|
Did the court manage to get a hold of the video? I remember a couple of years ago there were some Sunderland lads - Ben Alnwick, Liam Lawrence, Chris Brown and some other guy - doing a 16 year old and filming it who later accused them of rape.
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
Gigi Galli posted:Lad culture Actually it's about ethics in videophone journalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Jose posted:I'm not sure why its that ridiculous. Remember Evans also got a couple of mates to film him having sex with her through the window I don't see how a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim couldn't consent to sex with Evans, but didn't reach that same conclusion regarding another person who was having sex with her at the same time. It's really an all or nothing thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:So you think people shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion? It's a bad, wrong opinion and it shouldn't be encouraged at all. It's no different than when people say "well free speech just means the government shouldn't prevent you from saying what you want, anyone else should boycott you until you lose your job". It really goes against the spirit of the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
blue footed boobie posted:I don't see how a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim couldn't consent to sex with Evans, but didn't reach that same conclusion regarding another person who was having sex with her at the same time. It's really an all or nothing thing maybe you had to see all the evidence and come to a decision that way, idk but I'm pretty sure that's how trials work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
blue footed boobie posted:I don't see how a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim couldn't consent to sex with Evans, but didn't reach that same conclusion regarding another person who was having sex with her at the same time. It's really an all or nothing thing She went back to the hotel with McDonald indicating consent, but Evans just turned up in the room and joined in. Consensually he says, not said the jury.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:maybe you had to see all the evidence and come to a decision that way, idk but I'm pretty sure that's how trials work. His point still stands. She was too drunk to give consent to Ched Evans but not McDonald?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
DickEmery posted:She went back to the hotel with McDonald indicating consent, but Evans just turned up in the room and joined in. But that doesn't make sense given the victim's account. Whether or not she indicates consent wouldn't matter in the prosecution's theory of the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Hegay posted:His point still stands. She was too drunk to give consent to Ched Evans but not McDonald? His point doesn't stand at all unless he's seen every piece of evidence the jury saw. She willingly, unforced, went back to McDonald's hotel room with him, which to me as someone who hasn't seen every piece of evidence, suggests consent. Evans lied to get into the room and had mates film him shagging her, idk if she would have been able to consent to any of that and apparently the jury thought not, so I'm happy with the conviction as it stands. If I see something that suggests otherwise i might change my mind but who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Basically the jury made them out to be lads on the prowl for inebriated women. They couldn't technically charge Evans' mate with rape because of the CCTV and witnesses indicating that there was consent by the girl. Evans got the short end of the stick because no one knows what really happened in the hotel room and there was no prior communication between him and her. He just went to the hotel and left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:His point doesn't stand at all unless he's seen every piece of evidence the jury saw. She willingly, unforced, went back to McDonald's hotel room with him, which to me as someone who hasn't seen every piece of evidence, suggests consent. The prosecution notes that CCTV shows her as being very drunk when meeting up with McDonald. The "willingly, unforced following" point has no meaning as I'm fairly sure putting wait on that would have negative consequences in a common law system which is why the prosecution went for "too drunk to consent". e: I see that the jury gave the "difference of approach" weight in terms of the sentencing and that they were asked to come up with two verdicts; with McDonald having reasonably belief to consent while Evans shouldn't, I would challenge that on appeal. It also seems that the judges directions to the jury has been heavily criticized Hegay fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:His point doesn't stand at all unless he's seen every piece of evidence the jury saw. She willingly, unforced, went back to McDonald's hotel room with him, which to me as someone who hasn't seen every piece of evidence, suggests consent. The methods of entry into the hotel room don't really make any difference under the prosecution's theory of the case. The only way you could reach that verdict is if there was some reason to conclude that the victim became more intoxicated between when McDonald had sex with her and when Evans did. If there was evidence of that I'd be interested to see, but the opinion Flayer posted doesn't indicate that at all. blue footed boobie fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Was she hot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Bape Culture posted:Was she hot? Prolly
