Sheffield United and Wales footballer Ched Evans found guilty of Rape

maximoose

I don't know - she's stable on her feet, aware of her surroundings and what's going on, happily linking arms with the guy. Tuned in enough to cop that she's missing her handbag, and the all important pizza.

Evans has just issued an apology for the actions of some of his supporters, from thepfa.com:

I wish to make it clear that I wholeheartedly apologise for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned. Finally, it has been claimed that those using social media in an abusive and vindictive way towards this woman are supporters of mine. I wish to make it clear that these people are not my supporters and I condemn their actions entirely and will continue to do so

CSF

CSF wrote: »

Instead of providing a link to an entire case summary, use your own words please. Why do you think Evans was guilty with someone who was too drunk to consent but Clayton McDonald wasn't?

Um.

Because someone may not be raped by a person with whom she consents to having sex, and may be raped by someone with whom she does not or cannot consent to having sex.

Why are you having issues with the words of the Judge in the summary provided? Where do you think it's wrong?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Your implication here is that she automatically suffered.

Not at all.

I thought my point was very clear. There need not be violence, there need not be suffering, there need not even be knowledge. That's the law of rape. You said you know rape so you should know this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

There's two sides to this: what Evans did was stupid, but he was under the impression she concented when he had sex with her. He did not go into this thinking "she's not agreeing to this - I'm raping her".

The law in the UK afaik is that this is only a defence if that impression was reasonable, the guilty verdict suggests either the jury did not accept that he had that impression or else believed that it was not reasonably held

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Originally my cousin was adamant is was a money scam she wanted.

An appalling allegation to make about a rape victim. She has not been found guilty of anything, though some clearly think they know her because the rapists site makes allegations about his victim.

But either way, how does you cousin know more than the jury and the Judges who rejected his applications to appeal?

Saipanne

Only football fans could justify his actions...

niallo27

Saipanne wrote: »

Only football fans could justify his actions...

Bollox.

CSF

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Um.

Because someone may not be raped by a person with whom she consents to having sex, and may be raped by someone with whom she does not or cannot consent to having sex.

Why are you having issues with the words of the Judge in the summary provided? Where do you think it's wrong?

How can someone consent if they are too drunk to consent? This is the part that needs explaining.

HalloweenJack

I don't want to weigh in on the case itself but just want to highlight the idiocy of some of the people who threatened Oldham.

From this link: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30727729

A club director told BBC sports editor Dan Roan that a staff member was informed a named relative would be raped if the deal went ahead.

How ****ing retarded is that person? I mean seriously? You threaten to rape somebody because a club would sign a convicted rapist? Am I reading that correctly? Or am I missing someone trying to be ironic? Are they really saying that their revenge for the club signing a rapist is to rape someone vaguely connected to the club? Surely that puts them on a par with Ched Evans and then surely someone could then rape one of their family members if they were to follow that person's logic? There are some absolute idiots in the world.

Fair enough, they can complain about Oldham attempting to sign him, that's a whole debate I don't want to get involved in. But, especially given the nature of the case, to threaten to rape somebody as a reaction is completely moronic. What waste of space thought that one up? I hope their number is passed onto the authorities. I really cannot come to terms with someone being that stupid.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Not at all.

I thought my point was very clear. There need not be violence, there need not be suffering, there need not even be knowledge. That's the law of rape. You said you know rape so you should know this.



The law in the UK afaik is that this is only a defence if that impression was reasonable, the guilty verdict suggests either the jury did not accept that he had that impression or else believed that it was not reasonably held

You said "Anyone who has seen what rape does to a person" - and that, to me, implies suffereing. But AGAIN to get back to my ORINGIAL point, if she's tweeing - and the inferacne was that she was tweeting before the incident (unconfirmed, which is why I said "if") then there's no way she's suffering.

Regard the impression - he said he asked and she said yes. That's clear consent. Furthermore - and this is where I have a problem with the whole thing - she never actually denied it.

Of course, it;s possible he's lying. But it's also entirely possibly she gave full consent.

In Scotland, they have a legal option for "not proven" which is exaxtly what happened here.

Donnielighto

Deleted User wrote: »

Ched Evans raped a woman. Notwithstanding Kirby's logic of the effect of a finding of guilt and his searing critique of the application of the law of hearsay, Evans was found guilty. Maybe Kirby should point this hearsay issue out at the review stage, because Evans own legal team seems to have missed it.

