Ched Evans allowed back

[juliascurr]

www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/ched-evans-sheffield-united-striker-to-return-to-club-after-rape-sentence-despite-petition-garnering-60000-signatures-against-him-9666380.html

really bad news

You have.

CM was probably found not guilty of rape because 'the man on the Clapham Onmibus' could 'reasonably believe' that the victim going back to the hotel room with him gave him consent to do what he liked. Regardless of her capacity to consent. The 'man' lying to get into the room and 2 minutes later sticking his dick into her couldn't, by his own (original, before his brief told him that what he'd said under oath that he did was rape, no matter whether he believed it) police statement, he asked CM not his victim if he could 'have a go'. While his brother and a couple of team mates looked on through the window.

"Jury believed that at the time of sex she was incapable of consent."

There is a presumption, but no evidence, that this was the grounds for conviction.

An alternative is that a drunk woman, having sex in a hotel room with a man a lot stronger than she who she has had some conversation with, is surprised and horrified when the door of a locked hotel room opens whilst she is naked. In comes another man much stronger than she, a total stranger to her, who she has neither met nor invited to watch her naked, having sex.

Instead of turning round and telling the stranger to fuck off, the man she is with stops having sex with her and greets the stranger in such a way that it's clear they are friends and that he's not surprised to see the stranger, in fact, he invited him. He is on the stranger's side, not hers.

The stranger doesn't back out apologising, he walks forward and takes out his penis. He has clearly come here with the intent to have sex with whichever woman was on the bed, and the other man isn't about to step in.

Do you think she has any kind of freedom to say no, seenem?

CM may have believed ehr to be capable of consent and consenting.

It might be unlikely, but it is possible and the jury may have decided that that was the case.

The jury may also have decided that his belief was reasonable.

I think we need to be careful about assuming anything really. We weren't there at the jury's deliberations so we can only make guesses.

Sorry, cross-posted

And yes, what Yonic said is probably the scenario from the victim's PoV. The type of person who thinks that a woman has to be yelling no for it to be rape is the type of person who knows nothing about rape or fear reactions.

Really good post Yonic.

People who demand that women shout "No! No! No! Unhand me you cad!" at someone who is about to rape them, forget that women have to do a speedy sub-conscious risk assessment about how dangerous it would be to bring out into the open, that rape (a very serious crime carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment) is happening by saying No. It may be much safer to stay quiet and not express anything, because at least he'll fuck off and leave when he's finished, rather than staying around to torture and maybe kill you because you've pissed him off by saying No.

'There is a presumption, but no evidence'

Surely leaving room for reasonable doubt then.

Seenem, if you read my post carefully, there is a presumption as to why the jury made the decision they did ie lack of capacity but no evidence that this was the basis for their decision.

Now I've clarified that, would you mind reading the rest of my post? Thanks.

Most guilty defendants lie, by the way, seenem. Witness statements are evidence, answers to cross examinations are evidence etc. The jury listens to all these and to any other evidence such as DNA, CCTV etc and weighs it all in the balance, including whether or not to believe various statements.

That's the court system.

So there is no evidence that she was or was not capable of consent only testimony saying that she was.

The rest of your post is just something you've made up.

There was other evidence.

CCTV.

The bits they don't show on the Ched Evans website.

Let's try something else.

My friend works in a nursing home. I pop in one day, ask her which of her patients has memory issues. She tells me. I ask her if I can take £100 out of that lady's drawer. She says yes. We go up to the room together, the old lady recognises her and not me. She's not sure why I'm there but someone she trusted seems to have invited me.

The money goes into my bag.

Subsequently the old lady forgets the incident. Her relatives notice the £100 is missing and the visitors' book shows I was there that day. I cheerfully admit to taking the money but say to the police I asked my friend first and she said it was fine.

It goes to court, my story in court is that I asked the old lady and she said it was fine; my friend backs up this story, she's also on a charge of theft or assisting theft.

Are you telling me that the jury can listen to the original statements to the police, to my statement that old ladies love to give me money because of my daughterly demeanour, to the cross examination of me and my friend, but will have to reach a not guilty verdict?