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Hegay posted:The prosecution notes that CCTV shows her as being very drunk when meeting up with McDonald. The "willingly, unforced following" point has no meaning as I'm fairly sure putting wait on that would have negative consequences in a common law system which is why the prosecution went for "too drunk to consent". there were unbiased witnesses to her appearance while with Mcdonald, there were none to her appearance while with Evans, i think blue footed boobie posted:The methods of entry into the hotel room don't really make any difference under the prosecution's theory of the case. The only way you could reach that verdict is if there was some reason to conclude that the victim became more intoxicated between when McDonald had sex with her and when Evans did. If there was evidence of that is be interested to see, but the opinion Flayer posted doesn't indicate that at all. Why would she have to be more intoxicated? She willingly went back to McDonald's room, which, whether true or not, certainly indicates consent, hence not guilty on McDonald's part. We have no evidence that suggests she was willing to have sex with Evans, so guilty seems fine to me? idk what flayer posted about, idk if that's important.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Was she charged with public urination or was she considered too drunk to consent to herself doing that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Why would she have to be more intoxicated? She willingly went back to McDonald's room, which, whether true or not, certainly indicates consent, hence not guilty on McDonald's part. We have no evidence that suggests she was willing to have sex with Evans, so guilty seems fine to me? idk what flayer posted about, idk if that's important. She was deemed 'too drunk to consent' to Ched. Proof of consent wasn't the issue. Any consent there may or may not have been was deemed invalid. Which is the only way a charge was going to be reached in a case with no evidence of what happened in the room. Absence of definite consent is not how the law works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
I think you're confused. Evans wasn't on trial for sneaking into a threesome without the victim knowing. The question in the trial was whether the victim could have consented to sex with both men, and the testified to having no recollection of the night. If the jury concluded that the victim wasn't credible and consented to sex with Macdonald, they should have reached the same conclusion with Evans. E: this was at stickfngrdboy Double edit: the jury didnt have to conclude that the victim had consensual sex with Macdonald, but that doesn't change my reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Any link to the video? Odd case. Very interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
blue footed boobie posted:I think you're confused. Evans wasn't on trial for sneaking into a threesome without the victim knowing. The question in the trial was whether the victim could have consented to sex with both men, and the testified to having no recollection of the night. If the jury concluded that the victim wasn't credible and consented to sex with Macdonald, they should have reached the same conclusion with Evans. Pretty much, the judge ordered the jury to take her condition into account and whether she was able to give consent. It seems very strange that she was able to give consent to McDonald - despite being described as insanely drunk and him texting "he got a bird" while too drunk for later acts. From a purely judicial viewpoint I'm pretty interested in how they end up with a gulity/not guilty verdict. Anyone know the citation number for the original case?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
blue footed boobie posted:I think you're confused. Evans wasn't on trial for sneaking into a threesome without the victim knowing. The question in the trial was whether the victim could have consented to sex with both men, and the testified to having no recollection of the night. If the jury concluded that the victim wasn't credible and consented to sex with Macdonald, they should have reached the same conclusion with Evans. I think I'm the only one in this conversation who isn't confused. The reason - the big, loving obvious, reason - the jury declared McDonald not guilty was that the victim willingly went to McDonald's room, which gives the appearance of consent. Witnesses apparently saw them together and she looked to be okay with him being with her. Whether she actually consented or not is irrelevant. The jury thought she probably did. In my own opinion she probably wasn't in a fit state to consent to either but I dunno for certain. I have no idea why people are now trying to retry this case on here but I've seen nothing which suggests a wrong verdict, and I don't even care about the case!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
What witnesses? So far there's a taxi guy who noted she was insanely drunk, a porter who did the same and a CCTV showing her forgetting her bag at a kebab shop. No where does it say she spend the night with him, in fact the court papers state several times that they had just met eachotherquote:Whether she actually consented or not is irrelevant. Lol, it's the only thing this case is about - gently caress the judge even says "So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be. Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed her capacity to exercise a choice?" Hegay fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:I think I'm the only one in this conversation who isn't confused. The reason - the big, loving obvious, reason - the jury declared McDonald not guilty was that the victim willingly went to McDonald's room, which gives the appearance of consent. Witnesses apparently saw them together and she looked to be okay with him being with her. Whether she actually consented or not is irrelevant. The jury thought she probably did. In my own opinion she probably wasn't in a fit state to consent to either but I dunno for certain. It doesn't make sense that the jury concluded that the victim had consenting sex with Macdonald but was too drunk to consent to sex with Evans! They had sex with her at the same time!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:The reason - the big, loving obvious, reason - the jury declared McDonald not guilty was that the victim willingly went to McDonald's room, which gives the appearance of consent. This can't be right lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
