Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
The Video Ref wrote:Mention nothing of the 'when I win big' tweets she made, which were only recovered by some American computer hacker who investigated her Twitter account.
And also, when the police went through her Facebook she had deleted all records of conversations between her and a friend that took place in the immediate aftermath of the incident.
The whole Ched Evans case screams unsafe conviction, It will be interesting to see how the public react if / when it is overturned on appeal.
I wonder what the "victim" makes of it all? She is in the weird situation of having seen a man convicted of raping her, when she never accused him, and does not remember any rape (or indeed, apparently, anything). It's a weird situation where CPS has decided for her that there's a reasonable prospect she was raped, and that it was appropriate to ask the audience.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:And equally obviously, at some point as you get increasingly drunk, you eventually reach a point where you are so extremely drunk, that you can no longer give consent. Until you reach that level of drunk, drunken consent is still consent.
The samples taken from woman Evans is convicted of raping tested Zero for alcohol content which is one major reason I can't understand how at 4am she could have been paralytic and incapable.
Wasnt it reported that she'd gone out late and had about 10 drinks in less than an hour? Which might have left her system by the time she was tested (i dont know when that was), but would probably have affected her quite badly when it was all absorbed. It doesnt appear to be disputed that she was sick and wet the bed which suggests she was paralytic and incapable at some point.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Cibaman wrote:Wasnt it reported that she'd gone out late and had about 10 drinks in less than an hour? Which might have left her system by the time she was tested (i dont know when that was), but would probably have affected her quite badly when it was all absorbed. It doesnt appear to be disputed that she was sick and wet the bed which suggests she was paralytic and incapable at some point.
I have observed many people, in my time, who were so drunk as to be incapable of any meaningful consent, and they are not hard to spot. In the video of the "victim" arriving at the hotel: http://chedevans.com/index.files/html5video/travelodge.webm ... I do not see such a person. I see a woman in towering heels waling back out of a hotel, squatting down on the pavement, picking up a pizza box and walking back in to the hotel, all unaided, and all seemingly under perfect control. I would never expect a drunk and incapable person of being able to do this. I discuss this as a lay person who could equally have been on such a jury, and what I would have made of it had I been, not as any sort of claimed expert.
As to whether on her own evidence she could have been paralytic:
Quote:Prior to arriving at the nightclub, at around 11pm, the complainant had consumed 2 large glasses (250ml) of wine after finishing her shift. She then went home, showered, changed her clothes and caught a taxi into Rhyl town centre. Whilst in the nightclub she stated in her evidence that she consumed 4 double vodka/ lemonade drinks and a shot of Sambuca. It was accepted at the trial that this amount of consumption would have placed her at approximately 2.5 times the legal drink drive limit. The complainant submitted in evidence that she would normally and regularly drink well in excess of what she had consumed on this particular night out.
She had quite a lot for a slight female in quite a short time, and I can believe that at max alcohol (which would have been around 3 am when she had her last drink, she would have been the most affected. I can accept she may have been unsteady at that time. She was not incontinent at that time, as she was on CCTV going into a doorway and urinating there.
But she didn't drink anything else. And then she spent an hour eating a kebab in a kebab shop. She approached footballer 1 (not the other way around) and at some point they went and bought a pizza. They did not arrive at the hotel until 04:08 and that is what you see on the video.
Her "when I win big" Tweets that came to light only months after the verdict remain unexplained. But what I find the most difficult to accept is how the jury reached a conclusion that the woman in that video was able to give consent to footballer 1 yet immediately afterwards, somehow became incapable of giving consent to no. 2. It is completely and fundamentally illogical, even if you ignore the fact that the ONLY evidence re consent was that of the footballers.
Cibaman wrote:Wasnt it reported that she'd gone out late and had about 10 drinks in less than an hour? Which might have left her system by the time she was tested (i dont know when that was), but would probably have affected her quite badly when it was all absorbed. It doesnt appear to be disputed that she was sick and wet the bed which suggests she was paralytic and incapable at some point.