The Anglo Bankers have nothing whatsoever to do with it, and your analogy is terrible.

Now whether he has done his time and should be entitled to return to work is a separate issue.

Can courts make mistakes?

Kirby

No. No court has ever made a mistake and no court ever will. What they say is indisputable fact and is above reproach.

So say's Conor74, master of law and we would do well to listen to him.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

No. No court has ever made a mistake and no court ever will. What they say is indisputable fact and is above reproach.

So say's Conor74, master of law and we would do well to listen to him.

Someone is still wound up!

Just because you spouted rubbish about a man not being guilty if found guilty and the entire case being hearsay, and I pointed out the obvious, no need to get personal.

I never said anything you now claim I said, but if you say I have, by all means link the post.

Donnielighto

Donnielighto wrote: »

Can courts make mistakes?

Oh they certainly can.

In the vast majority of cases, do they get it right?

Roughly how many jury decisions are overturned in the UK?

Donnielighto

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh they certainly can.

In the vast majority of cases, do they get it right?

Roughly how many jury decisions are overturned in the UK?

And from the information given it seems that this is a very questionable conviction, it is perfectly reasonable for people to question it.

Donnielighto

Donnielighto wrote: »

And from the information given it seems that this is a very questionable conviction, it is perfectly reasonable for people to question it.

Oh I agree that it is reasonable, in fact it is reasonable to question and challenge everything.

But one must look at the disparity of positions. People are arming themselves with certain info available online including material from the convicted rapists website, some of which comes close to contempt of Court. In some instances like kirby above they are just bulldozing through the law of rape and inventing their own legal position, there were problems with the hearsay rules, a rape victim must be upset afterwards etc. etc. On that basis they are challenging the decision arrived at by a jury who heard all of the evidence in great detail, and of course the judges who subsequently rejected appeal applications. There is also a lot of irrelevant issues being flung at it, people are saying "the Guildford 4" as if that of itself raises some doubt in a case where (whatever we feel about the outcome) there is no suggestion whatsoever that the police or prosecution have behaved improperly.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

But one must look at the disparity of positions. People are arming themselves with certain info available online including material from the convicted rapists website,

It isn't his own website. Just one of many things you have gotten wrong.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I agree that it is reasonable, in fact it is reasonable to question and challenge everything.

But one must look at the disparity of positions. People are arming themselves with certain info available online including material from the convicted rapists website, some of which comes close to contempt of Court. In some instances like kirby above they are just bulldozing through the law of rape and inventing their own legal position, there were problems with the hearsay rules, a rape victim must be upset afterwards etc. etc. On that basis they are challenging the decision arrived at by a jury who heard all of the evidence in great detail, and of course the judges who subsequently rejected appeal applications. There is also a lot of irrelevant issues being flung at it, people are saying "the Guildford 4" as if that of itself raises some doubt in a case where (whatever we feel about the outcome) there is no suggestion whatsoever that the police or prosecution have behaved improperly.

But at the same time you;ve gone from refering to him as a "rapist" to a "conivcted rapist" - bit of a difference there.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

It isn't his own website. Just one of many things you have gotten wrong.

Actually, you are wrong.

Read what I said. I said "the convicted rapists website". That does not necessarily mean he owns it or contributes, it is a site about his case run by family and friends afaik.

Could you specify "the many things I have gotten wrong"? It sounds like a generic "I want to criticise you but I don't want to get called on it".

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But at the same time you;ve gone from refering to him as a "rapist" to a "conivcted rapist" - bit of a difference there.

Nothing turns on that. He is both.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, you are wrong.

Read what I said. I said "the convicted rapists website". That does not necessarily mean he owns it or contributes, it is a site about his case run by family and friends afaik.

Is English your first language? Because claiming that when you say "The convicted rapists website" that you don't actually mean "The convicted rapists website" is rather ridiculous I'm sure you'll agree.

You haven't the slightest clue who runs that website, and it was some guy from New York who found the deleted tweets on a french server, not Ched Evans or his family.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing turns on that. He is both.

No, just the later.

She never denied giving consent on the night. It's not a case of she passed out and he went ahead and had sex with her - if that was the case I;d agree with you - but she never claimed it was either.

The only way you could know whether or not he actually carried out the rape is if you were in the hotel room at the time. And concsious.

CSF

bucketybuck wrote: »

Is English your first language? Because claiming that when you say "The convicted rapists website" that you don't actually mean "The convicted rapists website" is rather ridiculous I'm sure you'll agree.

