[Mr Mercury]

Heavy_Soul, on 13 October 2016 - 11:29 AM, said:

Defence claim prosecution case is 'built around a myth'

Ms Khan told the jury: “We suggest to you that the prosecution case is built around a myth.

“It has been persistent, spanning five years, but it is utterly unrealistic when you view it against the rest of the evidence in this case.

“The evidence shows that despite her apparent memory blackout, the complainant was capable of making rational decisions.

“Drunken consent is nevertheless consent. While disinhibited through drink, she did consent to sex - first with Clayton McDonald and then with Ched Evans.

“Lack of memory does not equal lack of consent.”


Defence barrister Judith Khan QC reminded the jury the complainant sent a text message to a friend at 2.54am.

She described the text as “coherent, logical and rational”.
Ms Khan suggested the Crown’s case is that the jury can look at the CCTV footage from The Godfather takeaway and see how drunk the woman was in the hotel room.

The defence barrister accepted the woman was drunk in the takeaway, but suggested it was her “impossibly high shoes” that made her fall over.

She added: “Even though she was clearly intoxicated in The Godfather, you may think that was actually the height of her intoxication.

“There is no evidence she had anything else to drink after that and she had eaten.

“How she presented in The Godfather is not necessarily any indication of what she was like in the hotel room.”

The defence barrister reminded the jury the night receptionist said Mr McDonald and the complainant looked like”a normal couple”.

She added: “It is quite wrong to assume that lack of memory equals lack of capacity to consent.

“She was moving around and making rational decisions. Drunk consent is still consent.”

Ms Khan is discussing the taxi journey from the takeaway to the hotel.

She reminded the jury the cab driver told the complainant she had to sit in the front if she wanted eat.

The defence barrister suggested the fact she moved showed she could understand instructions and make rational decisions.

Summing up?..so maybe the jury sent out later today or tomorrow, or am I ahead of myself.

[Tha Knows...]

azul, on 13 October 2016 - 11:25 AM, said:

That surprises me as you would think he was an importanrt witness to the nights event. Far more relevant than theses witnesses being called to question her chastity.

Anway I'm sure that doubt was there in the previous trial and subsequent appeal

Beyond reasonable doubt? I can't see it, but then I've only seen snippets of the case. Agree that the new witnesses add little if anything, just looks like a bit of mud slinging to try and colour the jury's opinion of her.

[Heavy_Soul]

Mr Mercury, on 13 October 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

Summing up?..so maybe the jury sent out later today or tomorrow, or am I ahead of myself.

yeah closing speech mate

[Heavy_Soul]

The defence barrister is now addressing the jury about Evans’ police interviews.

Ms Khan pointed out that the only evidence there was sex between the defendant and the complainant came from Evans himself.

She stressed the police had no evidence there had been intercourse between them.
The defence barrister said: “Why would he volunteer that information unless he wanted to help the police? He determined he would tell them the truth.”

She added: “The prosecution tried to make everything this defendant did and said seem as sinister as possible. To the jaundiced eye, everything is yellow.”

[BlueRover52]

Heavy_Soul, on 13 October 2016 - 11:47 AM, said:

The defence barrister is now addressing the jury about Evans’ police interviews.

Ms Khan pointed out that the only evidence there was sex between the defendant and the complainant came from Evans himself.

She stressed the police had no evidence there had been intercourse between them.
The defence barrister said: “Why would he volunteer that information unless he wanted to help the police? He determined he would tell them the truth.”

She added: “The prosecution tried to make everything this defendant did and said seem as sinister as possible. To the jaundiced eye, everything is yellow.”

Perhaps he didn't know at the time what evidence the police had or what his victim had said.

[Heavy_Soul]

Defence claims "nothing sinister" about what Evans did

The defence barrister said there was “nothing sinister” about what Evans did at the Premier Inn.

She told the jury: “He goes into the room without knocking. He told you, quite candidly, it was immature. Of course it was immature, but that does not make him a rapist.”

Ms Khan is reminding the jury Evans said the woman asked him to perform oral sex on her.

