[Elmer Fudd's Thick Lip]

Misnomer, on 21 June 2016 - 09:22 PM, said:

Mate, I don't get this type of posting; either post the facts, as in it definitely happened, or don't post anything. Stating she made two false rape accusations, stating she tweeted this and that, stating she had cocaine and cannabis in her system; ALL OF WHICH IS THEN NOT REMOTELY SUBSTANTIATED, just appeals to those that are easily persuaded to take a negative view. I'm not saying these things didn't or haven't happened, I've absolutely no idea; but surely one cannot post such things solely based on rumour?

If anyone can substantiate these claims with solid evidence, please feel free to post them...

I like you mate, and remember everyone sees things differently. The Faliraki example you've provided, I'd have done exactly the same as you, however they don't really compare.

Moving on....

There's been a lot of talk (not particularly in this thread but over the whole saga) of "Beyond reasonable doubt" A lot of judges in criminal trials don't use "You must be sure, beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty" anymore, they now use "you must be sure that the defendant is guilty"

Not a great deal to go off but something to ponder.

As for your point about the cannabis and cocaine, I'm not sure if this 'evidence' made it into the trial, but consider this..

The prosecution and defense need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every piece of evidence offered into trial is authentic and relevant.

If it had made it into the trial then it would be admittable as she HAD been tested, and the substances HAD shown up in her system, fact.

There are so many holes in the prosecution and defence case, and also many things have been said on both sides that can't be taken as fact, they are just witness accounts. So I ask you to consider if you think 'beyond reasonable doubt' that she didn't consent to sex?

Evidence, and the fact that the conviction was over turned suggests to me that the jury won't be able to.

Therefore innocent. Morally bankrupt for taking advantage of a drunken girl, yes. However this doesn't warrant someone being branded a rapist for the rest of their lives.

Hope that makes sense M.

This post has been edited by Dave Wallers 'tache: 22 June 2016 - 06:35 AM

[Goku]

Misnomer, on 21 June 2016 - 09:22 PM, said:

Mate, I don't get this type of posting; either post the facts, as in it definitely happened, or don't post anything. Stating she made two false rape accusations, stating she tweeted this and that, stating she had cocaine and cannabis in her system; ALL OF WHICH IS THEN NOT REMOTELY SUBSTANTIATED, just appeals to those that are easily persuaded to take a negative view. I'm not saying these things didn't or haven't happened, I've absolutely no idea; but surely one cannot post such things solely based on rumour?

If anyone can substantiate these claims with solid evidence, please feel free to post them...

It's really weird. Since I've opened my eyes a bit more, rape culture is so clear now - the excuses from men who you'd consider relatively level-headed such as "she was asking for it", "don't wear revealing clothes if you don't want to have sex" and "so what, she went back with him, he's entitled to it" (not saying ppl on here have said this) are staggering. I used to be similar (well not to that level but I used to slut shame for example) and its horrible to think back to how I was but at least I can say I was young, how many 30/40/50+ year olds still hold views like the above? Plenty.

Speaking specifically, I don't see why these rumoured allegations are being brought into it. "Rumour has it shed had coke and weed", "she tweeted about winning big", "she made false rape allegations" so what, how does this invalidate anything that did or didn't happen that night even if they *were* true?

As I said - insecure patriarchy who want to slyly oppress women but daren't be fully open about saying it. People's attitudes in this thread and all over the country are linked with shaming women for having sex, for what clothes they wear etc it all becomes so obvious once you let go of ur social conditioning and open ur mind.

[Goku]

moondog, on 21 June 2016 - 10:42 PM, said:

The cocaine & cannabis is fact, an expert at the trial gave a view about it, will try and find out the evidence for you

Is it at all relevant tho?

[spireitewolf]

Trophy5 said:

1466446545[/url]' post='1218849']
I applaud all you Spireites that take a moral stand against your club for signing this piece of filth.

Innocent til proved guilty mate

[dim view]

For your eyes only, on 21 June 2016 - 10:55 PM, said:

seen these links tonight, a bit of info on what new evidence may have been bought to the table at the appeal. Mirror link has a lot more info though

http://www.mirror.co...dossier-6611546

so, just to clarify a few things that have been discussed on here. The Mirror says.......

On remorse, he has apologised to the woman.

On why Macdonald was acquitted, he had been in her company during the evening and they made joint decisions about their actions, so it's easy to conclude circumstantially that those actions were consensual.

On the other hand, Evans entered the hotel room as a complete stranger to the woman. There is no evidence that she consented to him being summoned. People should think about that. If she was comatose, then it was rape. If she wasn't, she might have consented because she was terrified. Had I been a juror, I may well have been swayed, even without the help of an incompetent judge.

[moondog]

dim view, on 22 June 2016 - 07:06 AM, said:

so, just to clarify a few things that have been discussed on here. The Mirror says.......

