Stand by Him?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Would you stand by him?

  • Total voters
    112

The MeiSter said:
LOL! You don't get much dumber than this..
Click to expand...

Once again, he is a convicted rapist. FACT. As much as you don't like it (and I'm growing more and more uncomfortable with the judgement the more I hear) that is the way it is. Calling people "dumb" for this is pathetic, frankly, and you need to get yourself in check.

And Ched Evans is an idiot - he had a beautiful girlfriend at home and if he'd kept his dick in his pants, we wouldn't be talking about this and he'd, hopefully, be scoring the goals to get us into the Championship. Like it or not this all boils down to Ched's fault - whether he's innocent or guilty.
 
Crazyblade said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
It has to both or none in my humble opinion, how can one be guilty and the other not?????
 
I agree with superpig, his girlfriend is standing by him, and it's very odd? both should be guilty or none should be guilty.
 
Tearstain said:
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
Click to expand...

It isn't her call regarding the appeal, that would-be the CPS.

From the look of her alleged Twitter feed, she seems fairly sure she's about to get a BIG payout, and seems very happy about it.
 
The MeiSter said:
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?
Click to expand...

Meister, I certainly don't want to get into a slanging match with you as you seem pretty animated about this, but can I just ask, since you seem to consider the opinions of the jury as being worthless, since they are "amateur sleuths", how would you describe yourself?
 
ponteblade said:
It has to both or none in my humble opinion, how can one be guilty and the other not?????
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hamburg Blade said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. The evidence re capacity went up to the moment just before she entered the room (when the recptionist saw her). There was no evidence about her capacity (other than from the Defendants) when she was in the room.

As there was consequently no evidence that the situation re capacity changed between the sex with CM and sex with CE the decision is rather puzzling.
 
Tearstain said:
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
Click to expand...

The prosecution can't appeal against a jury decision.
 
Darren said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Hamburg Blade said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
jockdodds said:
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?
Click to expand...

That would possibly be grounds for appeal on the basis of compelling new evidence that wasn't available at trial. However, the Court would be sceptical of the complainant suddenly saying she remembered and would want to be satisfied that she had not been pressurised in any way.
 
Darren said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Seems to me that the jury didn't believe any of the 3's evidence.
 
Hamburg Blade said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
The MeiSter said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ok, she has the right to to not have a random bloke fuck her when she has no idea what is going on - which is apparently what the jury found happened.

I don't know if that happened and as I have said 326 times I am puzzled by the divergent verdicts. However, all the disgusting crap you have posted above just makes me want to cut off my balls and read the complete works of Andrea Dworkin.
 
Trafford said:
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.
Click to expand...

There was no evidence of that so they could not properly have reached a verdict on the basis of such speculation. The only evidence of what happened in the room when CE arrived was:

1: the complinant: I can't remember
2. CE: she consented to sex with me
3. CM: she consented to sex with CE

It follows that the jury couldnot properly have convcited CE on the basis of anything that happened in the room after CE arrived. It had to be on the evidence of what happened before that.
 
Darren said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
denbyblade said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
I think you are missing the essential point that the prosecution case was that she did not have the capacity to consent because she was very drunk. As CM was with her for much longer he would have had much more opportunity to assess her level of drunkenness and thus her capacity to consent.

You are, of course, right that as well as having the capacity to consent she had to, in fact, consent. However, there was no evidence on which the jury could have convicted on the basis of an actual lack of consent (the Defendants both said she did, and she couldn't remember). It follows that if the jury found she had the capacity to consent to CM a not guilty verdict must follow and one would have thought the same applied to CE.
 
Would be good to talk this through in real time because I think we have similar positions.

Prosecution case is that she had no capacity to consent. I believe that in order to convict the jury must have believed that and been sure about it. They would then have asked whether defendants could have formed reasonable belief in consent. They decided to give cm the benefit of the doubt based on his interpretation of her behaviour (ie that he thought she was indicating consent) but ce gets no benefit of any doubt because, given that she was unable to consent, there was simply nothing that could have misled ce into thinking she consented.

So it all has to come back to whether she had capacity, and I think there's a good chance of persuading an appeal that no reasonable jury could be sure of this.

The point about cm having longer to assess her state of drunkenness is a non runner because it's reasonable to form opposite conclusions about what it should have done to cm's state of mind. The jury concluded that although she had no capacity to consent, there was enough to have a reasonable doubt as to cm's state of mind. That seems unchallengeable to me.
 

Darren I'd just like to say thanks for your continued input on this as you must have repeated things loads of times. I appreciate your efforts and hope your gut is right about this being possibly unsafe. if that is how you see it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom