Ched Evans

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20969196

So of those reported to the police only 11% result in a conviction.

 

What now for Ched Evans then? Well he's appealing his conviction for a second time. But, seeing as he got nowhere with his first appeal because three judges concluded that the trial judge's directions and summing up were fine, that he'd been properly represented and there was no new evidence of import, it's hard to see how another appeal will be successful. He's lost the potential chance to resume his footballing career with the Blades unless there's another u-turn. No other clubs are likely to leap in (although one might when the dust has settled a bit). It will be difficult for him to go abroad for at least the next 30 months because he has to report regularly to the authorities here as part of his being out on licence. No-one on here has suggested an alternative employment and, even if they did, why should he consider it when the one he's best at and is potentially most lucrative is being artificially denied him?

I have no objection to Jessica Ennis, Paul Heaton and other supporters and sponsors of the club expressing their opinion even if I think they're wrong. But who exactly is Jean Hatchet with her online twitter petition campaign? Well an anonymous, radical feminist, lesbian campaigner apparently although there's speculation that 'she' may not be an individual at all but rather a group. Who's to know? She/they/it's anonymous. I understand the reasons for anonymity given the potential for abuse. But should an anonymously sponsored petition on a medium that can, by definition, only deal in soundbites, carry any weight? I looked this morning and the 'petition' then had 165,990 signatures. So what? This is a nation of over 64 million souls and twitter, for reasons beyond me, is very popular.

I hope that the Blades paid no attention to this shallow campaign but instead were only swayed by their own supporters and sponsors. The twitter campaign is nothing to do with football and, in particular, Sheff Utd.

Ched Evans has had his prospects for a lucrative footballing career unjustly compromised because a promiscuous woman reported the loss of her handbag (which she'd actually dropped herself outside a kebab shop), he and his friend told the truth and then the police manufactured another crime probably to satisfy some artificial conviction target. I therefore recommend that Ched Evans get angry and take up a career in organised crime instead.

 

Ched Evans can't have a lucrative career. Boo ****ing hoo.

Guess he'll need to get an actual job or live off his girlfriends wealth instead.

 

What an appropriate response in reply to criticism of a twitter campaign. Probably satisfies the maximum character rule whatever that is and is similarly intellectually childish and simplistic. So is playing football not a 'proper job' now then? And why don't you suggest an alternative? No-one else seems able to.

 

If no club wants to employ him because of the public outcry then that's their perogative. I think the outcry is a bit strong and I'm not convinced of his guilt either.

But I also think the way that it's being painted that if he doesn't have a job as a footballer then he can't work is a little bit silly.

 

Thank you. Much better!

 

Thoroughly dislike

 

Well documented.

 

So what?

 

This post sums up my feelings of the whole sorry saga as well. Good post.

 

Casts aspersions on the 'consent' question and her potential unwillingness to have a third (male) pro-active participant in the room and involved (miked2006#382). Some women like that stuff. Ched Evans has been described as 'predatory'. Predatory females exist too especially around footballers. None of this means a crime wasn't committed and maybe her 'previous' was taken into account anyway. If his defence counsel were doing their job it probably was. But it'd make me less willing to believe that consent wasn't given, not that I have a lot of trouble believing that it was anyway. Ched Evans is having 'previous' taken into account right now. Why shouldn't she? I'm all for female equality (big time) as observers/contributors to other threads on this forum will appreciate. But the hounding of this man is entirely the wrong way to go about achieving it.

 

Why shouldnt he play football again?

 

Well he might but if another club wants to take him on then they'd have to be prepared to do so in the face of a barrage from some shallow twitter campaign and probably the criticism/disengagement of some of their higher profile supporters and sponsors. Someone/some club will have to stand up to the 'braying mob', give them two fingers, say "this is what we're gonna do", and then stick with it.

 

You've only got to look at how many stunning women are with footballers... you can't imagine it's because of their witty intelligent repartee and looks
and Ched Evans has been made an example of. I don't condone what he's done but if it happened to a Suarez or Ronaldo I don't think there would be the debate there is now, he would be straight back in the team regardless.

