To be totally baffled (Ched Evans related)

[soapboxqueen]

Just reading in the guardian that Ched Evans has applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to review his case. That's fine because it is part of our due process and legal system.

However, in the article it points out that his girlfriend's father is paying for appeal barristers, private detectives and even offering a reward for information in order to help his appeal. Why would you do that? Why would you put up so much money to protect a person who at best (from their perspective at least) cheated on your daughter in a rather deplorable fashion and at worst a rapist? Why would got want your daughter to be with such a person?

I really don't understand.

I'll see if I can get the link to work.

You know, he could do so much good from his position if only he would get his head out of his arse.

He could do talks to young people along the lines of 'i never realised that having sex with a drunk woman could be rape. I understand that now and it's important that you do too...' type of thing. They could both talk to young people about consent and respect, if only that would stop bleating on about the fact that they believe that had consensual sex that night.

The point is she was drunk! She was falling over. She couldn't take care of her own bag let alone her body.

Young men need to know that a drunk woman is not theirs for the taking. She's not an 'easy lay'.

The story posted about the man taking the drunk woman to a taxi rank with money to get homes really heartening. A true example of a good man of which I'm sure there are many.

I'm staggered that CE and CM don't have any level headed people around them to explain to them why what they did was wrong. Neither of them seem to have any idea. They are surrounded by people who sympathise with their situation.

WellnowImFucked I read it how MEOD interpreted it, so you didn't do a bad job of saying what you meant.

Everyotherfreckle As tha rapist Ched Evans has proved, many men don't think they ARE rapists, so wouldn't see their behaviour as rape!

I don't see how campaigning to "clear his name" can be regarded as harassment of the victim unless he is mad enough to name her. A lot of convicted people campaign and a few of them succeed.

I'm also not convinced by experiments involving pretend juries hearing pretend cases. They know it's not real and that must skew the outcome, however hard they try not to let it.

Alas, purplefeathers he is surrounded by people who for one reason or another are feeding his self-righteousness; his kin with whom I have some sympathy; his deluded gf; and her father whom I just can't understand.

But the court ruled she was too drunk to consent

No it didn't. The court (i.e. the judge) made no ruling on this point. The jury decided Evans was guilty of rape. That could be because the jury thought she was too drunk to consent or it could be that they did not believe the evidence of the defendants that consent was sought and given. We don't know which. The judge clearly thought it was on the basis of the victim being too drunk to consent but he had no knowledge of the jury's deliberations and his remarks suggest that he was expecting the jury to arrive at the same verdict for both men. Personally I think the fact McDonald was acquitted suggests the jury thought she was not too drunk to consent since there was, as I understand it, no evidence to suggest she was more drunk when having sex with Evans than she was when having sex with McDonald. But I may be wrong. We really don't know.

The only relevant ruling from the court was to instruct the jury that the defendant's inability to recall the events of the night did not necessarily mean that she was too drunk to consent. This was based on medical evidence.

In any event the point I was making is that you had stated that Evans did not ask the victim for consent. Both the defendants maintain that she was asked and gave her consent.

But she went back to the hotel with CM. She was heard saying 'you're not going to leave me are you?'. This alone may have put enough doubt in the minds of the jurors therefore they couldn't return a guilty verdict (please note i'm not saying that because she went to the hotel means she wasn't raped, just that it may have been enough to make the jury not 100% about it).

The situation with CE was very different. He was uninvited by the victim, he lied to get a room key, let himself in while the victim was at her most vulnerable, did what he wanted then left via the fire escape. Whether she met CM and decided that she wanted to have sex with him we don't know for sure but we do know that she definitely had no plans to have sex with CE.

As an aside, why on earth did he leave via the fire escape anyway? The receptionist already knew he'd gone to the room. Why not just walk out of the front door?

And i don't agree that the judge expected the same result for both defendants. He explicitly told them to consider the cases separately iirc.

MyEmpireOfDirt He can't be recalled for anything which is not a breach of the terms of his license, and I would be uncomfortable if he could - or if campaigning to clear his name was a breach of licence.

When his licence expires (at the end of his five year term) he can do anything which is not unlawful. He could go and live next to her!

I am not sure that re-hashing the facts and trying to look behind the jury's verdict is helpful right now. They found him guilty and guilty he remains unless he can persuade the C of A to take a different view. If he's going to try and do this, presumably his legal team will tell him that he will improve his chances by pursuing his appeal in a manner which appears serious and respectful of the process, rather than by participating in the circus which his ludicrous entourage seems determined to create for him.

We don't know the conditions of his licence though. If the victim has a good victim liaison officer they could have added a non-harassment condition. Offenders have been recalled in the past for failing to stop their associates from harassing their victim. He needs to take responsibility for that.

What is an associate? Somebody you can control?

As you say, we have no idea what he is forbidden from doing which would otherwise be legal. Campaigning to clear his name, however upsetting to her, is hard to bring within "harassment".

Thanks Empire - I was just about to write what you did (about that it seemed more likely that the jury thought CM had a reasonable belief than that she was not too drunk to consent). Thanks for saving me that time.

I think he is harassing her because he is using his high profile to gain media attention for his disgusting "apology!. You cannot move in town today without seeing headlines about.

I believe he should publicly condemn the actions of those people who have harassed and named the victim. He should go on record saying that their behaviour is unacceptable.

Yes he can try to clear his name but at this point in time he is a convicted rapist, therefore there is a victim and she has been harassed by people very close to him.

The prosecution presented no evidence at all to say that she had capacity and did not consent. Let alone enough evidence to surpass reasonable doubt!

No but that does not prevent the jury from arriving at that finding. We know from various studies that juries do arrive at conclusions which were not argued in court. Occasionally they arrive at conclusions for which no evidence has been presented at all.

I don't see your argument that McDonald was in a better position to evidence a reasonable belief than Evans. She met McDonald first and accompanied him to the hotel. She was already having sex with McDonald when Evans arrived. She did not have any conversation with Evans beyond, allegedly, consenting to sex with him, asking him for oral sex and encouraging him during sex. It seems to me that McDonald was in a much better position than Evans to judge whether or not she was too intoxicated to consent and hence much less able to argue a reasonable belief.

As far as I can see McDonald's defence did not argue that he had a reasonable belief. They argued that the victim was not too intoxicated to consent and that she did consent. Of course, that does not stop the jury from arriving at a "reasonable belief" verdict even though it was not argued.

The evidence of the victim's consent to Evans is, however, muddled. Whilst both McDonald and Evans maintain that she consented they disagree as to which of them asked the question. I am speculating that the jury may have concluded that this confusion indicated that the question was not asked.

I accept that we don't know the basis for the jury's decision. I could be wrong. It just seems odd to me that the jury should acquit McDonald if they thought the victim was too intoxicated to consent.

You are convinced that was the basis of the jury's decision. You may be right. But unless we ask the jurors (which we are not allowed to) it is impossible to be certain.

As an aside, why on earth did he leave via the fire escape anyway? Ched gave two reasons for leaving by the fire exit. Firstly, it was the nearest exit and secondly, he was embarrassed to pass by the night porter again not long after having gained access to the room.

from his website

I am starting to get frustrated with all this speculation about the jury deliberation. They found her testimony (and all the other evidence presented against CE) convincing. He was found guilty rape. End of.

I agree Chaya. The two cases were separate. They were tried and sentenced separately and there was differing evidence for each case. It's incorrect that they both should have been either acquitted or found guilty.

Differentname-thanks for the clarification.