Ched Evans saga part ???

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Ched Evans saga part ???

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 13 of 32 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Jan 15 12.30pm
Quote Kingvagabond at 08 Jan 2015 3.05pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jan 2015 11.32am Quote Kingvagabond at 08 Jan 2015 11.14am Quote derby eagle at 08 Jan 2015 7.40am Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Jan 2015 2.06am Being someone who helped run a pub for five years in their twenties and spent a time as a bouncer in nightclubs and in both instances saw quite a bit of stuff I'm inherently suspicious of the certainties that Jamie and others have as too this ladies capabilities. This case to me is rife with possibilities.....What I can know from the evidence is that this guy Ched is a t***...I can say that it's possible that he raped this girl. What I can't say with reasonable certainty is that he did.....From what I've heard of the evidence this conviction should never have stood. But it's atypical with where the courts are heading with rape. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Jan 2015 2.17am) A jury seemed quite comfortable convicting him and they sat through all of the evidence. No one here did. There is jo new evidence, so there is very little chance of this being overturned and neither should it be. Unless of course every time a conviction is against our own inclination it gets overturned if the majority of the public don't like it as well. The arrogant cvnt is guilty, get over it and move on. Here's the ironic thing, they didn't seem quite comfortable convicting him. There was no unanimous decision and so jury was informed that he would accept majority verdict. They were then told that both cases were completely different and despite it being a joint verdict they could give different outcomes for Donaldson and Evans. The judges summing up and directions to the jury was somewhat loaded and this was one of the things the original appeal focussed on. Eventually jury came back with unanimous decisions on both, innocent for Donaldson, guilty for Evans and thus avoided going into a fourth week. Personally, its why I feel it may be time to go to trial by panel of judges as I feel they would achieve safer convictions or acquittals based on evidence not 'feelings'. Which basically suggests that the jury were undecided on Donaldson, not Evans. And that hits a key point of law. Donaldson could reasonably be said to have believed he had consent by the actions prior to sex (i.e meeting a girl, having a few drinks and going back to the hotel). Evans doesn't have that capacity. Its an important distinction, because it establishes the importance of the timeline of events. The case hinges on whether it would be reasonable for Evan to believe he had consent (once it was established that the victim was intoxicated). His actions prior to obtaining consent are key to his conviction - There is no reasonable case to accept that he could have believed he had informed consent by actions of the victim or his own. And this is why I have an issue with it. Theres so much misinformation going around its ridiculous. The complainant met Donaldson on his way back to the hotel. They were both in the Pizza place but not together. They didn't drink together. She bumped into him on his way to get a cab. He said 'Where are you going' she said 'where are you going' he said 'To my hotel' she said 'I'm coming with you'. She'd had 2 glasses of wine, 4 double vodka lemonades and a shot of Sambucca. I have had this amount several times and gone home with girls about the same level of drunkenness as me. Have I raped them? Have they raped me? Have we raped each other? Safest thing in future is to carry a pocket breathalyzer and a stack of consent forms. Cos then I won't look like a rapist Ok, misinformation, however it is still reasonable that given that exchange Donaldson could be judge to have reason to believe that by word and actions consent had been agreed. You haven't raped them, unless maybe they'd gone home with your roommate, drunk, and then you'd borrowed his front door key, let yourself into the house and had sex with them and then sneaked out the back door. Then you could arguably be a rapist. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Jan 15 12.30pm

Quote Kingvagabond at 08 Jan 2015 3.05pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jan 2015 11.32am

Quote Kingvagabond at 08 Jan 2015 11.14am

Quote derby eagle at 08 Jan 2015 7.40am

Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Jan 2015 2.06am

Being someone who helped run a pub for five years in their twenties and spent a time as a bouncer in nightclubs and in both instances saw quite a bit of stuff I'm inherently suspicious of the certainties that Jamie and others have as too this ladies capabilities.

This case to me is rife with possibilities.....What I can know from the evidence is that this guy Ched is a t***...I can say that it's possible that he raped this girl. What I can't say with reasonable certainty is that he did.....From what I've heard of the evidence this conviction should never have stood.