You haven't the slightest clue who runs that website, and it was some guy from New York who found the deleted tweets on a french server, not Ched Evans or his family.

Cant wait to see the response to this

bucketybuck

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The only way you could know whether or not he actually carried out the rape is if you were in the hotel room at the time. And concsious.

And honest.

ThunbergsAreGo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, just the later.

She never denied giving consent on the night. It's not a case of she passed out and he went ahead and had sex with her - if that was the case I;d agree with you - but she never claimed it was either.

The only way you could know whether or not he actually carried out the rape is if you were in the hotel room at the time. And concsious.

Thats the bit that really confuses me about it, she wasnt aware of anything that happened. I have read the report, it almost elads you to believe something was missing from the report to have them come up with a guilty verdict.

I have heard a few times (Malachy Clerkin springs to mind) "I just dont like the guy" "he seems like an awful person". And to be honest I am pretty sure I would agree with themm but it isnt about his character.

As far the not apologising thing, if you were appealing against the sentence wouldnt this be the last thing you would do. If i had spent two years in prison for something I believed I didnt do, I am not sure I would apologise either. I certainly wouldnt mean it

Pro. F

CSF wrote: »

I don't think anyone is questioning whether Ched Evans was found guilty. The glaring question that has been asked many times is whether the grounds were sufficient and why the same grounds weren't applied to the other party.

Here is a logical answer to your question about the same grounds being applied to both men, from the case summary:

"It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her."
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

From you asking that question and not addressing the straight forward answer provided by the case summary, it looks very much like you haven't read the summary. Is that true?

What website are people referring to?

If it's Chedevans.com it's definitely someone running it that's talking his side. That's as obvious as black and white.

I might have missed the website name in discussion here

bucketybuck

rarnes1 wrote: »

What website are people referring to?

If it's Chedevans.com it's definitely someone running it talking his side. That's as obvious as black and white.

I might have missed the website name in discussion here

I don't think anybody has said otherwise. The claim was that Ched Evans himself owned/operated the website.

maximoose

I've read that answer in the summary - but how can they possibly have "concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him" with any certainty at all when you have the two lads testifying that she did consent, and her neither confirming or denying this, but saying she remembers nothing?

I don't know if he's guilty or not but I have no idea how he was convicted on the case/"evidence" put forward.

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

Here is a logical answer to your question about the same grounds being applied to both men, from the case summary:

"It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her."
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

From you asking that question and not addressing the straight forward answer provided by the case summary, it looks very much like you haven't read the summary. Is that true?

Yeah I mentioned the same thing yesterday.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

I don't think anybody has said otherwise. The claim was that Ched Evans himself owned/operated the website.

The main link says "Ched Evans Wrongly Convicted"

Fair chance it's someone close to him.

Do you know who owns it?


Edit. His friends and family own the page...

maximoose

Yeah I think it's his GF mainly who runs the page, first that I really heard of this case is when I saw her on some pissy daytime TV show talking about it.

bucketybuck

If it is indeed his friends and family that own the website then I was wrong about that.

Of course, that they do does not automatically invalidate the information on it.

eagle eye

I don't know why this is such a big deal. Guy should be allowed play football and these sponsors pulling out are just looking for free advertisement by doing it imo.

If he was the first guy to have done something like this then maybe it would be different but Graham Rix and Marlon King both got back playing football after what they did. Evans case is a strange one and I just don't look at it as being as bad as that of either Rix or King.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

If it is indeed his friends and family that own the website then I was wrong about that.

Of course, that they do does not automatically invalidate the information on it.

It says at the bottom of the page that they run it.

That would rule out relying on that for fairness.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

Is English your first language? Because claiming that when you say "The convicted rapists website" that you don't actually mean "The convicted rapists website" is rather ridiculous I'm sure you'll agree.

You haven't the slightest clue who runs that website, and it was some guy from New York who found the deleted tweets on a french server, not Ched Evans or his family.

:D

You think that Bono and the Edge sit at the U2 website?

It's his website, owned and run by his family and friends.

bucketybuck wrote: »

I don't think anybody has said otherwise. The claim was that Ched Evans himself owned/operated the website.

No it wasn't.

It's a website about Ched Evans, owned and run by his family and friends.

bucketybuck wrote: »

If it is indeed his friends and family that own the website then I was wrong about that.

Lo and behold, finally the acceptance you were wrong.

Did you miss the bit about them being responsible for it? Is English your first language?.

