The MeiSter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2012
- Messages
- 145
- Reaction score
- 16
But that is the point, he didn't keep it tucked away, and as a result, is both a cheat and a rapist.
LOL! You don't get much dumber than this..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
But that is the point, he didn't keep it tucked away, and as a result, is both a cheat and a rapist.
LOL! You don't get much dumber than this..
Like it or not this all boils down to Ched's fault - whether he's innocent or guilty.
So, it's his fault he is now in prison for being found guilty of something he very possibly didn't do? I see.
Yes it is. He made the choice to get his dick out of his pants. 100% his fault, regardless of anything else surrounding this whole sorry affair.
For me the big issue is going to be what the woman does next.
If that was my daughter i would be appealing against CM as he has got away with raping my daughter.
If she does nothing then she is happy that Ched has been found guilty. Then we would have to ask why would she be happy that the millionaire Ched Evans has been found guilty?
Tearstain
Wow, how brainwashed and gullible you are. Twelve amateur sleuths on a jury decide one guy raped her and the other didn't, and you swallow it.
Nine years ago, CE and CM wouldn't have even been facing a trial - how do you square that circle?
It has to both or none in my humble opinion, how can one be guilty and the other not?????
Because they both did completely different things on the night. The number of people going on about this is astonishing, go through the facts of the case. Everyone seems to be assuming that the three of them were together throughout and that it can't be feasible for her to only consent to one. That's just not how it was. How CM was ever tried I don't know, if anything he should have been tried as an acomplice, in which case he would have been found guilty.
I actually think the case against the Ched is pretty solid, it's only the character of the girl that throws the whole thing into doubt. But the law says you don't have a right to rape a girl just because she's not very wholesome and that's how they've dealt with it.
For me the big issue is going to be what the woman does next.
If that was my daughter i would be appealing against CM as he has got away with raping my daughter.
If she does nothing then she is happy that Ched has been found guilty. Then we would have to ask why would she be happy that the millionaire Ched Evans has been found guilty?
Tearstain
The Crown put the case on the basis that she did not have the capacity to consent throughout and that no reasonable person could have believed she had capacity.
But do the jury necessarily have to follow the line that the prosecution takes? If they have to give a verdict on the charge (I don't know what the specific charge was, simply "rape"?) then they can come to the conclusion that MD's actions were reasonable and Ched's were not and amounted to rape, even if they actually believed she was capable of consent, correct? Or am I wide of the mark?
The jury should only give a verdict on the basis of the evidence. They could theoretically have decided that the complianant did not have the capacity to consnet at any time but that CM reasonably believed she did have capacity and CE didn't.
However, that is difficult to square with the evidence as we know it. There seems no dispute that CM was with her a lot longer than CE and thus would have had more of an opportunity to ascertain her level of intoxication and ability to consent. It would therefore seem illogical to find that a reasonable person in CM's position (with her for - what - 15-30 mins before sex started) would have believed she had the capacity to consent and a reasonable in CE's position (with her for - what - 1-2 minutes before sex started) would not have so believed, assuming that her condition was the same throughout.
Darren, I know you have said tere are no grounds for appeal other than on a point of law, but what would the situation be (in any case, not just Ched's) if a complainant had given evidence throughout that she couldn't remember, but after the trial her memory suddenly comes back and she admits that she can remember consenting? Would that be grounds for an appeal, or could a conviction be quashed outright?
The jury should only give a verdict on the basis of the evidence. They could theoretically have decided that the complianant did not have the capacity to consnet at any time but that CM reasonably believed she did have capacity and CE didn't.
Basically how I see it to have been considered, and although I get your point about CM being with her for longer, he also could have reasonably thought she was capable because he followed a "normal" process of meet, travel, enter room with her coming along, whereas Ched found out where she would be, in what state and simply arrived to do the job, made no effort to acertain anything (he was there for it and he was going to get it) and slipping out the back way reinforces that.
That seems to me how they have judged it and it's about how I see it.
She was raped? What exactly are you basing that 'fact' on? What's this 'she has the right to say no' rubbish? Are you aware of any of the facts of the trial, or just trying to score some morality points?
Maybe the discrepancies between CE and CM's stories at the point where CE 'joined in' made them think that she was unconscious at that point and CM had stopped as a result? We just don't know what they were thinking but the unanimous verdicts on both counts seem quite telling to me.
But that assumes she did, in fact, have the capacity to consent. If that was the case and she did consent then what Ched thought her state of mind was neither here nor there. Essentially, in this case there was a two stage process.
1. Did she, in fact, have the capacity to consent. If she did, then what the reasonable person in CM and CE's position would have thought is irrelvant: they could neither of them be guilty of rape.
2. If she did not have the capacity to consent, it is only then that the views of the reasonable person in CM and CE's position is relevant. It is then that it seems rather puzzling that the the man who was with her for the most time should have had a reasonable belief in her capacity to consent yet the man who was with her for a short period should not. I could see how a jury could find that both did not have such a belief, but I find it difficult to understand how it could find CM did and CE didn't.
Darren are you sure about this? On item 1 surely you mean did she not only have the capacity to consent but did indeed consent?
If she had the capacity to consent then it's her word against the men's words as to whether she did consent. Her word is that she doesn't know because she cant remember. Their word is that she did consent.
On your second point I think the jury must have concluded as hamburg and I and others have suggested-ie that she had no capacity to consent, but that cm could have formed a reasonable belief in consent, based on the consensual meet-taxi-hotel sequence, whereas ched could not have formed any such reasonable belief.
The illogicality of the jury's position is that they have to be sure either that she had no capacity to consent, or that she did have capacity to consent but did not consent, in order to convict. Based on the evidence ( no alcohol in blood, squealing sounds, taxi driver etc) I do not see how they could have been sure she had no capacity to consent. I suspect the judge may have been trying to tell them This in his summing up. And I don't think the jury thought she did have capacity, but refused it- there is simply no evidence whatsoever of her actively refusing to give consent, so the case has to succeed or fail on incapacity, which is absolutely not proven.
So my appeal grounds would be based on exposing this illogicality. Ie that no reasonable jury could be sure she was in no position to consent.
One other high risk option for Ched is to run an appeal on the basis of an inadequate defence. That requires him to ditch his legal team.
I can absolutely see the jury's line of thinking - both have done something awful; cm can at least claim she gave him reason to consent; ched just showed up and did his thing regardless. So cm innocent ched guilty. But that line of thinking depends on a fallacy - ie that they can be sure she had no capacity to consent.
Darren your reply is blank?[/quote
See below!
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?