Ched Evans signs for Chesterfield.

[11122aa]

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36575406
I am a bit surprised by this. Didn't expect any team to hire him until after the retrial has happened and then only if he was found not guilty. What's everyone's else reaction. It's all happened really quietly compared to last time.

That does not in any way contradict my point.

Yes, someone may be incapable of giving consent because they are drunk. However, the Court of Appeal judgement I mentioned remains in force (and, unlike the CPS guidance, is binding on the lower courts). Just because someone is drunk does not mean they cannot consent. The question is whether they are capable of choosing. The fact that someone has fallen over does not necessarily mean they are unable to consent.

In this case the fact that McDonald was acquitted strongly suggests that the jury believed the victim was capable of consenting. If she was not capable then it is impossible to see how McDonald is not also guilty of rape.

How is it impossible to see that?

She, presumably, agreed to go back to the hotel room with McDonald, and presumably agreed to have sex with him.

Why does that seem to mean she automatically consented to have sex with a second man, who was introduced into the scenario afterwards?

Both men agree that McDonald invited Evans up. We see no evidence that the victim was privy to this, let alone that she consented to sex with the second man, i.e. Evans.

In other words - since when has consenting to sex with a man, meant his mates all get a go, too?

He's entitled to apply for and take a job I'd assume. Yes, but not one where he will be put on a pedestal by supporters, young and old a like. He is a rapist. We don't need our kids looking up to that!

Prh

It suggests that the jury couldn't agree beyond reasonable doubt that CM didn't have reasonable belief in her consent. Which has the same legal effect but a different emphasis to your post.

(Having been in a jury room, it might also suggest a compromise among the jurors to split an impasse. But that's speculation.)

The judge made it clear in the original summing up that a different verdict for each was a possibility.

Thank you detestable, I was just going to post the same thing. The jury did not necessarily believe that the victim was capable of consenting to McDonald, but there was more of a case for reasonable doubt that he believed she did as she chose (whatever that's worth) to go back to his room. Evans was not invited by the victim, so less of a case for reasonable doubt in the matter of his obtaining consent. The circumstances are different for the two men.

The hotel receptionist said she was 'extremely drunk' and when he left (while CE was having sex with her) McDonald came through to reception and said: "You know that girl I was with? Keep an eye on her. She's sick.'

"However, the jury appears to have accepted that she consented and was not too drunk to consent."

"In this case the fact that McDonald was acquitted strongly suggests that the jury believed the victim was capable of consenting. If she was not capable then it is impossible to see how McDonald is not also guilty of rape."

That is not the only thing it 'strongly' suggests.

One possibility, even stronger in my mind, is that a defence against a rape charge is that the man reasonably thought the woman was consenting even when she was not

So, even though there is nothing to say she consented to either man, and a lot to say she was too drunk to consent at all.

But the first could claim he thought she was consenting because she had spent time with him that evening, and her action of going to a room with him, and her conduct towards him over that evening meant a jury could reasonably conclude his belief in her consent (through her actions) was that - reasonable - and therefor sufficient to acquit.

It's quite different for the second man, a stranger to her and someone with whom she had not spent time that night, who arrived at the room without her prior knowledge. It's strongly suggestive that the jury did not find the same reasons the second man had reasonable belief she had consented, so that defence would not hold.

You know, you really have to wonder about anyone who is so adamant about defending an all aged rapist (especially one who has already been convicted, quashed or not) to the point of answering every single point on people's posts.

Makes you wonder about people.

And, fwiw, if I need to word it differently, 'I still believe you were raped whether you remember it happening or not. In fact, the very fact that you don't remember it happening is more likely to make me believe you were raped as you were so drunk as to be rendered unconscious.' Not as catchy as 'I still believe you' but hey ho.

Why does that seem to mean she automatically consented to have sex with a second man, who was introduced into the scenario afterwards?

The defendants do not argue that. And of course consent to sex with one man does not mean consent to sex with anyone else.

We see no evidence that the victim was privy to this, let alone that she consented to sex with the second man

The victim cannot recall what happened. Both defendants agree that she was asked if Evans could have sex with her and said yes. Both defendants agree that she then asked Evans to give her oral sex before they had full sex. That is the only evidence we have. That does not, of course, mean that this is what happened.

One possibility, even stronger in my mind, is that a defence against a rape charge is that the man reasonably thought the woman was consenting even when she was not

Ok, but McDonald had far more contact with her than Evans. If she was too drunk to consent he was in a far better position to judge than Evans. But the truth is that none of us knows what went on in the jury room. The judge thought the jury had concluded the victim was too drunk to consent. The Court of Appeal thinks the judge was wrong. I'm with the Court of Appeal on this one.

You know, you really have to wonder about anyone who is so adamant about defending an all aged rapist

I am not defending him and I am not answering every single point on people's posts. Whatever the outcome he is a disgusting individual. I am only trying to keep this accurate. There are far too many myths propagated about this case. The problem with "I still believe you" in this case is that it perpetuates the belief that the victim said she was raped.

Ok, but McDonald had far more contact with her than Evans. If she was too drunk to consent he was in a far better position to judge than Evans.

Of course he was. He took her back to the hotel room, and notified Evans of his catch. Evans got there later, to have his turn. And if Evans wasn't in a position to judge, what exactly what he doing?

Besides, when people are that drunk, it's usually a one-way ticket to blackoutsville. The more time that passes, the more likely it is that you (one) will simply pass out.

Arguably compos mentis for whatever went down with McDonald (or at least the jury was convinced that he believed he had consent). Not so fine, by the time Evans turned up.

But the truth is that none of us knows what went on in the jury room. The judge thought the jury had concluded the victim was too drunk to consent. The Court of Appeal thinks the judge was wrong. I'm with the Court of Appeal on this one.

So, what? You think she consented, and the jury was being vindictive when it came to Evans...?

He didn't have sex with or attack a child so what does that have to do with anything?

You think she consented, and the jury was being vindictive when it came to Evans

Please don't twist what I said.

Both defendants said she consented. The jury clearly thought that she did not consent to sex with Evans. None of us knows for sure whether they concluded that she did not consent at all (which appears the more likely conclusion to me) or that she was too drunk for meaningful consent.

I have no idea what happened in that hotel room. We only have the statements made by Evans and McDonald and we don't know how far they can be trusted. I certainly wouldn't regard them as gospel. This is what the retrial will determine (although, of course, a finding of not guilty does not mean Evans is factually innocent and nor does a finding of guilty mean he is factually guilty).

when people are that drunk, it's usually a one-way ticket to blackoutsville

You may be right but the victim did not think so. She was of the view that her alcohol consumption was perfectly normal for her. She thought her drinks must have been spiked. The blood test she undertook did not produce any evidence to support that claim. Since she did not drink whilst with Evans and McDonald if her drinks were spiked someone else was responsible.

That is prejudging the retrial. Evans maintains that the sex was consensual.

But the consent was got from his mate not the woman.

Both defendants agree that she was asked if Evans could have sex with her and said yes. Both defendants agree that she then asked Evans to give her oral sex before they had full sex. That is the only evidence we have. That does not, of course, mean that this is what happened.

Yes a drunk teenager who is naked and vulnerable with two men in the room and two watching from the window is in the perfect position to say 'no' and of course all four men would respect that.

So given that none of us know exactly what transpired, phr, why are you "with the Court of Appeal on that one" on believing the judge was wrong? Do you know something we don't?

But the consent was got from his mate not the woman.

That is not what Evans and McDonald say.

why are you "with the Court of Appeal on that one"

I don't know anything other than what is in the public domain but the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the jury's verdict makes more sense than the judge's. The judge stated in his sentencing remarks that Evans must have known the victim was too drunk to consent. If Evans must have known it is difficult to see how the same would not apply to McDonald given that he had far more contact with the victim. That is the point on which the Court of Appeal disagreed and where I agree with them rather than the trial judge.

That is the point on which the Court of Appeal disagreed
How do you know that? We don't know what the grounds for appeal are yet, apart from new evidence.

If Evans must have known it is difficult to see how the same would not apply to McDonald given that he had far more contact with the victim.

But you have to, and so did the Judge, consider that there was an implied consent with McDonald. She went with him, was seen talking to him etc.

You cannot presume the same with Scum Evans. He had no connection with the woman, he went to the hotel on the say so of McDonald. He admitted she was so drunk as to be sick. He had no business being in that room.

We don't know what the grounds for appeal are yet, apart from new evidence

The recent appeal was his second appeal. I was referring to the judgement in his initial appeal which was rejected.

But you have to, and so did the Judge, consider that there was an implied consent with McDonald

If she was too drunk to consent any implied consent is equally invalid. I am not, in any case, aware of any comments by the judge suggesting that he thought there was implied consent with McDonald. In his sentencing remarks he stated that the victim was in no condition to have sexual intercourse when she stumbled into McDonald and that Evans must have realised this. It is hard to square that with a not guilty verdict for McDonald, hence the Court of Appeal's disagreement with the judge.

But it still provides more grounds for a reasonable belief in consent than Evans had. I think McDonald should have been convicted too, but rape myths mean that when a woman goes back to a hotel room with a man, her consent is presumed. Evans had no such grounds and behaved in an obviously predatory way by his own testimony.

The judge stated in his sentencing remarks that Evans must have known the victim was too drunk to consent. If Evans must have known it is difficult to see how the same would not apply to McDonald given that he had far more contact with the victim

I don't think that's necessarily so. There are stages of drunkenness, and it is at least possible that the victim consented to McDonald at a point when she was capable of doing so but became too drunk to consent after that.

rape myths mean that when a woman goes back to a hotel room with a man, her consent is presumed

The law does not presume consent. However, the law is concerned with what the alleged offender reasonably believes. If he reasonably believes she has consent he should be acquitted as the law stands. However, according to the judge the victim was already too drunk to consent when she met McDonald and Evans should have known she was too drunk based on the minimal contact he had with her prior to intercourse. If Evans should have known she was too drunk it is hard to see how McDonald cannot also know this. If he knew she was too drunk to consent it was rape.

became too drunk to consent after that

Yes it is possible but the judge stated that she was in no condition to have sex when she stumbled into McDonald.

i never understood why his GF stood by him.

Nor her father. I mean, for fucksake, at worst he's a rapist and at best he's cheated on your daughter in a pretty despicable manner. Why wouldn't you want better for her?

I didn't say "the law" presumed consent. I know it doesn't, thank you. But the jury might. The jury was perfectly able to think there was enough reasonable doubt to allow that McDonald believed she consented, even though she was in fact incapable of consent. And still convict Evans due to the entirely different circumstances in which he had intercourse with the victim.

Myself, I go back to the point that even if the victim had been sober, her freedom and capacity to not consent when in a room with two fit, strong, strange men who were acting in concert (one of whom had ignored her boundaries to the extent of texting his mate about her and the other who had trampled over her boundaries to the extent of letting himself in without invitation to a room where she was naked and vulnerable, not to mention the further members of the group outside filming and watching without her consent) was non existent.