 

I don't see why the footballer thing was relevant. Unless I have missed some important evidence in the case, surely she didn't know that Ched was going to turn up?

You are making this argument:

She went home with an ex footballer just after she has met him.

This means:
A. she was completely okay with a third party letting himself into the hotel room when she was either having sex, or had just finished having sex
B She is not only okay being walked in on, she decides this is exciting and is passionate when Ched says 'Can I have a go'
B. This is obviously true because she recognises Ched, Ched is a footballer, and women (especially sl*ts) are predators around footballers
C. She enjoys having sex with a man just after he has had sex, because loads of girls who have one night stands clearly go on to sleep with the next man they see.

There is not a logical flow there, and you are making massive illogical leaps. You are saying that the above is more likely than she didn't really know what was going on because she was drunk, so drunk that she wet herself as she slept. And you are saying that Ched didn't feel guilty and didn't try to take advantage of the situation, he just enjoyed the scenic route out the fire escape.

What he did was so clearly wrong. Some on here, not knowing all the facts, may not define what he did as rape. But 'experts', aka those on the case who know the most about it, have. As have the judges who decided against an appeal, which means the law does too. His expensive lawyers couldn't even convince the judges to give him an appeal, that is how strongly they believed in the verdict.

By the matter of the law, he is a rapist. He committed rape. If you want to go to the high court and explain why you believe you know more than them and feel that the law should be changed, feel free. But don't be offended when they laugh you out of the building.

 

The latter part of your post ignores the fact that an appeal can only be granted if there is new evidence. An appeal cannot be heard on the basis of an incorrect verdict.

It sounds like you believe that every court judgement in history is correct, just because a court has made it. Remember, the jury are not law experts, they are normal people, just like us.

That is the same as you believing that every referees decision is correct.

And, just as an aside, Evans would not have been the first footballer who has a wife or girlfriend left at home that has tried to sneak in or out of a hotel unrecognised.

 

Of course not every court verdict is correct, but seriously.

Your comment is an incredible exaggeration.

Referees make split second decisions in the heat of the moment. They rely a lot of the time on instinct and are only allowed one view of what is going on.

Juries sit and incredibly listen to every piece of evidence. They are clearly in a better position that those on here to form a judgement, despite our access to multiple pieces of evidence.

When juries get it wrong, it is typically because despite their feelings that the defendant is guilty are not enough evidence to over come the notion of doubt. That accounts for a higher percentage than the other way around.

That becomes even more extreme in rape cases, where only a tiny number of those raped manage to convince the courts beyond reasonable doubt.

Ched has had access to some of the best lawyers available. They have not been able to prove his innocence, not find any new evidence that overturns the previous evidence. So I do not see why you think that you can.

I don't even think that you believe the odds of him being innocent are very high. You clearly have made a statement and you feel that it is easier to say that the police/ law system is broken and that twelve informed jurors made an incredibly unlikely mistake.

Oh and to your sneaking out point. Wouldn't it have then been less audacious and more subtle for him to go straight to the hotel room and knock if he really wanted to hide his identity, rather than demand a key from reception so he could sneak himself in?

 

Well well! You do like putting words into other people's mouths! I'll deal with your points in sequence:

Firstly, on the footballer thing. I was making a general point. I never said this 'victim' was likely to have recognised either McDonald (who was then still a footballer with Port Vale) or Evans. Neither were particularly high profile. And she bumped into McDonald by accident. If she was predatory at all it would have been after the event when she realised her case did involve two footballers. There is a suggestion that there was some facebook evidence to that effect that has since been deleted. But I was only making a general point, not one around this case. Are you saying there aren't women who are after footballers for their money? Whatever Evans said around being able to 'go down the road with any woman he wanted' was probably to some extent a statement of fact in a nightclub situation in his experience although it may have been arrogant too.

