Ched Evans saga.........

[quote=799]No-one knows what was said or happened in that room except those that were there.

quote]

Two of the three persons in the room testified that she gave consent. The girl said she could not remember either way.

I would suggest that there is no way that constitutes guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Again, that's not what the jury, who had listened to all of the evidence, decided.

I've yet to find anything on line where you can read for yourself what happened during the initial court case although there is a transcript of the appeal

https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf

What I noticed was it states

The facts are these.

When he arrived at the room it was immediately apparent to him that McDonald and the complainant were engaged in enthusiastic consensual sex. When she was asked if the applicant could join in, the complainant clearly replied "Yes". McDonald stopped. The complainant asked the applicant to perform oral sex on her. He did so and then they had sexual intercourse. Throughout all the activities with him she was enthusiastic, wide awake and she consented to everything that happened.

To my mind I would probably think from the above that consent had been given but then the transcript goes on to state....

A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree to sexual intercourse

"A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."

Not being a legal expert, just a mere layman who has tried to look up the facts, it would seem that the jury chose to believe that she was incapable of giving consent and that's why they found Ched Evans guilty.

As someone has said previously another jury may have made a different decision but this one unanimously find him guilty...end of. Or is it....

Quoted from RonMariner

[quote=799]No-one knows what was said or happened in that room except those that were there.

quote]

Two of the three persons in the room testified that she gave consent. The girl said she could not remember either way.

I would suggest that there is no way that constitutes guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

The two accused no doubt. The jury didn't believe them.

As i have said many times, the jury decided he was guilty and that is all that matters. Trying the case after the event in the media is pointless.

When he arrived at the room it was immediately apparent to him that McDonald and the complainant were engaged in enthusiastic consensual sex. When she was asked if the applicant could join in, the complainant clearly replied "Yes". McDonald stopped. The complainant asked the applicant to perform oral sex on her. He did so and then they had sexual intercourse. Throughout all the activities with him she was enthusiastic, wide awake and she consented to everything that happened.

To my mind I would probably think from the above that consent had been given but then the transcript goes on to state....

A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree to sexual intercourse

"A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."

Not being a legal expert, just a mere layman who has tried to look up the facts, it would seem that the jury chose to believe that she was incapable of giving consent and that's why they found Ched Evans guilty.

As someone has said previously another jury may have made a different decision but this one unanimously find him guilty...end of. Or is it....

[/quote]

Really quite interesting this one. What can we learn from this? This quote tells me that you never should have sexual intercourse with a woman that has drunk any kind of alcohol beforehand. If unsure - always carry an alcometer and do some testing before you go to bed.

Now, I wonder if there are any cases where the reverse would be true? Where the text would read like this:

A complainant consents if, and only if, he has the freedom and capacity to make a choice, and he exercised that choice to agree to sexual intercourse

"A man clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if he is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was he in a condition in which he was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that he was not, then he did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that he chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."

Just wondering....

I don't mean to belittle what is without doubt a very serious situation but I recall from years gone by a woman being accused of raping a man

Joyce McKinney was her name and there was quite a scandal about it...before social media could offer the chance to get involved one way or another so it was left to the tabloid press to give the "facts"

One expression the woman in question used was quite descriptive... ‘It’s like trying to put a marshmallow into a parking meter.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem.....onary-kidnapped.html

Really quite interesting this one. What can we learn from this? This quote tells me that you never should have sexual intercourse with a woman that has drunk any kind of alcohol beforehand. If unsure - always carry an alcometer and do some testing before you go to bed.

[/quote]

Well it's probably better than my battered chat up lines...I really like you but would you mind blowing into this bag?

Quoted from ginnywings

The two accused no doubt. The jury didn't believe them.

As i have said many times, the jury decided he was guilty and that is all that matters. Trying the case after the event in the media is pointless.

Where is the banging head on wall icon?

Quoted from geir

Really quite interesting this one. What can we learn from this? This quote tells me that you never should have sexual intercourse with a woman that has drunk any kind of alcohol beforehand. If unsure - always carry an alcometer and do some testing before you go to bed.

What a load of hyperbole. There is a huge different between someone who has had a few drinks, someone who is clearly drunk, and someone who is so copulated they are slipping in and out of consciousness.

The saga goes on and on...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30851909