Ched Evans

Old, smelly and best boarded from the rear?

 

I'm claiming it is less likely .. please tell me your theory?

 

I resent the comparison.

 

This type of conviction is fraught with danger. The jury are having to decide the victims state of mind, months later and third hand. With no witnesses as to what was said at the time.

It usually takes a blood test under strict conditions to decide whether someone is capable of driving after a drink, yet a man is expected to make a judgement as to whether the girl is sober enough to consent, at the height of sexual anticipation when he may also have had a drink.

I can't think of any other offence where such a low level of evidence is required for a guilty verdict.

Certainly, it doesn't seem worth pursuing a conquest with any girl that has had a drink.

I'm glad I'm sorted and too old for all that nonsense.

 

That's exactly what the legislation was aiming for.

 

Get the flags out ... I'm in complete agreement.

I think Jack Straw was the Home Secratary that demanded a 100% conviction rate by judges for sexual crimes but even I ionly magine he meant for the ones with the solid evidence the CPS should need to pursue. Of course this didn't account for our lovely prosecution services thirst for publicity and high profile cases and to be honest, (with the exception of Saville's ) I really don't trust any of these judgements, it's virtually all trial by media nowadays.

When I was growing up on the Isle of Man the ladies were as much on the pull as the lads were and yes alchohol was a big part of it ... But we did know where to draw the line and no always meant no. Nowadays even yes can mean no if a girl just says she had one sniff of the barmaids apron too many ... after the event!

Scandalous!

 

By the same logic it must also be irrelevent should the girl be a right nun or a right slapper but of course you know best.

 

you are beyond parody sometimes

 

Not a chance, nobody get's past our rightback

 

I think he's got it!

 

I don't get the 'she might have woken up and regretted it' argument. Do you really think that the humiliating rape tests followed by, when you worked out it was a footballer, a very public media storm.

However, I would not say that McDonald displayed the kind of behaviour Moose describes. Okay, he was on the lookout for a girl to sleep with. He got chatting with one but then went to the kebab shop with her, allowing her to sober up. Yes he wanted to sleep with her, yes his behaviour was pretty scummy, but he didn't just grab her and throw her in a taxi. I believe she made a comment like 'you're not going to leave me right' or something to that effect. She was making an effort to stay with him, at times following him back to the hotel.

There are girls who get drunk and sleep with people most times they go out. There are also girls who go to well known hangouts, hoping to bag a footballer. Many do so whilst getting drunk. Alcohol is processed in many different ways, sometimes it hits you early, sometimes later. No always means no, but it is a lot harder to tell between yes's.

The jury obviously believed the witnesses evidence. But they probably also saw how McDonald could have been fooled to how drunk she was. They could have believed that her condition worsened, and by the time Ched got there, she would have been in no state to consent. I do not know what witnesses they called, maybe they gave evidence to this.

I think what many people have overlooked is that Ched says that he often goes to clubs and girls throw themselves at him. But he hadn't got a girl that night. He (assumedly) wanted to, he was arrogant to believe he could, he booked a hotel room and everything, but he failed. He therefore went back to his mates disappointed, hoping to sleep with whatever was there.

Ched also told his mates, who went outside the building and tried to record what was going on on their phones through the window. This certainly looks like he wasn't treating her humanely either.

McDonald received encouragement. Ched brought humiliation.

McDonald walked out the front door. Ched snuck out the fire escape.

 

Oh and Ched didn't even go and knock.

He got a spare key so he could sneak in.

 

Not the case, although the PSO may cater some form of intervention into his or her supervision plan on release such as dealing with empathy etc.

A prisoner serving twelve months or more may be released at the half way point (depending on certain factors, such as when the sentence started (legislation changed in 2012 regarding early release under the legal aid, policing and CJ act I think it's called), whether it's an indeterminate or determinate sentence and any conditions passed down by the judge, such as never being eligible for parole). If eligible, there's generally three boxes that need ticking, to my knowledge. They surround safety/risk assessment, any previous suicide watch or attempts, and ability to engage and comply with a conditional licence, of which this decision will be based largely on any behavioural issues and willingness to engage on programmes whilst inside. The licence will run until the end of the sentence. In Evans' case, the licence could have said he had to report at 3pm every Saturday but I will assume that's not the case. He will be on licence with a set of supervisory conditions until the end of his sentence which is in 2.5 years I believe. This cannot be extended but he can be locked back up if sufficient progress isn't made. This largely relates to not engaging on programmes, non-compliance, absconding etc. I agree with the licence for it provides an excellent basis for resettlement, such as housing, money issues and affordability, employment, etc. The state/agencies have no power to provide this once the actually sentence has ended, therefore if the offender isn't released then that individual has no support whatsoever. The likelihood is that, without that support for housing etc, he or she will end up back inside and that's where we go back to the whole debate of recidivism. There's some strong evidence supporting this method and the use of conditional licences, but I imagine that due to Evans' background I'm not so sure he will benefit from this as much as others would do, other than the fact he's been released.

 

Sorry, only just read this....

 

This and only this is relevant and I'll scotch it now by saying that alchohol levels always drop after 20 minutes latest.
Being guilty of humiliation is not the same as being guilty of rape.