As for your scenario, how dare you suggest it's mine! All your work I'm afraid! And some of it is frankly bizarre. All I said was that some of it might be true and the 'victim's' previous sexual history should be taken into account when considering that. I very much doubt that all of it would have been what happened and, as indicated above, the footballer bit's irrelevant.

You've described what Evans did as 'so clearly wrong'. Interesting and judgemental. Evans certainly exhibited a degree of manipulation and predation. Especially entering the room with another key. I don't like it either. Infidelity's not very nice either. But none of those were crimes the last time I looked. But he's been convicted of rape. Are you suggesting Evans should be found guilty of rape because the 'victim' had a weak bladder? How Evans decided to leave the hotel's irrelevant. ZZT has suggested it may have been because he didn't want to get spotted again seeing as he was cheating. Maybe.

Actually, all of the above's irrelevant because the only simple question that needs to be answered is - was the 'victim' capable of giving consent to sexual activity with both men in the hotel room - a theme ZZT has consistently stuck with throughout this thread while all around him have been all over the place. That's what the rape charge centres around despite anything else you might think it does or should. What went on in the room? There was only Evans' and McDonald's testimony because she couldn't remember anything.

The best additional evidence that's pertinent is the testimony of the taxi driver, the testimony of the hotel receptionist and the cctv footage of McDonald and the 'victim' arriving at the hotel. The taxi driver said she was dishevelled but was able to move from the back seat to the front seat with her pizza box. The receptionist described her as 'extremely drunk'. The cctv footage shows her walking in on her wedges, not tottering, going out again and crouching down to retrieve the pizza box from the pavement and returning, not tottering, before heading off with McDonald to the room. In addition she was able to send a coherent text to her friend at 02.45.

What gets me is the suggestion that she'd given tacit consent to McDonald by getting in the taxi and going to the hotel with him. Tacit consent that would have been given when she was at least as drunk as she was at the hotel. As I understand it, a woman can say NO at any point up to the commencement of and even during sexual activity. Unless she says or indicates YES it's rape. Therefore she must be capable of giving her consent at the commencement of sexual activity, not outside a kebab shop down the road. And therefore it can't be the case that one is guilty and one is innocent because it's all about her capability to give consent in the room. And to me, that renders the guilty verdict, for one but not the other, not only unsound but ridiculous. If both had been found guilty that would have still been wrong I think, but a double guilty verdict would at least have had some basis in logic. Who are your aka experts who'd say otherwise?

What the appeal process can't do is simply say that the jury got the verdict wrong. Those hearing it don't have to believe the verdict's correct. That was for the jury. They're only able to consider the judge's directions as to the law, whether Evans had adequate representation and any new evidence. Pity, because the jury so obviously did get it wrong. Probably just thought, like you, that what Evans did was 'so clearly wrong' they found him guilty of rape without understanding, or caring too much about, what they were really being asked.

P.S. Hit the dislike button in error again but this time I ain't gonna apologise! I also seem to have liked your #382 in error although I did actually like most of that one. I will apologise for being confusing!

 

Possibly. But he'd still have had to go through reception unless he came in through the fire escape.

 

Of course my referees analogy is an extreme, but it does illustrate that experts do not always get things right and you were implying that we have no right to question what experts say. And it also provides an example of where an appeal is not allowed, even though it is clear that the original decision was wrong.

Having spent many years in this legal arena I can assume you the jury often gets things wrong. I have walked out of a court when every legal expert in the room, including the judge, was dumbfounded by the jury's decision. There are statistics available that demonstrate that the geographical catchment area of a jury has a significant effect on the conviction rate, as does the "make-up" of the jury, etc, etc.

But you are right in that I do not think that the odds of him being totally innocent are that high, but that is definitely not my point. I am just so unclear how this type of conviction can be safe when all the evidence that an offence even took place is circumstantial. Interpretations from others not in the room, or watching CCTV, hardly seem to be great evidence, particularly when they disagree with each other as to how drunk she was.

