To be worried about the Ched Evans threads on here

[corkysgran]

Sorry but this does seem like a witchunt to me. Many of the posters (who have signed the petition) obviously have little knowledge of the case. At one point a poster said Sports Direct would withdraw sponsorship if Evans was NOT signed and immediately others were vowing to boycott. Laughable and shows the level of thought before clicking. Online justice and the court of public opinion, not for me. As for expecting football, an industry corrupt from the very top (Sepp Blatter) and inherently sexist, to show any moral stance, get real.

I don't need rape apologists as friends either.

Fortunately the vast majority of people I respect in RL and online don't fall into that category and I'm reevaluting whether I want to interact any further with the few that do.

I think one thing that seems to be missing is there was no malice from the woman. She did not press charges, she did not make claims, she did not go to the police and say 'I think something bad happened last night.'

She went to report her bag missing.

CE convicted himself by his complete and utter inability to comprehend the notion of consent. He just didn't get it. And according to his website, he still doesn't get it. He genuinely believes (IMO) that a woman in a hotel with footballer A is in a state of consent for footballer B, C, D and E.

And so, it seems, do many people on this thread. Thankfully they don't want to be my pal.

Florafox -there you go again!

There is no one interpretation of the events that night.

Lots of 'grey areas' To name a few

1. She was too drunk to consent to either of them That is opinion , not fact.She didn't look too drunk to me on the hotel CCTV 2)'a conviction requires that the accused reasonably believes she consented' maybe asking him to 'lick her out ' as CE claims, could be taken to be reasonable belief that she wanted sex.
2. all this 'spending time with her before' wrt CM.She got into a taxi with him (a stranger), when presumably she was just as pissed (if not more so)

I can't be arsed going into why you're wrong on point 1, Choc, but issues of the CCTV and the expert witness on her level of drunkenness, plus the judge and jury's decision on it, have been extensively discussed/linked to on here.

On point 2, one of the court reports (again it's on here somewhere) contains evidence from the hotel staff member who listened at the door, who testified to hearing a male voice ask for oral sex but no female voice.

On point 3, I don't quite understand what your point is here, but yes, she did get into a taxi with CM. This along with the fact that they had spent (a little) time together beforehand is one of the things that led the jury to return an acquittal for him.

ChocLover - you realise of course that that the jury saw all the cctv evidence, not just the piece cherry picked for Ched's website, just so that you would reach the conclusion that she "didn't look too drunk to me" ?

You realise that 2 other eye witnesses testified that she was "very drunk" staggering and slurring, and that her clothing was in disarray? ie. two witnesses that were there - as opposed to you reading a website produced by the supporters of the convicted rapist?

You think you know more than the jury who heard every piece of evidence?

I have come to the conclusion that the only "research" choc has done before disputing the facts of this case is to have studied the CE website in some detail

The jury don't know.They had to make a judgment.
I am making a different one.

Yep AF It's scary to think that people like choc might actually serve on a jury. God forbid even a rape trial. How could anything penetrate those addled with rape myths?

The difference is Choclover that the jury made their decision on all the available evidence and you are making yours on the evidence that ched evans has decided to release so I know whose opinion I will trust.

Ok choclover

1. the fact that she 'didn't look that drunk' to you, on a piece of carefully selected CCTV which only captures every couple of seconds anyway, means, with all due respect, fuck all, when you consider that the receptionist who actually saw the woman in the flesh that night described her as 'very drunk', and the jury saw all of the CCTV footage and heard all witness statements.

2. as said above, the night porter said he heard a man asking for oral sex - of course this doesn't prove she didn't ask him as the night porter may well have just not heard that bit (although interestingly there is no mention of any men asking for or receiving oral sex in their evidence).

However actually (and I am happy to be corrected here), if someone doesn't have the capacity to consent or you dont have any reasonable belief tjat tjey have capacity to consent, then what they say in this sort of context is irrelevant and does not mean they are consenting. For example, if you asked a mentally disabled (mentally disabled to the point of being unable to give consent) adult if they want to have sex, they say yes and you have sex with them, then that is rape. The same with a child.

3. the judge specifically told the jury to consider the case of the two men completely separately as their circumstances were so different. The jury did not need proof that CM had reasonable belief in consent, if they believed that there was a possibility that he may have had reasonable belief, that would be enough for an acquittal. Given that he met her in a public place, chatted with her and she went in a taxi with him to a hotel room, the jury concluded that he may have had reasonable belief in her consent.