She said: “She had the capacity to make the request. She was capable of making decisions. She was caught up in the moment.

“The defendant performed that act on her - an act that is all about giving pleasure.”

She added: “They had sex in a number of position and she was directing that.

“The prosecution say she would not have done any of these things. How do they know that?

“Whatever the morality, people have casual sex. Sometimes when names aren’t known. Sometimes when other people are present. We all live in the real world.

“It wasn’t particularly moral behaviour - he cheated on his girlfriend that night - but none of that makes him a rapist.

“The fundamental is that he was not raping her.”

[Goku]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 13 October 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

She said she "was tipsy, but not out of control". A CCTV camera can't tell you how drunk someone is.

To anyone with a brain, there's obviously a big difference between being slightly unsteady on your feet, and being so wasted you experience (so far) permanent memory loss.

What part of that do you not understand? What part of "she wasn't even particularly drunk, by her own admission" doesn't make sense in relation to that quote from the complainant herself!?

You really ought to quit while you're behind.

If you are literally struggling to walk then chances are you're at memory loss point. I've been perfectly able to walk and coordinate myself (based on what people have told me) and remembered sod all the next morning. Ive forgotten hours of nights I've been out even when I'm not completely smashed. This is relatively common in people especially those of us with really poor memories in the beginning. She was unbalanced, couldn't walk properly, left her bag in a shop and was described as 'extremely drunk' by the night porter. I'm going off the evidence provided. She couldn't remember leaving the bar and only had a vague recollection of the kebab shop. This is the quote you're referring to;

"But the alleged victim told cops how she woke up “confused” in the double bed with no recollection how she got there.

In a video played to Cardiff Crown Court the woman – who cannot be named for legal reasons – told police: “I felt tipsy but not out of control.”

Which doesn't specify which part of the night she was referring to from what I can see. If she can't remember leaving the bar and she can only vaguely remember the kebab shop then how can she be referring to a short while before she went back with McDonald? im genuinely curious as to which part of the night she referred to when she said this. Is she referring to the CCTV footage?

Edit; either way, looks like we'll know soon enough. I don't have an agenda, if he's found innocent that's fine. I think he will be.

This post has been edited by Goku: 13 October 2016 - 12:17 PM

[Mr Mercury]

The jury are expected to be sent to deliberate later this afternoon, with the judge telling them you are not here to "judge morals".. Could be a telling phrase?

[Cheshunt Spireite]

5+ years this has been going on, but the defence still makes a very serious error by stating "drunken consent is still consent". This goes against the Sexual Offences Act 2003 a person consents to something if that person ‘agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice’.

I said a while ago the argument could well come down to the definition of consent. Being drunk, many would argue and most would agree, negatively affects your ability to make choices of any sort.

The only part of Evan's defence which may save him is by discrediting the girl- a shameful tactic as it proves his innocence only by creating doubt due to her other sexual encounters.

The anonymous witness has been known for years, and his statements heard before, and yet it's only now that the defence decide to make him central to the case. Why? Could be something to do with the £50k on offer (he's denied receiving it, but may be an agreement it's on the condition Evans gets off or that he's lying- people do that a lot).

I don't think Evan's is nasty, but I do think he simply doesn't understand that he's done something wrong. His family have gone out to attack the girl when it was the CPS who decided to prosecute, she simply went to the police because she suspected a crime, as everyone should.

I'd be gutted to lose his ability as a striker, but he's messed up in a very privileged career. I've gone on about remorse but don't believe he'll show it, and as a result he should not be permitted a career in the game.

[dim view]

Cheshunt Spireite, on 13 October 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

5+ years this has been going on, but the defence still makes a very serious error by stating "drunken consent is still consent". This goes against the Sexual Offences Act 2003 a person consents to something if that person ‘agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice’.

http://www.trinitint...wallerstein.pdf

[isleaiw1]

Cheshunt Spireite, on 13 October 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

I'd be gutted to lose his ability as a striker, but he's messed up in a very privileged career. I've gone on about remorse but don't believe he'll show it, and as a result he should not be permitted a career in the game.