blue footed boobie posted:It doesn't make sense that the jury concluded that the victim had consenting sex with Macdonald but was too drunk to consent to sex with Evans! They had sex with her at the same time! They switched after Evans arrived.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Hegay posted:What witnesses? So far there's a taxi guy who noted she was insanely drunk, a porter who did the same and a CCTV showing her forgetting her bag at a kebab shop. No where does it say she spend the night with him, in fact the court papers state several times that they had just met eachother have you gone mental? whether she actually consented or not is impossible to prove. So it's irrelevant. It's only possible to prove whether she was in a fit state to consent. The jury found that the act of going back to his room, asking him to assure her he wouldn't leave her, even though considerably drunk, was not sufficiently drunk that she was unable to consent. She had no contact with Ched Evans until he turned up in that room, so maybe she was sufficiently inebriated to not be able to consent to sex with the man who just turned up? I'm not even saying he def raped her, just that it's very easy to see how the jury came to the thing they came to, lol. loving hell lads this isn't a hard case to look at and as stated I don't even care about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
blue footed boobie posted:It doesn't make sense that the jury concluded that the victim had consenting sex with Macdonald but was too drunk to consent to sex with Evans! They had sex with her at the same time! seriously are you people actually mental? I mean properly mental?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:have you gone mental? whether she actually consented or not is impossible to prove. So it's irrelevant. It's only possible to prove whether she was in a fit state to consent. The jury found that the act of going back to his room, asking him to assure her her wouldn't leave her, even though considerably drunk, was not sufficiently drunk that she was unable to consent. The jury would totally have to totally reject the victim's account of the night in order to reach this conclusion!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
blue footed boobie posted:The jury would totally have to totally reject the victim's account of the night in order to reach this conclusion! What? Why? She had no recollection of anything after 3am. None. Everything from there on came from witnesses and CCTV and phone records. Wtf.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Seems like hearsay from the judge. Evans will win on appeal, probably sue the woman for damages?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
African AIDS cum posted:Seems like hearsay from the judge. Evans will win on appeal, probably sue the woman for damages? I hope he sues Jessica Ennis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:have you gone mental? whether she actually consented or not is impossible to prove. So it's irrelevant. It's only possible to prove whether she was in a fit state to consent. The jury found that the act of going back to his room, asking him to assure her he wouldn't leave her, even though considerably drunk, was not sufficiently drunk that she was unable to consent. I'm just being contrarian, it's my way of fighting tumblr #MyShirtMyChoice
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Hegay posted:I'm just being contrarian, it's my way of fighting tumblr #MyShirtMyChoice i'm with you brother
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:What? Why? She had no recollection of anything after 3am. None. Everything from there on came from witnesses and CCTV and phone records. Wtf. Exactly. What are you missing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
He must have had poo poo poor lawyer tho, if he hadn't confessed to the police they would have a real bad case
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Hegay posted:He must have had poo poo poor lawyer tho, if he hadn't confessed to the police they would have a real bad case Honestly sounds like it was a very borderline case and Evans got convicted because he presented very poorly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
What did the video show, what positions, did she take on both dudes at once? Who is asking the important questions here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
blue footed boobie posted:Exactly. What are you missing? lol omfg you're mental, please tell me what I'm missing. here I'll sum up what I got the jury have to decide whether she was in a fit state to consent to sex, and decide that, for the reasons I already said like four times, one man was guilty of rape and one was not tell me what i'm missing, you god drat lunatic crazy man!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
Evans got done for having consensual sex with an insanely drunk girl. It's irrelevant if she said yes or no because you can't make decisions when you are blackout drunk hence rape
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 23:20
|
|