"The rest of your post is just something you've made up"

Which part is made up? Did she send the text to CE? Nope, CM did. Did she open the door to CE? Nope, he conned a key out of reception? Was CM in the middle of having sex with her when the door opened? Yep, CM testimony. Was CE's penis inside her a couple of minutes later? Yep, CE and CM testimony. Was the victim drunk? Yep, taxi driver, receptionist and CM testimony, plus state of victim in morning. Were two professional footballers stronger than one drunk nineteen year old woman? Beyond reasonable doubt, I'd've thought.

Are you here with a Chedgenda?

This bit.

An alternative is that a drunk woman, having sex in a hotel room with a man a lot stronger than she who she has had some conversation with, is surprised and horrified when the door of a locked hotel room opens whilst she is naked. In comes another man much stronger than she, a total stranger to her, who she has neither met nor invited to watch her naked, having sex.

Instead of turning round and telling the stranger to fuck off, the man she is with stops having sex with her and greets the stranger in such a way that it's clear they are friends and that he's not surprised to see the stranger, in fact, he invited him. He is on the stranger's side, not hers.

The stranger doesn't back out apologising, he walks forward and takes out his penis. He has clearly come here with the intent to have sex with whichever woman was on the bed, and the other man isn't about to step in.

Now this bit...

My friend works in a nursing home. I pop in one day, ask her which of her patients has memory issues. She tells me. I ask her if I can take £100 out of that lady's drawer. She says yes. We go up to the room together, the old lady recognises her and not me. She's not sure why I'm there but someone she trusted seems to have invited me.

The money goes into my bag.

Subsequently the old lady forgets the incident. Her relatives notice the £100 is missing and the visitors' book shows I was there that day. I cheerfully admit to taking the money but say to the police I asked my friend first and she said it was fine.

It goes to court, my story in court is that I asked the old lady and she said it was fine; my friend backs up this story, she's also on a charge of theft or assisting theft.

Are you telling me that the jury can listen to the original statements to the police, to my statement that old ladies love to give me money because of my daughterly demeanour, to the cross examination of me and my friend, but will have to reach a not guilty verdict?

It's not disputed that she was drunk. What is disputed is if she was capable of consenting or if she actually consented.

Which of the points in my first post was incorrect?

And the second post was an analogy.

HTH.

I know, just not a very good one.

Which was your first post?

The one at 1939.

What do you mean by that?

None of the points in that post are correct or incorrect it's just made up like I said previously.

"An alternative is that a drunk woman, having sex in a hotel room with a man a lot stronger than she who she has had some conversation with, is surprised and horrified when the door of a locked hotel room opens whilst she is naked. In comes another man much stronger than she, a total stranger to her, who she has neither met nor invited to watch her naked, having sex.

Instead of turning round and telling the stranger to fuck off, the man she is with stops having sex with her and greets the stranger in such a way that it's clear they are friends and that he's not surprised to see the stranger, in fact, he invited him. He is on the stranger's side, not hers.

The stranger doesn't back out apologising, he walks forward and takes out his penis. He has clearly come here with the intent to have sex with whichever woman was on the bed, and the other man isn't about to step in."

Which points have I made up, seenem? Once more, for the cheap seats.

seenem you seem to be struggling with this. It's all been spelled out here as well as other places. Maybe it's time to admit that you just can"t get your head around this. The outcome of that is not that there is no evidence nor that there is reasonable doubt. It's just that you can't seem to get your head around it.

If there is no evidence proving that she was incapable of consent how can there not be reasonable doubt?

Made up bits....

surprised and horrified..you don't know

a total stranger to her...you don't know

Instead of turning round and telling the stranger to fuck off, the man she is with stops having sex with her and greets the stranger in such a way that it's clear they are friends and that he's not surprised to see the stranger, in fact, he invited him. He is on the stranger's side, not hers...you don't know if any of that happened

The stranger doesn't back out apologising, he walks forward and takes out his penis...you don't know

He has clearly come here with the intent to have sex with whichever woman was on the bed...you don't know

If fact you don't know anything of what happened in that room apart from what the two men told us. She can't remember anything.

"She can't remember anything."

Well, we agree on something.

Nighty night seenem.