Your third last paragraph is strange. First of all a defendant does not have to prove his innocence, only the prosecution must prove guilt. But it would certainly of helped, I grant you. But just answer this question, how on earth CAN he prove that she was capable of consenting when he was the only one that witnessed her in the room and when it is so subjective. It is impossible!

Possibly, if she had signed a statement/contract, maybe? In which case, don't forget to get a similar contract signed for when you next go to bed with your girlfriend wife, etc,particularly if you are both somewhat inebriated as you are (possibly) no better than Evans in the eyes of the law (and you and others on this forum) - a rapist!

 

Keslo - to be fair I think there is logic in McDonald being found innocent and Evans not. In the UK women get drunk to varying degrees every weekend - if a woman goes up to a man and says "I'm going back to your hotel with you" and willingly accompanies him in a taxi back to a seedy hotel room I think there is a certain amount of implied consent in that scenario. That's not to say the first scenario might not still be rape, but there is certainly less consent implied when you are the second guy who sneaks into the room with another key?

 

Incidentally, if I had been on the jury on the evidence I saw I would have found Evans not guilty, but my point is I can understand the logic of finding one guilty but not the other. And as we have already discussed the jury were able to see cross examination and evidence in more detail, so it's perfectly possible that they came to the correct verdicts after reviewing everything.

 

It's a pity that the trial transcripts (redacted for confidentiality etc) aren't available on the internet so we can get a better picture of what the jury would have had presented to them.

The only document that comes close is the appeal court's rejection of the appeal, which doesn't really give any detail.

 

I agree entirely. But that argument's a common sense one not a legal one. It's one I often make myself. A woman who says that and does that and doesn't regard it as a tacit consent to sexual activity is at best naive and at worst manipulative. But the law's clear. She has to have the capacity to give consent which in this case all centres around her state of inebreation. So how is her 'capacity' for decision making greater outside the kebab shop than in the hotel room? The legal case isn't about the circumstances she's in when making her decision. It's about her capacity to do so.

For the record. I reckon Evans got the news his pal was with a woman, knew exactly where they were because he'd booked the room, thought 'I'll have some of that' and snuck into the room and had his way. What a c.nt. And he wasn't bothered if he put her in a 'horrible situation' as miked2006 has said. But that doesn't make him guilty as the law stands especially if McDonald isn't. Change the law by all means as miked2006 has also suggested but, until you do, Evans is innocent if McDonald is.

 

We must also remember that consent can be given (in the taxi), but then withdrawn (in the hotel). It is what happens in the room that matters, in my opinion, and only Evans knows that for sure.

Also Kelso, I sort of agree with your last paragraph.

 

I'm amazed you're saying what he isn't guilty "as the law stands" when the police, the CPS, a Crown Court judge, a Court of Appeal judge who screened the appeal application and then three further Court of Appeal judges who heard it all disagreed.

In fact in essence the Court of Appeal judgement endorses Jumbolina's exact point:

For clarity Evans is 'the applicant'.

 

Yep. But who would read the entire original court transcript!? I've based my arguments on the facts in the document you've identified and added in a couple of things from the 'Ched Evans is Innocent' website. Namely the (suggestion only) that she came over all 'gold-digger' on facebook and then deleted her posts and that she sent a coherent text at 02.45 (factual I presume).

Incidentally the transcript you've identified says the hotel receptionist described her as 'extremely drunk' while Evans' supporters site simply says drunk. That does suggest they have an interest in playing it down.

 

I'm amazed you're saying that he isn't guilty "as the law stands" when the police, the CPS, a Crown Court judge, a Court of Appeal judge who screened the appeal application and then three further Court of Appeal judges who heard it all disagreed.