When you have wiped the egg off your face you can tell CSF I have given the answer he was so looking forward to!

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

:D

You think that Bono and the Edge sit at the U2 website?

It's his website, owned and run by his family and friends.



No it wasn't.

It's a website about Ched Evans, owned and run by his family and friends.



Lo and behold, finally the acceptance you were wrong.

Did you miss the bit about them being responsible for it? Is English your first language?.

When you have wiped the egg off your face you can tell CSF I have given the answer he was so looking forward to!

And it was every bit as moronic as we have come to expect.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The only way you could know whether or not he actually carried out the rape is if you were in the hotel room at the time. And concsious.

No no, you can say X is a rapist once they are convicted. Much the same way as you can say Y is a murderer and Z is a robber if they are convicted of those offences. You don't have to actually see the murder or robbery to be able to say that.

I don't believe I am explaining this to someone!

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

And it was every bit as moronic as we have come to expect.

Look, you made a terrible point and you were totally wrong.

Getting personal and abusive is only digging the hole deeper.

You could lose the point with grace? It was great the way you started off so sure of yourself though, and so smart about it all. It made it even more satisfying.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

No no, you can say X is a rapist once they are convicted. Much the same way as you can say Y is a murderer and Z is a robber if they are convicted of those offences. You don't have to actually see the murder or robbery to be able to say that.

Wasn't my point. I never said you couldn't say it; I said saying it doesn't mean it's actually true.

Fact - Ched Evans is a convicted rapist.
Not a fact - Ched Evans raped someone.

(NB - By "not a fact" that the statement is unproven and cannot be verified for accuracy.)

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

It made it even more satisfying.

Don't worry, we all know your purpose in this thread. It has been noted by more than a few people.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

Don't worry, we all know your purpose in this thread. It has been noted by more than a few people.

:D

"We all" and "more than a few people"...it's like a little gang!

You pretty much made sure they are all blushing for you now though!

Just stop digging and relax. Get back on topic. It's not about me.

Now, do you accept that a source like chedevans.com may be biased?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Wasn't my point. I never said you couldn't say it; I said saying it doesn't mean it's actually true.

Fact - Ched Evans is a convicted rapist.
Not a fact - Ched Evans raped someone.

(NB - By "not a fact" that the statement is unproven and cannot be verified for accuracy.)

You misunderstand the entire function of a trial.

It is not to establish facts as if they are maths equations. It is to prove beyond reasonable doubt. How would you "verify for accuracy" in all other contested cases?

CSF

Pro. F wrote: »

Here is a logical answer to your question about the same grounds being applied to both men, from the case summary:

"It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her."
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

From you asking that question and not addressing the straight forward answer provided by the case summary, it looks very much like you haven't read the summary. Is that true?

No that wouldn't be true. Those reasons are absolutely shambolic. I don't know how they can come to the conclusion that based on the time in the hotel Ched Evans knew she couldn't consent, but Clayton McDonald didn't. If there were grounds for Ched Evans to know, there were grounds for Clayton McDonald. They were both there.

That isn't logical, and is purely demonising Ched Evans because his meeting of the girl was more seedy than Clayton McDonald (but not that much when you consider he texted his mate to come over).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

You misunderstand the entire function of a trial.

It is not to establish facts as if they are maths equations. It is to prove beyond reasonable doubt. How would you "verify for accuracy" in all other contested cases?

That's exactly what I said: conviction is not the same as fact. No mention of maths in it.

That the complainant does not know if she gave consent or not is both a statement of fact and resonable doubt.

Klim

One thing that I cannot get my head around in all this- regardless of what or who you believe- is the fact that Evans' future father-in-law not only funded the aforementioned website (which is being investigated), but also offered to cover losses made by Oldham in the wake of any sponsors pulling out.

14.38 It's also worth reminding ourselves that the website funded by Ched Evans's girlfriend's father is under investigaton by the Attorney General.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/league-one/11332807/Ched-Evans-to-Oldham-latest.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901475/Ched-Evans-s-fianc-s-father-offered-cover-losses-Oldham-signed-convicted-rapist.html


I mean,at the very least, this man (your future son-in-law) sleazily snuck into a hotel room early in the morning to have sex with another woman behind your daughters back. This much isn't even up for debate. That earns you massive public and financial backing?

Sickening.

bucketybuck

Klim wrote: »

I mean,at the very least, this man (your future son-in-law) sleazily snuck into a hotel room early in the morning to have sex with another woman behind your daughters back. This much isn't even up for debate. That earns you massive public and financial backing?