If he is found innocent of a crime (but guilty of lack of morals and bad judgement) you dont think he should be able to play the game? be some teams very short on players if that was the case.

If he is found guilty, he may struggle to get another club.

[Heavy_Soul]

The defence barrister said: “So, what happened after sex?

“The prosecution case is that Mr Evans left through the fire exit for a sinister reason.

“What would be the point of that when Mr Evans had given all of his details - address, bank details, driving licence.

“He was entirely traceable. There would have been no reason to do that.”

She added: “Mr Medland said he was avoiding being filmed, but as the defendant pointed out, he was filmed.”

Ms Khan suggested he did not want to walk out with Clayton McDonald because he had booked the room for one person, not two.

She added: “If the suggestion is being made, and it is a serious suggestion, that he was sneaking out because something untoward had happened in that room, the last thing he would have done is to leave through two doors that said they were alarmed.”

[Mr Mercury]

Cheshunt Spireite, on 13 October 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

5+ years this has been going on, but the defence still makes a very serious error by stating "drunken consent is still consent". This goes against the Sexual Offences Act 2003 a person consents to something if that person ‘agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice’.

I said a while ago the argument could well come down to the definition of consent. Being drunk, many would argue and most would agree, negatively affects your ability to make choices of any sort.

The only part of Evan's defence which may save him is by discrediting the girl- a shameful tactic as it proves his innocence only by creating doubt due to her other sexual encounters.

The anonymous witness has been known for years, and his statements heard before, and yet it's only now that the defence decide to make him central to the case. Why? Could be something to do with the £50k on offer (he's denied receiving it, but may be an agreement it's on the condition Evans gets off or that he's lying- people do that a lot).

I don't think Evan's is nasty, but I do think he simply doesn't understand that he's done something wrong. His family have gone out to attack the girl when it was the CPS who decided to prosecute, she simply went to the police because she suspected a crime, as everyone should.

I'd be gutted to lose his ability as a striker, but he's messed up in a very privileged career. I've gone on about remorse but don't believe he'll show it, and as a result he should not be permitted a career in the game.

You genuinely think that the defence barristers and legal team arnt aware fully of any act of law and how they sum up?..Really?

[Heavy_Soul]

The defence barrister is now addressing the jury about the complainant’s sexual behaviour with others.

She said: “What Mr Evans described is how others describe it.

“There are common features, like her saying ‘f*** me harder’ and ‘go harder’, taking control and changing positions.”

Two witnesses gave evidence regarding relationships with the alleged victim.

Prosecutor Simon Medland QC emphasised there were inconsistencies in their statements.

Ms Khan said: “If you put yourself in the shoes of those men and a solicitor rings you up, you will give the details you are asked for.

“What Mr Medland says - if it’s not in the statement, it’s a lie - is a fallacy.”

[Sammy Spireite]

What's still niggling away at me, (and I'll be honest and say I didn't read up much on his acquittal at the time) is if the 'victim' is claimed to be in no fit state to consent, indeed, seemingly has no recollection of how she got there or what happened in the hotel room, on what basis was (ex-Spireite) Clayton MacDonald found not guilty?

[Heavy_Soul]

Two men gave evidence about sexual relationships with the complainant - we can’t name either for legal reasons.

Prosecutor Simon Medland QC suggested they were both motivated by a £50,000 reward.

The court heard the reward was advertised on the Ched Evans website for information that could lead to his acquittal.

Referring to the first of those witnesses, Ms Khan said: “Why would he lie? It’s suggested he was in it for the money.”

She emphasised he had no criminal record.

She added: “You are asked to believe he has chosen to perjure himself and pervert the course of justice.”

Ms Khan said the witness approached the police with information before the post about the reward was published on the website.

When asked why he had come to court, the man said: “Because I think she [the complainant] is lying.”

The defence barrister added: “It is not about the money at all. He gave a wholly credible account.”

[Heavy_Soul]

Ms Khan said: “The suggestion that these men were lying for money is simply not right.”