CE had no such reason for belief. He turned around his taxi and entered the room by deception, completely uninvited by the woman who 'a minute or two' later he put his penis into. Add to this the fact that there was a ver high chance that she was drunk, given it was 4am on a Sunday morning in Rhyl town centre, he had never seen her standing up or had a conversation with her, and he jury concluded that it would have been objectively impossible for any right thinking person to have reasonable belief in consent in this situation. Therefore he was convicted of rape.

The jury also had the benefit of the judge's direction on the standard of proof required for the conviction and the level of drunkeness that legally procludes valid consent. The Appeal Court found the judge's direction was correct. That's not some randomer's view that "I saw the CCTV and she didn't look that drunk to me" without a clue of either the other evidence nor what "that drunk" actually means in a rape case. The views of random people about the evidence and the required level of drunkeness are not of equal value to a jury's decision no matter what (unjustified) opinion someone might have of themself.

The jury don't know.They had to make a judgment.
I am making a different one

Choclover, unless you are making a different junction on the save evidence that they saw and heard, why do you contend that your judgment has more validity?

Sorry, different judgment, not junction.

But that's the point of having a Jury. What is more scary is to think that some of the posters on here would have found CE guilty merely by virtue of the fact that he has a penis. We are all entitled to our opinions, but let's not forget that that is all they are. Being convicted in a court of law - although that's the best we have - shouldn't provide anyone with absolute certainty as to CE's guilt - especially when he himself maintains his innocence. I appreciate that he has been convicted, but he has still yet to exhaust EVERY avenue open to him.

It seems on here that anyone here who expresses even the slightest doubt or discomfort about the case is labelled a rape apologist. The fact is (and this is especially aimed at all those who don't believe that they have 'rape apologists' for friends) MANY MANY people have doubts about the case and the subsequent events. It suits some to shut down that debate by labelling those of us that have the courage of our convicitons as rape apologists - when we're nothing of the sort. I know that I'm sometimes inclined to push a point further than I would like to in direct response to some of the shit I read here. I have friends that will agree with me, and friends that will take the view that most on here do. My life is all the more interesting for having them ALL in it, and let's face it, this site is all the more interesting for those of us contrarians that offer our opinions - regardless of whether or not you believe them to be valid.

Evans' supporters focus absolutely obsessively on that hotel video, which consists of a few second of time-lapsed, jerky, grainy footage with no sound. That is relevant because, for instance, they refer to the fact that she remembered the pizza - without the sound, we don't know whether MacDonald told her to go and fetch it. I suspect we're all relatively familiar with the drunk who can, for a few seconds at least, exert enough control to appear relatively sober. What Evans' supporters seem to have left off the website is the CCTV recording showing the victim staggering along the road and squatting to urinate.

So, choclover, perhaps you could explain why your judgment as to the victim's levels of drunkenness is more reliable than that of the hotel receptionist who could actually see and hear her at the relevant time?

I'd said up thread that I believe that the Jury is more likely (in my view) to have arrived at the incorrect decision.

What Evans' supporters seem to have left off the website is the CCTV recording showing the victim staggering along the road and squatting to urinate.

To be honest, I'd be inclined to say that such behaviour (sadly not uncommon) supported Evans' case. Someone that was PROPERLY PROPERLY hammered would have just pissed themselves not speaking from personal experience like

Oh, come off it, Malice, our prisons are full of people who maintain their innocence. Should we assume that all of them probably aren't guilty? Yes, Evans says he's innocent, but his case does rather differ from that of many other people trying to appeal in that he does not contest the facts on the basis of which he was convicted.

People have set out on these threads out time and again all the evidence - much of which comes directly from Evans- which was the basis for the conviction: so how on earth can you seriously characterise that as people having a blind and uninformed belief in his guilt based solely on his gender? Are you paying any attention at all to what is actually on these threads when you find it difficult to answer the points people make?

I would have no problem whatsoever in people expressing doubts about Evans if they were ever able to produce a good reason for it. But over a number of discussions on this and other sites all I see is people trotting out the same old stuff about the differing verdicts, those few seconds' video recording and, um, not a lot else. And whenever they are challenged on this, they never have an answer and tend to wander off whining "Well, it's my opinion, I'm entitled to have an opinion so there". If you and your friends can do better than that, I would be delighted to hear their reasons.

MaliceInWinterWonderland78 What Evans' supporters seem to have left off the website is the CCTV recording showing the victim staggering along the road and squatting to urinate.

To be honest, I'd be inclined to say that such behaviour (sadly not uncommon) supported Evans' case. Someone that was PROPERLY PROPERLY hammered would have just pissed themselves not speaking from personal experience lik

However she did then urinate in the bed so that argument works both ways still.

Yes I did. I believe David Emanuel to be very very competent...........so it follows that the "problem" likely lies elsewhere.