On remorse, he has apologised to the woman.

On why Macdonald was acquitted, he had been in her company during the evening and they made joint decisions about their actions, so it's easy to conclude circumstantially that those actions were consensual.

On the other hand, Evans entered the hotel room as a complete stranger to the woman. There is no evidence that she consented to him being summoned. People should think about that. If she was comatose, then it was rape. If she wasn't, she might have consented because she was terrified. Had I been a juror, I may well have been swayed, even without the help of an incompetent judge.

Surely if you were terrified about something you'd remember it?

[Search & Destroy]

She remember enough to tweet she was going to win big and buy her and her mate matching mini convertibles

[dim view]

moondog, on 22 June 2016 - 07:13 AM, said:

Surely if you were terrified about something you'd remember it?

you'd think it probable, but if she says she couldn't remember owt and the judge gives the jury some 'helpful' suggestions as to why she might not, then you are stuck.

Search and Destroy, on 22 June 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

She remember enough to tweet she was going to win big and buy her and her mate matching mini convertibles

I thought she had lost her phone. I might be wrong though.

This post has been edited by dim view: 22 June 2016 - 07:40 AM

[moondog]

dim view, on 22 June 2016 - 07:39 AM, said:

you'd think it probable, but if she says she couldn't remember owt and the judge gives the jury some 'helpful' suggestions as to why she might not, then you are stuck.


I thought she had lost her phone. I might be wrong though.

The alleged tweets were months later, fairly sure after McDonald & Evans were charged

[dim view]

moondog, on 22 June 2016 - 07:44 AM, said:

The alleged tweets were months later, fairly sure after McDonald & Evans were charged

yep.

It doesn't take many brain cells to figure out that the police led investigation which had extracted a 'confession' from Ched even though she had said nowt might result in lots of Wonga coming her way.

[Spireite-Karl]

Goku, on 21 June 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

Well there's different levels of drunk I guess. I'd wager most of us on here have had drunken sex but hopefully not many have gone back with someone only to find out they're basically paralytic and still gone through with it.

Correct, Josh. I once found a cab for a young lass that seemed fine when we hooked up ten minutes earlier, but then the booze just hit her and she was refused entry to a club; as we moved out the queue she was sick all over my shoes I found a cab for her and found her mates inside the club and told them what I'd done, cleaned my shoes up in the toilets, before finding the lads. You've got to be lower than a low to take advantage of someone like that. Shame she was an absolute stunner as well which was about my luck

[Misnomer]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 01:32 AM, said:

What I'm saying, and let me make this crystal clear as you're obviously pretty thick, is that not remembering is not the same as not giving consent. Both McDonald and Evans claimed the woman enthusiastically had sex with her, concensually. The woman never disputed it (McDonald was acquitted). In fact she only called the police because she lost her wallet (allegedly).

Having sex, and being a bit drunk and 'forgetful', does not make the person you had sex with a rapist. And as a matter of FACT, the bloke who worked at the hotel heard the woman 'squealing' and some grunting and considered nothing dodgy to be going on. The judge apparently misled the jury on what constituted rape, and so on and so on.

Is that clear enough for you?

And as for the CPS, they balls things up all the time. And his conviction is quashed, and as such he is innocent.

Hope that helps.

ps. We're all in awe of what a 'gent' you are, but wouldn't it have been wiser to help that unconcious girl to safety in Faliraki... or did that geezer telling you and your mates to F Off put the wind up you? Wonder what happened after you left Sir Lancelot?

Ok, back to your response: your definition of crystal is more opal, if anything. Try looking back at what you wrote, then use your brain to work out why I offered you the response i did....you may (probably won't) see why this was thus.

As for the girl on holiday. There were five of us sat outside our bar/apartments; he might have told us to f off but it was he who actually moved on fairly sharpish. We then went over, helped her up and made sure she got back ok. I honestly believe he would have raped her if we wouldn't have been there. What shall we call him: a sexual opportunist rapist?

Thanks for being in awe of my natural behaviour, especially towards drunken/virtually or totally unconcious women, who i wouldn't consider raping....much appreciated.

Btw: how, exactly, did the judge mislead an entire jury? Genuine question, as I've not read about this particular outcome...

This post has been edited by Misnomer: 22 June 2016 - 10:09 AM

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Misnomer, on 22 June 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

Ok, back to your response: your definition of crystal is more opal, if anything. Try looking back at what you wrote, then use your brain to work out why I offered you the response i did....you may (probably won't) see why this was thus.

As for the girl on holiday. There were five of us sat outside our bar/apartments; he might have told us to f off but it was he who actually moved on fairly sharpish. We then went over, helped her up and made sure she got back ok. I honestly believe he would have raped her if we wouldn't have been there. What shall we call him: a sexual opportunist rapist?

Thanks for being in awe of my natural behaviour, especially towards drunken/virtually or totally unconcious women, who i wouldn't consider raping....much appreciated.