I have observed many people, in my time, who were so drunk as to be incapable of any meaningful consent, and they are not hard to spot. In the video of the "victim" arriving at the hotel: http://chedevans.com/index.files/html5video/travelodge.webm ... I do not see such a person. I see a woman in towering heels waling back out of a hotel, squatting down on the pavement, picking up a pizza box and walking back in to the hotel, all unaided, and all seemingly under perfect control. I would never expect a drunk and incapable person of being able to do this. I discuss this as a lay person who could equally have been on such a jury, and what I would have made of it had I been, not as any sort of claimed expert.
As to whether on her own evidence she could have been paralytic:
Quote:Prior to arriving at the nightclub, at around 11pm, the complainant had consumed 2 large glasses (250ml) of wine after finishing her shift. She then went home, showered, changed her clothes and caught a taxi into Rhyl town centre. Whilst in the nightclub she stated in her evidence that she consumed 4 double vodka/ lemonade drinks and a shot of Sambuca. It was accepted at the trial that this amount of consumption would have placed her at approximately 2.5 times the legal drink drive limit. The complainant submitted in evidence that she would normally and regularly drink well in excess of what she had consumed on this particular night out.
She had quite a lot for a slight female in quite a short time, and I can believe that at max alcohol (which would have been around 3 am when she had her last drink, she would have been the most affected. I can accept she may have been unsteady at that time. She was not incontinent at that time, as she was on CCTV going into a doorway and urinating there.
But she didn't drink anything else. And then she spent an hour eating a kebab in a kebab shop. She approached footballer 1 (not the other way around) and at some point they went and bought a pizza. They did not arrive at the hotel until 04:08 and that is what you see on the video.
Her "when I win big" Tweets that came to light only months after the verdict remain unexplained. But what I find the most difficult to accept is how the jury reached a conclusion that the woman in that video was able to give consent to footballer 1 yet immediately afterwards, somehow became incapable of giving consent to no. 2. It is completely and fundamentally illogical, even if you ignore the fact that the ONLY evidence re consent was that of the footballers.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:But what I find the most difficult to accept is how the jury reached a conclusion that the woman in that video was able to give consent to footballer 1 yet immediately afterwards, somehow became incapable of giving consent to no. 2. It is completely and fundamentally illogical, even if you ignore the fact that the ONLY evidence re consent was that of the footballers.
Presumably, the jury decided that in going back to the hotel with footballer 1 they both went with the intention that sexual activity would occur. Why else would 2 strangers get a taxi to a Premier Inn outside Rhyl at 4am?
Footballer 2 just turned up at the hotel uninvited by the victim, invited by footballer 1 with the message "i've got a bird". When she went to the hotel with footballer 1 the jury probably decided that she hadnt consented to a 2nd person joining them.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
EHW wrote:...
Footballer 2 just turned up at the hotel uninvited by the victim, invited by footballer 1 with the message "i've got a bird". When she went to the hotel with footballer 1 the jury probably decided that she hadnt consented to a 2nd person joining them.
Not probably, but certainly, as that point (consent) was the single issue in the case. The point is, ON WHAT REASONABLE BASIS could they be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the "victim" - who never alleged she was raped, attacked, or anything else - hadn't consented, when the only evidence on consent was of the footballers, who both said she did?
Specifically, my concern is that, having decided that she WAS in a fit state to consent to sex with no.1 (which the jury did, as they found him not guilty), it can ONLY have been her capability to give valid consent that potted Evans. And I can't see how logically her ability to consent suddenly can be proved to have ceased, in the total absence of any evidence that it did, or even why it may have done.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:Not probably, but certainly, as that point (consent) was the single issue in the case. The point is, ON WHAT REASONABLE BASIS could they be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the "victim" - who never alleged she was raped, attacked, or anything else - hadn't consented, when the only evidence on consent was of the footballers, who both said she did?