Sickening.

This is just an appeal to emotion. You think its sleazy, so do I, but its nowhere near enough of a reason to jail a man for rape. You seem to be saying that even if he is innocent, his supporters shouldn't be supporting him because he is a sleaze. I don't agree with that at all.

Evans supporters set up a website and have campaigned on his behalf. Frankly, if they believe he is innocent then why shouldn't they?

Klim

bucketybuck wrote: »

This is just an appeal to emotion. You think its sleazy, so do I, but its nowhere near enough of a reason to jail a man for rape. You seem to be saying that even if he is innocent, his supporters shouldn't be supporting him because he is a sleaze. I don't agree with that at all.

Evans supporters set up a website and have campaigned on his behalf. Frankly, if they believe he is innocent then why shouldn't they?

Please don't put words in my mouth by saying what I 'seem' to be saying.

I am talking soley about his father in law, not his 'supporters'. I think it's wrong he should be so publicly glossing over the fact that this man crept into a hotel room to have sex sleazily with another woman, while engaged to his daughter. He's a very public figure in all this. I'd want nothing to do with him after that-regardless of the other allegations- if it was my daughter. Frankly, wouldn't you?

Nothing to do with agendas, or supporters or sides. I find that wrong. Don't see what's wrong with that.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

This is just an appeal to emotion. You think its sleazy, so do I, but its nowhere near enough of a reason to jail a man for rape. You seem to be saying that even if he is innocent, his supporters shouldn't be supporting him because he is a sleaze. I don't agree with that at all.

Evans supporters set up a website and have campaigned on his behalf. Frankly, if they believe he is innocent then why shouldn't they?

Nothing wrong with setting up websites.

However, it's hardly going to give a balanced view is it.

bucketybuck

Klim wrote: »

Please don't put words in my mouth by saying what I 'seem' to be saying.

I am talking soley about his father in law, not his 'supporters'. I think it's wrong he should be so publicly glossing over the fact that this man crept into a hotel room to have sex sleazily with another woman, while engaged to his daughter. He's a very public figure in all this. I'd want nothing to do with him after that-regardless of the other allegations- if it was my daughter. Frankly, wouldn't you?

Nothing to do with agendas, or supporters or sides. I find that wrong. Don't see what's wrong with that.

Don't complain about putting words in your mouth if you're then going to say the exact same thing again.

You are saying the father in law should not support Evans because he is a sleazy git. Thats is what your words are saying.

If the father-in-law believes he is innocent of the crime then he has every right to try and support Evans, even if you think he shouldn't.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's exactly what I said: conviction is not the same as fact. No mention of maths in it.

That the complainant does not know if she gave consent or not is both a statement of fact and resonable doubt.

It is the same as every other conviction, in that it only demonstrates that the case was established beyond reasonable doubt. If by fact you mean some absolute truth, well then no, the Evans case is only like every other criminal case and they did not devise a new standard of proof for him.

Not sure what the last line means. There was no reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jury, that's the whole point. You may disagree with their verdict, of course, but again one goes back to the point I made pages ago. They sat through the entire matter, the critics seem to be relying on Google and chedevans.com and other second hand analyses of the case.

CSF

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is the same as every other conviction, in that it only demonstrates that the case was established beyond reasonable doubt. If by fact you mean some absolute truth, well then no, the Evans case is only like every other criminal case and they did not devise a new standard of proof for him.

Not sure what the last line means. There was no reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jury, that's the whole point. You may disagree with their verdict, of course, but again one goes back to the point I made pages ago. They sat through the entire matter, the critics seem to be relying on Google and chedevans.com and other second hand analyses of the case.

There's every chance there is more information that is a bit more incriminating.

I just find it odd that with such a publicised case that this hasn't come to the fore.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

If the father-in-law believes he is innocent of the crime then he has every right to try and support Evans, even if you think he shouldn't.

He has a right, whether he thinks Evans is innocent or even guilty.

It's just unusual that they have stood by him so resolutely when his defence is that he had sex with a third party but it was with her consent. Many in laws would consider that in itself to be way over the line, albeit not a crime.

But that's his call to make.

CSF

CSF wrote: »

There's every chance there is more information that is a bit more incriminating.

I just find it odd that with such a publicised case that this hasn't come to the fore.

Are you suggesting evidence was wrongly excluded?

What was it?