 

Factually not the case mate. If you downed a bottle of vodka now and instantly breathalysed yourself you probably won't blow over, it may not even record a thing for some time. Half hour later it'll probably record you have alcohol in your system but still you may not blow over. Two hours later and you'll probably find it's now in your system.

 

Something confusing me about this. Evans is intending to be unfaithful to his girlfriend (setting aside for the moment it was a rape) and he actually WANTS the act recorded? Doesn't seem the sharpest tool in the box?

 

I've been trying to work out what bothers me about this case, and think I have worked out what it is. Perhaps someone with a better legal understanding can clear up my lack of knowledge.

Evans has given evidence stating that the girl was telling him to "**** me harder" and that she was actively changing positions.

To my mind in court there were 2 scenarios here

A) The jury did not believe Evans' testimony. They believed that in fact Evans arrived and the girl was semi comatose and he took advantage of here as she was sprawled on a bed as an unwilling participant.
B) The jury believed Evans' testimony. However, the law states that even though she was a willing participant at the time, Evans should have known she was unable to give consent despite her apparent enthusiasm.

If it's (A), that makes perfect sense to me. Evans is lying and he's guilty of rape. No question.

However, if it's (B) I'd be telling my offspring not to engage in a one night stand under any circumstances. Putting the morals of one night stands aside, the culture in the UK is that 80% of youngsters go out and get blotto. If the law now says that you're raping someone even if they are actively embracing it then it would seem to be a bad time to be a young man - when drunk himself the man now actually has to decide the mental capacity of the woman, even if she's egging him on.

I'm hoping it's (A), but I don't have the legal expertise to know what the law states.

 

I'm mindful that the jury heard and saw evidence from both sides and that I only have information from the press and off the internet (and the detailed information is from the Ched Evans website).

Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand how they reached their decisions regarding the two defendents. The CCTV of the woman entering the hotel on her own with the pizza would in my opinion - but I guess not in the jury's opinion - indicate that she would have been perfectly okay to consent to sex some 10 minutes later when Ched Evans arrived. But if she was too drunk to consent with Ched she would definitely have been too drunk to consent with MacDonald beforehand.

But if the jury decides that she WAS sober enough to consent (but DID'NT with Ched), then what is the evidence that she didn't? Both MacDonald and Ched testified that she did consent and she says she can't remember. So the jury disbelieves MacDonald about Ched but believed him about himself - very inconsistent!

I think the jury must have taken two "possibles" in respect of mutually exclusive scenarios:
- 1 she was "possibly" too drunk;
- 2 Ched's entry and exit methods to & from the hotel "possibly" indicate suspicious or guilty behaviour in comparison to Macdonald.

.... and added them up to make "beyond reasonable doubt in respect of Ched.

 

Having been there I can tell you in that twenty minutes you are totally wrecked ... besides no one is talking about such extremes here and by it's description video evidence certainly doesn't hold to the theory. As I see it they are either both guilty or both innocent and the girl deleting her tweets and facebook comments suggests the latter. Personally I fail to see how the judge did not call a mistrial for this very reason, especially as she had falsely cried rape on a previous occasion which he surely would have been aware of.

 

(1)A person (A) commits an offence (rape) if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the V*gina, A*us or mouth of another person (B) with his P*nis,
(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.

So it is probably the case that the jury believed that she was incapable of consent, but there was an element of doubt whether McDonald knew this, as he took reasonable steps to ensure she did. He hung out with her, looked after her, waited with her to get food. She followed him in to the hotel. She took off her clothes.

Ched did not take any steps to ensure she consented. He couldn’t have. He convinced the porter to give him a key so he could sneak in and wouldn’t have to knock. He snuck in to a hotel room and asked to have a go. He had sex with her almost immediately. She was (assumedly) already naked and in a compromising position.

Having a one night stand is entirely different from turning up in a fairly seedy hotel room and having sex with whoever is in there. They could be a child, they could be a prostitute. They could be incapable of giving consent, through drugs, drink or through mental health difficulties.

The court probably decided that A (Ched) had taken no steps to ascertain whether B consented, and that she was incapable of consenting.

Result: Ched-jail. McDonald-free.

 

Good post - makes sense and logical.

 

Not only a good post,but almost certainly spot on. Imho, evans is an utter scumbag and deserved to be sent down and probably for longer.
However and its big however, I still think he should get his job back......which just happens to be a pro footballer. Personally I'd hate him at my club and wouldn't cheer him if he scored.
The difference with our Troy,is although what he did was very wrong, he has shown what appears to be geniune remorse and shown himself to be the complete opposite of being a scumbag. He came out,got his head down and threw himself at being a good pro footballer and from what we read a family man to boot.

 

Entirely agree! Is that the sun I see disappearing over the eastern horizon?

 

Well I presume it wasn't his intention to sit on the family sofa with his girlfriend and watch the video ...