She suggested if they had been lying deliberately, there would have been “an easier lie” they could have told to help the defendant.

The defence barrister said: “Their evidence undermines the prosecution case.

“[The complainant] liked to engage in sex at that time. She did so two days before, she did so two weeks after.

“It was consensual two days before, it was consensual two weeks after and it was consensual on the night in question.”

[Heavy_Soul]

The defence barrister reminded the jury Evans is “in their charge”.

She said: “You don’t just look at the prosecution case, you look at what he had to say.”

Ms Khan reminded the jury Evans said in evidence: “I would never hurt a girl. I would never take advantage of a girl who was not consenting.”

She added: “We suggest it is time to dispel the myth - memory blackout does not equal lack of capacity, lack of consent.”

Ending her speech, she told the jury: “If you think at the conclusion that Mr Evans is not guilty then, of course, the right verdict is not guilty.

“If you think he is probably not guilty, the right verdict is still not guilty. Even if you think he is probably guilty, the right verdict is still not guilty.

“It is only if you are sure of guilt you can convict. We submit that on this evidence, you are a million miles away. We submit that the right verdict is not guilty

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Goku, on 13 October 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

If you are literally struggling to walk then chances are you're at memory loss point. I've been perfectly able to walk and coordinate myself (based on what people have told me) and remembered sod all the next morning. Ive forgotten hours of nights I've been out even when I'm not completely smashed. This is relatively common in people especially those of us with really poor memories in the beginning. She was unbalanced, couldn't walk properly, left her bag in a shop and was described as 'extremely drunk' by the night porter. I'm going off the evidence provided. She couldn't remember leaving the bar and only had a vague recollection of the kebab shop. This is the quote you're referring to;

"But the alleged victim told cops how she woke up “confused” in the double bed with no recollection how she got there.

In a video played to Cardiff Crown Court the woman – who cannot be named for legal reasons – told police: “I felt tipsy but not out of control.”

Which doesn't specify which part of the night she was referring to from what I can see. If she can't remember leaving the bar and she can only vaguely remember the kebab shop then how can she be referring to a short while before she went back with McDonald? im genuinely curious as to which part of the night she referred to when she said this. Is she referring to the CCTV footage?

Edit; either way, looks like we'll know soon enough. I don't have an agenda, if he's found innocent that's fine. I think he will be.

Regarding the unbalanced bit, it's accepted by all involved that she was wearing extremely high heels. People begin to lose co-ordination after the first pint as a rule, this has been proved by numerous studies regarding drink-driving limits (and the wish to reduce limits). This would be exascerbated by the wearing of heels. The night porter also described her and McDonald as a normal couple.

Also, in law, all the above is largely irrelevant, as consent when drunk is still consent.

There is no law that says adults are incapable of sexual consent after becoming intoxicated. The benchmark is virtual unconciousness/unresponsiveness, representing an absoloute inability to do so. This is the only way the law could work practically, short of introducing a blanket ban on sexual congress between parties who had consumed alcohol. Which would obviously make absoloutely no sense whatsoever and be a massive infringement of peoples civil liberties, as well as being unpoliceable.

As to her memory, only she knows what she can remember. But even if you take her word for it; you can't expect to hold others accountable for her lack of memory. Evans and McDonald can only be held accountable for their actions based on what they knew at the time.

As far as is known to and already agreed by the court, that is engaging in sex with a woman, who consented to sex initially with McDonald, who then asked the woman if his friend could join in, to which she replied in the affirmative. She then proceeded to have sex with both, seemingly directed by her. A behavioural trait that was repeated by her in other situations if witnesses are to be believed.

I have never understood how anyone could consider the above rape. And have consistently argued for his aqquital on that basis.

Rape is an indefensible crime, imposing yourself on another human being against their will is revolting. In this case, I see absoloutely no evidence of that; and the CPS should be held to account for making a mockery of the law by allowing the case to end up in court.

This post has been edited by KevinArnottsGoldenBoot: 13 October 2016 - 02:25 PM

[spirette]

So are we expecting a verdict tomorrow then?