Specifically, my concern is that, having decided that she WAS in a fit state to consent to sex with no.1 (which the jury did, as they found him not guilty), it can ONLY have been her capability to give valid consent that potted Evans. And I can't see how logically her ability to consent suddenly can be proved to have ceased, in the total absence of any evidence that it did, or even why it may have done.
when and where did consent with footballer 1 take place? was it "implied" in the kebab shop when one of them suggested going back to the Premier Inn, or do you have to ask further consent at each stage in the process?
Drugs were found in her system the morning after, when did she take those? Was it after consent with no.1 but before no.2 turned up? In which case she may have been fit to give valid consent to no.1 but not to no.2 when he turned up. There is no evidence to suggest that she knew no.2 was coming to join in.
Fact is, only 3 people know what happened in that room that night, but I can see a number of reasons why no.1 was found not guilty yet no.2 was found guilty.
EHW wrote:Fact is, only 3 people know what happened in that room that night, but I can see a number of reasons why no.1 was found not guilty yet no.2 was found guilty.
2 people say they know what happened that night. The "victim" said she had no memory of what happened.
If Evans was guilty of rape then McDonald should have been done for conspiracy to rape/being an accomplice.
As far as I'm concerned Ched Evans guilt simply hasn't been proven. Having said that, I think it is entirely possible that both men were actually guilty and are very lucky that the evidence wasn't there to prove what they'd done.
If Evans and McDonald raped her then TBH I couldn't care less if they died. But if Evans is actually innocent he's had his life massively hampered by this wrongful conviction and now people are wishing to further punish him by not allowing him to rebuild his life.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
EHW wrote:when and where did consent with footballer 1 take place?
I think you are mistaking me for a member of the jury. So far as I know, (and as is not unusual) I don't think footballer 1 ever actually said "Do you consent to sexual intercourse with me".
EHW wrote:was it "implied" in the kebab shop when one of them suggested going back to the Premier Inn, or do you have to ask further consent at each stage in the process?
You're being ridiculous.
EHW wrote:Drugs were found in her system the morning after, when did she take those?
I know of no evidence that any drug taking went on that night. She was apparently a habitual drug user and that accounted for some traces of drugs in her system. What she went to the police for was claiming she could remember nothing at all (which I find hard to believe) for which reason thought she had been given date rape drugs, but tests confirmed there was no trace of any date rape drug. Curiously the tests also confirmed a blood alcohol level of Zero.
EHW wrote:Fact is, only 3 people know what happened in that room that night,
"Fact"? But she claims she doesn't. Ah, so like me you suspect the "victim" is not being candid when she claims to have absolutely no memory of events? If she DOES know what happened, why did she not allege that she had been raped? Why did she not tell the police and the court that she had not given consent if that was something she could state? And then it would also follow she committed perjury in claiming she doesn't know and that alone would make the conviction unsustainable.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
The more I read about this case the more sympathy I have for Evans.
As stated, small residual quantities of drugs and no alcohol was present when she was examined after complaining to the Police, thus suggesting she was in a fit state to give consent. Certainly in video footage I have seen on another forum purporting to be her and player 1 entering the hotel she does not appear to be legless as she is walking in high heels and showing no signs of falling over.
Player 1 was found not guilty of rape though I don't know why he wasn't charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting given that he called Evans over.
The more I look at it it appears she either regretted her actions after giving consent or made a complaint when she realised that the players were only interested in a one night stand.
dr_feelgood wrote: The more I look at it it appears she either regretted her actions after giving consent or made a complaint when she realised that the players were only interested in a one night stand.
And this is one of the many difficulties I have with the case.
She never actually made a complaint of rape. She woke up in the Premier Inn and initially made a complaint that her handbag had been stolen from her on the night out. The police reviewed the CCTV to see if anyone had taken her handbag and identified the footballers.
They admitted sex with her, after which the whole thing became a rape investigation.
At no point did she make a rape complaint. As FA pointed out earlier in the thread, the police basically told her she had been raped and decided to run the case on that basis. The CPS then jumped on board, no doubt excited at the prospect of having a crack at 2 footballers.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