Btw: how, exactly, did the judge mislead an entire jury? Genuine question, as I've not read about this particular outcome...

Interesting you didn't mention helping her up and making sure she got back initially. But I'll take your word for it.

In the case, which you have no knowledge about, Clayton McDonald (who was found not guilty) said (and the jury obviously believed him) that the woman consented to sex, and that when he asked if his friend could join in she also consented. He was found not guilty, neither was he charged as an accessory to the crime. Try and square that circle...

Word to the wise, if you want to give it the 'Big Un', it might be worth actually finding out about the case, or even how the court system works (Judge advising the jury on the definitions of the law) before you comment.

This post has been edited by KevinArnottsGoldenBoot: 22 June 2016 - 10:45 AM

[dim view]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 10:41 AM, said:

In the case, which you have no knowledge about, Clayton McDonald (who was found not guilty) said (and the jury obviously believed him) that the woman consented to sex, and that when he asked if his friend could join in she also consented. He was found not guilty, neither was he charged as an accessory to the crime. Try and square that circle...

Nobody disputes she was having consensual sex with Macdonald. Evans entered the room as a stranger and then they both say she consented. I personally think he still has a big case to answer because he has a responsibility to prove that his action definitely did not terrify her into consent. Perhaps the new evidence suggests she doesn't scare easily and hasn't on previous encounters. Perhaps there is new proof that she knew Evans was on his way. Fascinating stuff.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

Goku, on 22 June 2016 - 06:49 AM, said:

Is it at all relevant tho?

If you are under the influence of drugs/alcohol your memory and judgement are bound to be impaired

[Phil V 72]

The police released this last year (hopeful link works)

[Misnomer]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 10:41 AM, said:

Interesting you didn't mention helping her up and making sure she got back initially. But I'll take your word for it.

In the case, which you have no knowledge about, Clayton McDonald (who was found not guilty) said (and the jury obviously believed him) that the woman consented to sex, and that when he asked if his friend could join in she also consented. He was found not guilty, neither was he charged as an accessory to the crime. Try and square that circle...

Word to the wise, if you want to give it the 'Big Un', it might be worth actually finding out about the case, or even how the court system works (Judge advising the jury on the definitions of the law) before you comment.

Giving it the 'big un'? What are you talking about?

I'm merely trying to establish the facts of the case...which seem to be sparse. For example, I've asked you about how the judge apparently led the jury and you haven't answered the question, despite stating it as fact? How is advising the jury on the definitions of the law interpreted as leading the jury?

This post has been edited by Misnomer: 22 June 2016 - 12:38 PM

[Misnomer]

Two things about this case that I really do not understand: why did Evans book a room for MacDonald and he then subsequently not stay in it; why did he feel the need to leave the girl he'd just had sexual intercourse with? Additionally, why then, if the woman in question, was completely coherent and consensual (as stated by both Evans and MacDonald) have witnesses described her as very drunk, and, why did MacDonald tell the porter to keep an eye on her? Why?

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Misnomer, on 22 June 2016 - 12:36 PM, said:

Giving it the 'big un'? What are you talking about?

I'm merely trying to establish the facts of the case...which seem to be sparse. For example, I've asked you about how the judge apparently led the jury and you haven't answered the question, despite stating it as fact? How is advising the jury on the definitions of the law interpreted as leading the jury?

Saying I'm 'spouting bollux'.. I would define as 'giving it the big un'.

And the fact that you still don't understand how a court works even though I've explained it (and you could have looked it up in 2 minutes), and that you still can't be bothered to look up the facts of the case means I'm not going to bother replying to your questions or insults.

If you want to establish some facts then get off your erse and find them out for yourself.

[Misnomer]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

Saying I'm 'spouting bollux'.. I would define as 'giving it the big un'.

And the fact that you still don't understand how a court works even though I've explained it (and you could have looked it up in 2 minutes), and that you still can't be bothered to look up the facts of the case means I'm not going to bother replying to your questions or insults.

If you want to establish some facts then get off your erse and find them out for yourself.

Listen, let me clarify. You specifically responded to my post about the incident in Faliraki...which was about immoral behaviour in general, not linked to what Ched Evans did; that's why I asked you to read back and said you were spouting tosh..the two aren't linked but you chose to form a link. If you think that is me giving you the big un, I'd say you are a very sensitive person; however, I will apologise to you for being slightly offensive, it wasn't my intention to upset you.

Onto the point about the judge leading the jury. I asked you because you have specifically made the same point twice ; this leads me to believe you have some knowledge of events in the courtroom that I do not have. I haven't read anything concrete that suggests the judge led the jury in this particular rape case; hence, my question to you. It's not about me not being bothered, it's about me not finding the same information as you. Has the judge now been struck off (if that's the terminology) for their irresponsible conduct?