Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Ched Evans


Bjornebye
 Share

Recommended Posts

There will 100% be blokes on here who have shagged a bird more intoxicated than them. Using this fact as an advantage to get their end away. Are they rapists?

 

Just a thought.

 

it wasn't the initial drink that was the problem.  It was keeping her drunk long enough to marry me I found cost a bloody fortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was convicted of a crime. He served his sentence. He feels an injustice has occurred. Now it's up to him to appeal via the legal avenues open to him. 

 

He might be a scumbag for all I know (probably is) but he still has the right, as a free man, to earn a living in his chosen profession.

 

From the perspective of the employer they will have various considerations to weigh, and if they decide to employ him that's on them. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't employ a convicted rapist, whether he'd served his time or not (which incidentally in this case, he hasn't. His sentence is complete in 2017, so he's technically still serving it).

 

Just to make it clear, this girl made no allegation of rape at all. She had no memory of any events from the kebab shop till she woke up. He was convicted purely on his own admission that he had sex with her. There was no forensic evidence. He admitted it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting reading the case, and it's hard to have any sympathy for him if it played out like it's alleged. The whole case centres around two guy's (McDonald and Evan's) the girl was completely out of it and thought she'd had her drink spiked. McDonald met her in a pizza shop and took her back to a Premier Inn, he texted Evan's saying "got a bird" then took her up to his room. McDonald is having sex with her when Evan's shows up at the Premier Inn about 10 minutes later and proceeds to have sex with her as well. Two friends stood outside the window and filmed it on their phones. Evan's ran off through the fire escape after the incident and the girl woke up the next day naked in a hotel room not being able to remember what happened. 

 

So the concept that Evan's pulled this girl and she was a bit too drunk to consent is complete nonsense, the case was calculated and he knew he'd done wrong, hence the filming of the girl and the escape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to make it clear, this girl made no allegation of rape at all. She had no memory of any events from the kebab shop till she woke up. He was convicted purely on his own admission that he had sex with her. There was no forensic evidence. He admitted it.

If she made no allegation, then how did it come about? 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The only evidence of what sexual activity occurred came from the accounts of his co-accused Clayton McDonald who also had sex with the complainant and was found not guilty of rape, Ched, and the night porter who was listening outside the room.

As this case revolves around the issue of intoxication and consent, it should be noted that it is established in the case of R V Bree that drunken consent to sexual intercourse is nevertheless consent in the eyes of the law. This does not mean that if a person is unconscious through drink or drugs it is acceptable to have sex with that person but rather, where an intoxicated person is functioning and able to make conscious decisions at the time of intercourse and then subsequently regrets that decision and decides to make a complaint of rape, her self-inflicted intoxication ought not to be considered as relevant to the issue of consent.

The police arrested both Ched and Clayton at the station, they acknowledged that the only evidence that sexual activity had taken place was their admission. There was nocomplaint of rape, no forensic evidence, no injury and no complaint.

Finally it should be noted that the burden of proof in criminal law lies with the Prosecution and that in order to gain a conviction the Prosecution must prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that a crime was committed i.e. the Jury has to be sure an offence has taken place. Essentially, this means that following the submissions of the Prosecution if there remains any doubt that a crime has been committed the accused must be acquitted. It is not for the accused to prove his innocence."

 

http://www.chedevans.com/

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't claim objectivity, but it does beg the question how they could possibly know she didn't consent.

It may sound like splitting hairs, but isn't the onus on them knowing that she did consent?

 

With the issue being that if she's out of it, as has been accepted on the evidence, there's a chance she mightn't be consenting but they've just decided to screw her anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The only evidence of what sexual activity occurred came from the accounts of his co-accused Clayton McDonald who also had sex with the complainant and was found not guilty of rape, Ched, and the night porter who was listening outside the room.

As this case revolves around the issue of intoxication and consent, it should be noted that it is established in the case of R V Bree that drunken consent to sexual intercourse is nevertheless consent in the eyes of the law. This does not mean that if a person is unconscious through drink or drugs it is acceptable to have sex with that person but rather, where an intoxicated person is functioning and able to make conscious decisions at the time of intercourse and then subsequently regrets that decision and decides to make a complaint of rape, her self-inflicted intoxication ought not to be considered as relevant to the issue of consent.

