Ched Evans Should NOT be allowed to train at Sheffield United !! Wales next?

[DuelingFanjo]

seriously?
I am absolutely appalled. I really really hope this doesn't mean he will ever play for Wales. I will definitely be taking part in some kind of protest if that happens.

I have been so drunk that I can still walk but couldn't remember how I got home. People who cite the CCTV footage as a reason for her to be able to give consent are just spouting the view that if you are sober (or look sober) then it can't be rape. Ridiculous.

there were two testimonies that said she consented to CE verbally, those of CE and his mate. They both said she not only verbally agreed but asked CE to carry out oral sex on her.

That's not accurate.

Clayton McDonald's and Ched Evans's testimony didn't match.

When the police asked them if anyone had asked the girl if she wanted to have sex with Evans, and if so, who that was, they each said the other one had done it.

I can understand them saying they couldn't remember, and I could understand them both naming the same person.

But I can't understand them both being certain the question had been asked, but not remembering who'd asked it.

So if their accounts were muddled there, then if I was on the jury I might have my doubts about the rest of their story.

Yet CE was convicted because a) they were disbelieved and b) it was decided that due to alcohol she was incapable of consent.

No one is allowed to ask a jury about their deliberations and they aren't allowed to tell, so we have no idea why the jury convicted. At a guess I'd say (a) seems likely and only the jury know whether (b) is true.

I wish it wasn't constantly stated as fact, because it's not. The issue of alcohol and consent formed part of the judge's sentencing remarks. But he didn't know whether that was the reason for the verdict and he never said he did.

Do you know what i dont get. If she were making it all up for the shits and giggles - for the fun of trapping two footballers for a made up crime and all the money she got for it

Why would she not say she was sober enough to know that she said no but didnt fight because she was scared. Why would she risk her "story" on a pretend lapsed memory. Unless she actually was drunk and couldnt remember. Even if she'd woken up, had no idea how she got there or what had happened, and then found out she was raped as per actual events. If she were making it up just to be the evil person attacking the poor footballers, why would she not later "remember" one little no?

I dont understand how people are still debating his innocence.

He was found guilty by a jury who had all the facts.

He has had two requests for appeals refused.

He and his supporters appear to be delusional with little grasp on reality, the continuing harrassment of his victim is testiment to this.

Why are people trying to defend the indefensible?

I know that limited - they disagreed over who asked the question.

However they both agreed that she had said 'yes' when asked, and that she had asked CE to perform oral sex on her.

Sashh - I appreciate your efforts to educate me, but it really is unnecessary. I'm by no means an expert but I have a good grasp of the meaning of legal defence, and spent 2 years frequently in a Court room in my late teens - so you're being a teeny bit patronising [sorry]

From the Appeal attempt

In grounds of appeal the first issue was the suggestion that the verdicts reached by the jury were inconsistent. Counsel for the applicant submitted that if the jury acquitted McDonald, there could be no sensible basis on which they could convict the applicant. The court noted in argument that it was not alleged that McDonald was a party to the rape of the complainant by the applicant. The verdict was not related to that count; he was acquitted of raping her himself. The court also noted that in his sentencing remarks the judge was satisfied that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent to sexual activity: “That was simply his view; he would not know how the jury had reached its own decision, but we must respect his analysis. But however it is examined, and assuming that he was wrong about the basis on which the jury reached its conclusion, we find nothing illogical or inconsistent about the verdicts"

The jury was directed as follows: "When you come back .... you will be asked to return separate verdicts in respect of each of the two defendants. Accordingly, when you retire you must consider the case, that is to say the evidence for and against each of the two defendants separately. Whilst there is a considerable overlap in that evidence, the evidence is not identical, and whilst your verdicts may very well be the same in the case, they might be different. The important thing for you to remember is your approach to the case for and against the defendants must be considered separately."

Given that direction, it was open to the jury to convict both defendants, to acquit both defendants, or to convict one and not the other defendant. That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened the meeting in the street and so on McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency.

here

Interesting Dueling...but all pretty standard 'instructions' to a jury in a joint trial.