In fact in essence the Court of Appeal judgement endorses Jumbolina's exact point.[SUP][/SUP]

Well I'd be very grateful if you'd clarify my understanding of the law in this area then. Are you now telling me that it isn't all entirely about the complainant's capacity? Is the situation in which she's required to exercise her capacity now a factor? The Police see the opportunity for a prosecution because she might have been incapacitated, the CPS back them, a Crown Court judge conducts a fair trial and sums up fairly (from what I've read that's what he did), the jury deliver their verdict, the judge is required to accept the jury's verdict and pass sentence then the subsequent appeal process is required to back him because it was all done by the book (which it was). What they can't do is simply say 'the jury got it wrong' or rather they're very reluctant to say 'they got it wrong in law'.

I don't do slavish acceptance of authority figures' 'judgements' telling me what I should think no matter how many you rope in to your cause to range against me.

Where it all went wrong in the first place was when the police made it a rape case. She didn't cry rape. She just woke up in a strange place with no knowledge of how she got there and without her handbag after a Saturday night on the tiles. Then the police in their infinite wisdom up the ante when no-one was asking them to do that.

Result. Two footballers lose their careers (McDonald's has been compromised too) and a young woman is in hiding somewhere. Three young lives at least compromised if not destroyed and vast quantities of private and public money spent unecessarily to the benefit of people in your profession or ones associated.

Sometimes it's best to just back off and leave well alone. No-one was screaming rape. And you ask me to have a cap-doffing attitide to the authorities in this case. I don't think so.

 

As Kelso says, none of the above have said that Evans is guilty. How can they, it is not their job or role to do so?

 

UEA. Just read your quote from the appeal court. Mmm let me think ...

 

Well that's very interesting UEA. I obviously hadn't read the appeal judgement closely enough previously. The emphasis shifts entirely from her capacity to the judgement of the male in what he might reasonably regard as consent even if she might be 'incapacitated' then or afterwards. That's an argument I've made before myself but not to the exclusion of what happens afterwards. That's a step in the right direction as far as blokes are concerned but it sure requires a whole lot of value judgements to be made by a bloke on a Saturday night when he might be well pissed too. And it's already Wednesday! I've actually been married for 17 years. So am to conclude then that because my wife gave 'tacit consent' 17 years ago I haven't got to look for a cheeky wink today? Just carry on regardless? Not what the law says.

To be clear though. This case should never have come to court in the first place. Just the police putting their 'big oar' in when it wasn't asked for and any amount of collateral damage resulting because they did.

 

I guess many of the points I was trying to make were more general ones, in response to various comments inferred or otherwise, on here and elsewhere, like: he's a footballer he can get most girls he goes for, or, she's promiscuous so she might be more likely to sleep with a second man/ have a threesome.

Firstly, if we could not use circumstantial evidence, the court system would collapse. A plethora of circumstantial evidence can, quite clearly, thread together a picture of the night that goes beyond reasonable doubt, and has to in many cases. We have not been made aware of all (or indeed much) of the evidence. In fact, one can certainly take the opinion that the culmination of evidence is more than likely to have been very strong: firstly because it is a rare occasion that a jury get it wrong, secondly because when they do get it wrong it is much more often with a not-guilty, and thirdly because this effect is amplified in a rape case, in which the conviction rates are so low.

I am uncomfortable that because of very specific CCTV evidence at certain times, some are suggesting she wasn't that drunk, when clearly a more holistic view would be more helpful. She was clearly capable of functioning at some points, and yes, eyewitnesses have conflicting views on her level of 'drunk'. A key piece of evidence in my eyes is that she wet the bed, which you clearly do not do if you are capable of moving or getting up. In addition, she went to the police station the same day, but did not know, at this point, what had happened, so could not give any names etc. In fact, I do not believe she even claimed at that stage that she had sex. This was entirely consistent with her evidence that she was too drunk to remember. The only reason you would lie at this stage is that you were looking for money/ fame, but the fact that Evans, the only remotely recognisable footballer, was not invited into the hotel room and was only found because he had actually booked the room on his card, negates this.

