussion:
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.
In cases similar to Bree, prosecutors should carefully consider whether the complainant has the capacity to consent, and ensure that the instructed advocate presents the Crown's case on this basis and, if necessary, reminds the trial judge of the need to assist the jury with the meaning of capacity.
Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant's intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. In addition, it may be possible to obtain expert evidence in respect of the effects of alcohol/drugs and the effects if they are taken together. Consideration should be given to obtaining an expert's back calculation or the opinion of an expert in human pharmacology in relation to the complainant's level of alcohol/ drugs at the time of the incident.
[Post edited 9 Jan 2015 18:57]
|
Rubbish,
You are saying that she was incapable of consent shortly after being capable of consent.
As regards you saying that a woman going back to a hotel can be taken as giving consent to having sex that is absolute and utter rubbish, the ladies I know would be furious if somebody suggested that, in no way should a law court accept that a woman agreeing to go back to a hotel is in anyway agreeing to have sex per se.
A married man can be done for raping his wife so because his wife goes to bed [to sleep]with him is it to be assumed she wants sex ?
Disappointed in you Lisa. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:18 - Jan 9 with 1370 views | blueytheblue |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:16 - Jan 9 by trampie |
Rubbish,
You are saying that she was incapable of consent shortly after being capable of consent.
As regards you saying that a woman going back to a hotel can be taken as giving consent to having sex that is absolute and utter rubbish, the ladies I know would be furious if somebody suggested that, in no way should a law court accept that a woman agreeing to go back to a hotel is in anyway agreeing to have sex per se.
A married man can be done for raping his wife so because his wife goes to bed [to sleep]with him is it to be assumed she wants sex ?
Disappointed in you Lisa. |
Wrong.
Read again.
There was reasonable doubt with regards to Donaldson. There was not with Evans.
Not difficult to grasp.
The rest is just interpretation. I get what Lisa intended. [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 19:24]
| |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:26 - Jan 9 with 1352 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:16 - Jan 9 by trampie |
Rubbish,
You are saying that she was incapable of consent shortly after being capable of consent.
As regards you saying that a woman going back to a hotel can be taken as giving consent to having sex that is absolute and utter rubbish, the ladies I know would be furious if somebody suggested that, in no way should a law court accept that a woman agreeing to go back to a hotel is in anyway agreeing to have sex per se.
A married man can be done for raping his wife so because his wife goes to bed [to sleep]with him is it to be assumed she wants sex ?
Disappointed in you Lisa. |
I'm not saying that even slightly.
And I said why the jury thought there was reasonable doubt not what is fact.
You are just twisting what has been said. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:30 - Jan 9 with 1345 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:18 - Jan 9 by blueytheblue |
Wrong.
Read again.
There was reasonable doubt with regards to Donaldson. There was not with Evans.
Not difficult to grasp.
The rest is just interpretation. I get what Lisa intended. [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 19:24]
|
thank you Bluey ;-) As I thought I explained, it was obviously enough for the jury to have a reasonable doubt when allied with what happened in the room- interestingly that will now be twisted to people like Tampie becoming fervently in favour of women's rights...
The name change didn't take long by the way - as I said yesterday, I'm pleased about it. Now - hope you lose tomorrow of course :-) | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:33 - Jan 9 with 1338 views | onetimejack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:54 - Jan 9 by londonlisa2001 |
you're right about the last bit in some ways.
But don't you agree that in the first trial it's the other way round. Since he was innocent until proved guilty, the onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he did it.
In other words it is harder to prove guilt than to just prove that there was a good chance he did it but they did just that.
There are 2 requirements for them to find him guilty of rape. First is that sex occurred and second is that there was no consent.
The first of these things is without question.
When it comes to consent, there are again 2 parts to it. One did the girl consent (or actually the way that it works for juries in these cases is often whether the man reasonably thought that consent had been given, hence the acquittal for the first bloke). The second part is whether consent was capable of being given
Now it's that second part which is relevant in all sorts of scenarios - for example, it is the case that minors are always adjudged to be incapable of giving consent.There are also certain cases of mentally handicapped people being judged incapable of consent as well.
Relevant to this case is the following piece of law:
"Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:
- The complainant's assertion of force or threats;
- Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent;"
This was the crucial bit of the trial.
In other words, even if the girl replied 'yeah' to a question of whether Ched Evans could join in (which is a matter of debate anyway given the conflicting testimony of the 2 men) the jury found that the complainant was not sufficiently aware of what was happening and / or incapable of giving valid consent.
This point is not the same as 'drunken consent' which the court specifically stated in summing up and direction of the jury is valid consent.
So the jury found that the girl was actually incapable of giving consent, not drunk, incapable.
The did this based on quite a lot of evidence:
- medical evidence (toxicology reports showing blood alcohol levels and a mixture of drugs)
- CCTV footage (several pieces including one that apparently shows her lying face down motionless for some time, on the floor)
- the evidence of witnesses including the night clerk who stated that he was worried enough about her state that he went to check up on her
- evidence of the men themselves - for example, one of them, actually asked the night clerk to keep an eye on her and stated that she was ill when he left the hotel
- evidence of the girl in question who stated categorically that she had no memory of the night at all (which is, at least to some extent born out by her initial reports to the police before she (a) knew anything of the rape and (b) before she knew who the men involved were. Under extensive and fairly hostile cross examination, the court believed her (and, in fact, even Evans' own medical expert said that it was possible that she had genuinely no memory at all of events)
Now all of this was put together with a general feeling in the court that Evans was lying. Why? Well because his testimony was inconsistent with the other bloke, he lied to the desk clerk to get a key to the room, he left through a fire escape and so on.
So why wasn't the other bloke convicted? Well this comes down to the first part of what I said (in my view) about consent and also the reasonable expectation of consent. Although the court didn't believe (and the police didn't hence the charge) that she consented while in the hotel (because she couldn't at that stage), the jury believed there to be some doubt as she had specifically agreed to go back to the hotel with the first man.
Now there would be a number of women that would violently disagree with me on this, and a woman has the right to say no until the last moment etc, but I think that if a woman has agreed to go back to a hotel with a man she has just met, there would at least in my mind, be a reasonable expectation that she had agreed to have sex, and as such, consent in the hotel (even if by that point she wasn't in a fit state to give it so by itself it wouldn't count) could be assumed to at least a reasonable doubt level.
That is not the case with Evans though. She hadn't agreed anything with him beforehand and that was what made it so different.
Edited to add the following explanation from the CPS - apologies for the length, but it's nothing compared to the length of this discussion:
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.
In cases similar to Bree, prosecutors should carefully consider whether the complainant has the capacity to consent, and ensure that the instructed advocate presents the Crown's case on this basis and, if necessary, reminds the trial judge of the need to assist the jury with the meaning of capacity.
Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant's intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. In addition, it may be possible to obtain expert evidence in respect of the effects of alcohol/drugs and the effects if they are taken together. Consideration should be given to obtaining an expert's back calculation or the opinion of an expert in human pharmacology in relation to the complainant's level of alcohol/ drugs at the time of the incident.
[Post edited 9 Jan 2015 18:57]
|
Jesus where do you find the time? |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:34 - Jan 9 with 1335 views | trampie |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:26 - Jan 9 by londonlisa2001 |
I'm not saying that even slightly.
And I said why the jury thought there was reasonable doubt not what is fact.
You are just twisting what has been said. |
You don't know what the jury thought !!! and you are admitting you are not dealing in facts now as well. [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 19:37]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