The police arrested both Ched and Clayton at the station, they acknowledged that the only evidence that sexual activity had taken place was their admission. There was nocomplaint of rape, no forensic evidence, no injury and no complaint.

Finally it should be noted that the burden of proof in criminal law lies with the Prosecution and that in order to gain a conviction the Prosecution must prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that a crime was committed i.e. the Jury has to be sure an offence has taken place. Essentially, this means that following the submissions of the Prosecution if there remains any doubt that a crime has been committed the accused must be acquitted. It is not for the accused to prove his innocence."

 

http://www.chedevans.com/

 

The issue here is that we dont know all the evidence unless someone is prepared to read through all the legal and court transcripts.

 

Its a delicate situation because of the subject. Although I havent seen or read a shred of evidence in this case, I have reservations am a bit concerned that he was convicted "on his own evidence" and it is said there was "no forensic evidence." That sounds like circumstantial evidence to me.

 

That said, under UK judicial system, he's allowed out after serving half his term. Providing he doesnt re offend, he cannot be recalled to gaol so in that sense he has served his "time."

 

Should he be prevented from re starting his pro football career? I dont follow the logice that once you've been inside, done your time and kept your nose clean that you should still be punished once you're released.

 

He maintains his innocence and is seeking a further appeal on the case. Due time will tell if he wins and there have been numerous instances of UK judicial sentences being overturned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may sound like splitting hairs, but isn't the onus on them knowing that she did consent?

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

I think he's been a vile, horrible cunt, but I couldn't say beyond all reasonable doubt that she had not given consent. I haven't read all the court transcripts, but the details look pretty plain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the own evidence/no forensic evidence bit is largely irrelevant.

 

Forensic evidence only really becomes relevant if there's a denial that sequel intercourse ever occurred. But, Evans doesn't deny that.

 

As for his own evidence, I'm guessing it's similar to the Suarez case in that Evans wasn't deemed a reliable witness. In all honesty, his behaviour of doing his best to get into the room, then sneaking out of the hotel is suspect. Plus, I imagine the victims evidence re: Evans was brief. She didn't even speak to him or meet him, if her account is true.

 

I think he's wanted to get his end away, made a huge mistake by letting his hormones and alcohol cloud his judgment to the extent where he's raped someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the own evidence/no forensic evidence bit is largely irrelevant.

 

Forensic evidence only really becomes relevant if there's a denial that sequel intercourse ever occurred. But, Evans doesn't deny that.

 

As for his own evidence, I'm guessing it's similar to the Suarez case in that Evans wasn't deemed a reliable witness. In all honesty, his behaviour of doing his best to get into the room, then sneaking out of the hotel is suspect. Plus, I imagine the victims evidence re: Evans was brief. She didn't even speak to him or meet him, if her account is true.

 

I think he's wanted to get his end away, made a huge mistake by letting his hormones and alcohol cloud his judgment to the extent where he's raped someone.

You think that might just be speculation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

 

Not relevant. Section 74 or 75 of the Sexual Offences Act. If somebody is asleep or unconscious the burden shifts. It's presumed that in those circumstances that there is no consent, and therefore guilt.

 

Then the accused has to rebut that presumption to show that there was consent, and innocence.

 

He didn't.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The girl alledgedly tried to give McDonald a blowjob in her inebriated state, which shows consent for McDonald and cleared him of the rape charge. If the prosecution would of tried him as an accessory to rape they probably would of got a conviction, but because it was a rape charge, he got off for that reason.

 

Evan's didn't have any evidence to prove it was consensual, she never met him, she claims she never agreed to it, he couldn't prove otherwise. Plus sneaking into the hotel, getting friends to film it and his escape out the back door (pun intended) doesn't really help his case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan's didn't have any evidence to prove it was consensual, she never met him, she claims she never agreed to it, he couldn't prove otherwise. Plus sneaking into the hotel, getting friends to film it and his escape out the back door (pun intended) doesn't really help his case.

We've all shagged a dirty bitch and fucked off before morning. Does he have to prove that she consented, or is the burden of proof on showing that she didn't?

 

I've been that drunk I couldn't remember having sex with the ex, but I had. It doesn't mean she raped me.

 

Horrible case all round, and he doesn't come out of this looking good even if his sentence is overturned.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...