 

Throughout this thread a number of possible scenarios have been presented. All of them are just that - possibilities. Some are better candidates than others as probabilities. But which one of them given:
- the lack of direct objective, empirical evidence
- the conflicting evidence offered by the two males and the female
- the consumption of alcohol being not only relevant to the giving of consent, but also to the retention of memory
- the fine line between being sober enough to give consent legally and something just beyond that which the law requires the man to be able to recognise even if he may be under the influence himself (was he? I don't know) and the conflicting evidence offered surrounding that

can be said to have been proven 'beyond reasonsable doubt' and it be concluded he unquestionably committed the act without consent? And I've seen the 'legal opinions' offered by others on here with a much better (and presumably professional) grasp of the law than me. So I ask the question simply as Joe Punter and a potential juror. No matter how I was directed by a judge surrounding the legal position, I would find it difficult to convict in these circumstances.

Now I freely admit that when I joined this thread I wasn't entirely au fait with the details of the case. Since I've learnt more, I've realised that Ched Evans is a more unsavoury character than I'd originally thought. And if I'd known that, I wouldn't have been so flippant with lines like 'all he needs to do is to start sticking it in the back of the net again and it'll all be alright' to begin with. He appears to have been arrogant and misogynistic although he was more contrite on Channel 4 news an hour ago. But he's still maintaining his innocence. Of course he may simply think that's his best chance of getting his job back rather than being properly contrite and offering some sort of apology to his victim.

But arrogance and misogyny aren't crimes (maybe the latter should be). No doubt him coming across that way in front of the jury went against him and moved the jurors into shifting some of the negative possibilities for him into the probable category in their minds. Whatever sort of advice were his defence counsel giving him??

There are huge issues around young men's attitude to young women. The situation has deteriorated markedly since the days when I was 'putting myself about a bit'. But I don't think the answer is messing around with what 'beyond reasonable doubt' means for one particular crime and not for others. Really minimising the potential for kids (especially boys) to get access to hard porn in their sexually formative years would be a good start. And encouraging a bit of modesty for girls on a Friday and Saturday night would be another welcome development.

 

But, as he didn't serve his full sentence means he's made a full admission of his crime so there's no chance ever of any appeal - ever. Maintaining "innocence" with the media is one thing, maintaining it with m'learned friends is summink else (in this case).

That'll be 40 guineas.

I know of a bloke who was convicted of murder. As he maintained his innocence throughout, there was no parole nor remission and he did the full 30 years. Once out, and back on his feet again he got a firm* to look at his case (pro bono). When the first lot of paperwork went to the Home Office one of the bits of bumpf he received back was a mocked-up invoice detailing the charges the Prison Service would be claiming from any compensation he "won". Such as: 30 years worth of meals, 30 years worth of uniforms, 30 years worth of laundry services...

*Or it may have been a university criminal justice department - it's not really that important.

 

Incorrect. His release is automatic and not conditional on admitting the crime.

 

Well presumably his early release is dependant on his having behaved himself in the nick. But you did explain the law around remission and early release earlier. So are there any scenarios where you don't get out if you continue to say 'it wasnae me guv'. How about if you've received a life term?

B.t.w. How is the old place? I was in Env. 73-76, lived in Waveney Terrace during my first year and then in a house on the famous Unthank Road.

P.S. I've done it AGAIN in error. Hit the dislike button!

 

See my previous response that relates to this, as that's not the case. I believe the CCRC are currently reviewing the case (and fast-tracking it too).

I agree with your other point, however. Presenting your case and denying the version of events to your mates is one thing, but having looked at his website, I question as to who really wrote it. Surely not anyone with any legal knowledge.

 

To an extent, behavioural issues will be considered, mainly due to the likelihood of him complying with the licence conditions and whether he presents a risk.

Re; life sentence or indeterminate sentence, then the judge will have provided a minimum tariff and at this point you could be released (it could be ten years into a 15 year sentence, for example). I used to deal with this quite a bit in my last job. The prisoner will be informed a few months before his minimum tariff is due and then generally speaking it goes to the parole board. It can be refused without hearing but this is quite rare - although Charles Bronson was in Woodhill recently before being shipped down to Amersham Mags' for an assault on a prison guard (Bronson now has a different surname, thus it didn't attract any media attention until afterwards, and also why it got heard in bloody Amersham - he got an extra two years by the way). However, he claimed not long before this that his minimum tariff had ended - which wasn't the case, but he fought it so hard and because certain documents had gone missing he managed to get a parole hearing. His case was then dismissed. He'll never be released in all honesty, the government will be involved and I think it's the home secretary (?) that will need to approve it. The hearing will consider a case file including the Pre-sentence report - which I don't agree with - and governors report, amongst other things, to determine risk levels, behaviour, future plans, etc. Again, it won't consider things like remorse, denial, empathy, etc - unless these are factors in the person not engaging or willing to attend programmes, or if they underpin behaviour problems. They can't be used against the person for protesting against a conviction.

 

Thanks Orny for that very full answer. One more question. Is the situation similar in the USA? I seem to remember having heard about guys still incarcerated way beyond their original sentences for serious, violent crimes, simply because they won't admit their guilt. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

In all honesty I haven't a clue. My only experience of the U.S was with a girl called Caitlin and that experience was limited to about 2.5 minutes.

UEA could be the man to ask?