I am against the opinion that it could happen to anybody who goes home with somebody who is drunk. McDonald got off the charge because he tried to form a (albeit brief) relationship with her. He didn't just force her in a cab, he gave her ample opportunities to leave. In fact, she was following him at one point on CCTV, which shows that she displayed, as evidence, that she was chasing after him. Even the initial meet was because she bumped into him, and she at one point said 'don't leave me' 'I'm coming with you'. This is incredibly important, as it suggests to McDonald that she is giving consent before she got in the room. (Interestingly, as a sidenote, speak to any woman to what constitutes rape when a woman is drunk: I have asked a handful of women now and they have pretty unanimously said the force and the speed they try to make a move, which takes advantage of their impaired decision making and lack of control.)

Ched, on the other hand, snuck into a hotel room, and put her under pressure to have sex with him immediately, without allowing or wanting to give any opportunity for her to consider her actions. His intention, signalled by other forms of evidence, was that he thought she was up for sex, and that by letting himself into the hotel room, he would ascertain sex. His actions were opportunistic, and it is this opportunism and lack of respect that I called 'obviously wrong' previously, I will use the phrase 'seedy' now, and that is just reinforced by his friends, who arrived after he told them what he was going to do, trying to capture the act on their phones.

Let's just put on here again, what the law actually is in full:

1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the ******, **** or mouth of another person (B) with his *****,
(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.

The jury have believed with the evidence that they have seen (staggering/ wetting herself/ freaking out the next day, thus enforcing her lack of memory) that she was unable of giving consent. I believe that they are in the best place, with advice from the judge and witnesses, to judge this, and to judge the reliability of each eyewitness.

But it doesn't matter to McDonald's verdict if she was unable to consent due to point C. It could be argued, or thought beyond reasonable doubt, that McDonald believed that she consented, due to the steps taken (i.e. sitting with her in the kebab shop, not rushing to the hotel room, walking ahead of her at times).

This is not the case for Ched, and the evidence conclusively pointed to him making absolutely no steps to ascertain whether she consented. It is these steps, which McDonald took, that answers your point over how he could have proved that she consented. If he had offered evidence in court that they chatted for a while before they had sex and that perhaps she found it exciting that he was a footballer and that she wanted to sleep with him, she could not refute this and I bet the verdict would have not stood.

My third to last paragraph was perhaps phrased wrongly. What I meant is that, despite to the poor conviction rate for rape, and his access to the best lawyers, the threshold for beyond reasonable doubt was still found. You are much more likely to be found innocent in a case, especially one which relies largely on circumstantial evidence, if you have better defendants. The odds of him being wrongly convicted with all considerations in mind is possible, but incredibly incredibly unlikely, and it is not worth putting the blame on the victim for such poor odds.

 

You don't think it is positive that a police force investigates a possible rape, when a girl wakes up naked in a hotel room having no idea how she got there??

 

A good post IMO and I agree with much of what you have said.

Of course circumstantial evidence is valuable and is a valid addition to direct evidence.

But there is a massive difference here.

Usually circumstantial evidence is used to prove something where an offence has been committed, such as a defendants whereabouts at the time of an offence. But in this case, there is no direct evidence that an offence has even been committed in the first place. How often does that happen?

For what its worth, I also believe that on the balance of circumstantial evidence he is probably guilty, and if I was a betting man I'd stretch to a fiver. But where a mans life and livelihood is at stake, I think it is a flimsy verdict at best.

 

Absolutely. But it is their job and role to decide where "the law stands" which was the point I was making. The jury decide guilt. The others, to one degree or another, decide whether the known facts fit the legal definition of rape.

I think we can all see how this could have been spun if the police had turned a blind eye so lets not turn this into a police bashing thing when really it's lose-lose for them. On balance I'd rather they were a bit proactive around sexual offences investigation than laid back.

The bit I've highlighted in bold encapsulates exactly what my understanding is of what Parliament wanted. Namely, blokes to think before acting. It may not seem fair, hell we can all think of scenarios when it's downright unfair, but that's what they've gone for.