I would be more interested in how the jury came to that decision tbh although I appreciate that's nothing we'll ever know.

From the Jury's pov, I still find it hard to comprehend one guilty and one innocent verdict. Unless they believed that going to a hotel room was consent.

walkinginmemphis What I saying is that if they disagreed about such a basic fact as who it was who asked for consent, then the rest of their story, about oral sex or anything else that happened in that room, wasn't reliable either.

I agree with beyondthelimits and that thought would be foremost in my mind if I was on the jury and wondering what was the most likely explanation.

Do you accept the point that no one outside the jury room knows why Evans was convicted? If so, would you please stop saying that it was decided he didn't get consent because she was too drunk to give it. You can't know that.

Only two people said they knew what happened in that hotel room. And at least one of them wasn't believed.

Walking, if she was sober but testified that she had gone back willingly with CM but was frightened and felt threatened when CE entered the room, uninvited, and asked if he could have a go (given the boundaries already violated by his very presence there), would you find the verdicts inconsistent?

Maybe they did think going to the hotel room equalled consent to sex. I don't agree, but many people hold that view and would also think that Clayton McDonald was entitled to believe he had consent in the absence of proof that the girl said no or resisted sex in any other way, including being unconscious.

She did not go back with Evans. Only two people know for sure what happened in the hotel room. As I said, at least one of them wasn't believed.

To me that accounts for the differing verdicts.

But she didn't Yonic . She didn't provide any information at all, it was purely on the basis of the admittance of the accused that sex took place.

I don't understand your point.

My point is, the circumstances which brought CM and the victim together are different than those which brought CE and the victim together. So different verdicts aren't that hard to comprehend.

I think I may have reached a different verdict on CM, but I can understand the reasons why the verdict might be different.

I have found something on the internet which names the victim and has photos of her, who should I report it to?

The police.

That's terrible :( Are the police in the area where the crime took place still responsible for victim support, even if she has moved? They would know anyway, so might be a good place to start. I hope she doesn't have to move again, poor woman.

Possibly the police in Wales who investigated the initial complaint from the victim Dueling?

I don't know really, but they might be a good starting point.

There are women convicted of rape for facilitating a rapist to rape another woman. I don't see what the other guy did as any different. Him having sex with her might not have been rape but he should have for the rest of it.

I have reported it to prestatyn police who successfully prosecuted six other people for naming her.

Tried to report two tweets but found the reporting form so confusing and it wouldn't let me submit the reports.

Have screen grabbed and sent them to the police

Clayton McDonald wasn't charged with procuring rape or perjury or perverting the course of justice confuddled. Just rape. That's all the jury could give a verdict on. I think the judge addressed that specifically in his summing up.

His summing up also made it clear that the two men were to be considered separately and that they might decide to acquit both, convict both or acquit one and convict the other - which is what they did.

Ched Evans's supporters persist in spreading the lie that the judge was expecting the same verdict for both men. It supports their argument that the conviction was unsafe.

They know that is a lie because they've been all over the court papers like a rash.

This might sound awful, and obviously a real person shouldn't have to suffer in order that debates about 'vagueries' in rape cases can arise, but I am glad different verdicts were returned.

As a victim of rape (more than once, different instances), I'm all too aware of the 'inconsistencies' of fancying a guy to the extent of ending up alone with him but not then wanting to have sex with him, or of consenting to one act/person but not wishing to continue on that path and consent to additional acts at the whim of the man who has you locked in a hotel room.

I never reported, I didn't think I would be believed. A level of consent was obtained, right? The rest is vague and inconsistent, right? I am so so glad that in this case, with two different men arriving at the scene in different circumstances, the jury started (appears to have started) from the premise that it was perfectly possible for the acts committed by the two men to have been different / have different interpretations.

I find all this 'it's so complex I want to reduce it to something simple, two different verdicts is too complicated, ergo must be wrong' so depressing. OF COURSE it's complicated the dynamics between two or three people in a private situation are always complicated it's a GOOD THING that this was acknowledged but yet not seen as a barrier to conviction. IMO.

I agree with you PomeralLights. The differing verdicts convince me that the jury did consider it very carefully.