But it's atypical with where the courts are heading with rape.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Jan 2015 2.17am)

A jury seemed quite comfortable convicting him and they sat through all of the evidence. No one here did. There is jo new evidence, so there is very little chance of this being overturned and neither should it be. Unless of course every time a conviction is against our own inclination it gets overturned if the majority of the public don't like it as well. The arrogant cvnt is guilty, get over it and move on.

Here's the ironic thing, they didn't seem quite comfortable convicting him. There was no unanimous decision and so jury was informed that he would accept majority verdict. They were then told that both cases were completely different and despite it being a joint verdict they could give different outcomes for Donaldson and Evans. The judges summing up and directions to the jury was somewhat loaded and this was one of the things the original appeal focussed on.
Eventually jury came back with unanimous decisions on both, innocent for Donaldson, guilty for Evans and thus avoided going into a fourth week.

Personally, its why I feel it may be time to go to trial by panel of judges as I feel they would achieve safer convictions or acquittals based on evidence not 'feelings'.

Which basically suggests that the jury were undecided on Donaldson, not Evans. And that hits a key point of law.

Donaldson could reasonably be said to have believed he had consent by the actions prior to sex (i.e meeting a girl, having a few drinks and going back to the hotel). Evans doesn't have that capacity.

Its an important distinction, because it establishes the importance of the timeline of events.

The case hinges on whether it would be reasonable for Evan to believe he had consent (once it was established that the victim was intoxicated). His actions prior to obtaining consent are key to his conviction - There is no reasonable case to accept that he could have believed he had informed consent by actions of the victim or his own.

And this is why I have an issue with it. Theres so much misinformation going around its ridiculous. The complainant met Donaldson on his way back to the hotel. They were both in the Pizza place but not together. They didn't drink together. She bumped into him on his way to get a cab. He said 'Where are you going' she said 'where are you going' he said 'To my hotel' she said 'I'm coming with you'.

She'd had 2 glasses of wine, 4 double vodka lemonades and a shot of Sambucca. I have had this amount several times and gone home with girls about the same level of drunkenness as me. Have I raped them? Have they raped me? Have we raped each other? Safest thing in future is to carry a pocket breathalyzer and a stack of consent forms. Cos then I won't look like a rapist

Ok, misinformation, however it is still reasonable that given that exchange Donaldson could be judge to have reason to believe that by word and actions consent had been agreed.

You haven't raped them, unless maybe they'd gone home with your roommate, drunk, and then you'd borrowed his front door key, let yourself into the house and had sex with them and then sneaked out the back door.

Then you could arguably be a rapist.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Jan 15 12.34pm
Quote lancseagle at 08 Jan 2015 9.46pm Donaldson was first in which I think was mutually agreeable what happened after wasn't hence CPS charging 1 there's a main course & then a unwanted dessert Donaldson is not guilty by way of reasonable doubt - From his interaction prior to the event it can be argued that it was reasonable for him to assume consent (Meeting the girl, a conversion, travelling back to the hotel and entering the room). Evans on the other hand turns up after they've been having sex, lets himself in with a key he blagged from the night watchman, engages in sex and then leaves. It wouldn't be reasonable for him to be said to have believed consent was valid on the basis of activity prior to the events. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Jan 15 12.34pm

Quote lancseagle at 08 Jan 2015 9.46pm

Donaldson was first in which I think was mutually agreeable what happened after wasn't hence CPS charging 1 there's a main course & then a unwanted dessert

Donaldson is not guilty by way of reasonable doubt - From his interaction prior to the event it can be argued that it was reasonable for him to assume consent (Meeting the girl, a conversion, travelling back to the hotel and entering the room).

Evans on the other hand turns up after they've been having sex, lets himself in with a key he blagged from the night watchman, engages in sex and then leaves.

It wouldn't be reasonable for him to be said to have believed consent was valid on the basis of activity prior to the events.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Jan 15 12.41pm
Quote Sg Bilko at 09 Jan 2015 10.42am Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Jan 2015 7.54pm Quote Ray in Houston at 08 Jan 2015 4.52pm Quote Kingvagabond at 08 Jan 2015 3.05pm And this is why I have an issue with it. Theres so much misinformation going around its ridiculous. The complainant met Donaldson on his way back to the hotel. They were both in the Pizza place but not together. They didn't drink together. She bumped into him on his way to get a cab. He said 'Where are you going' she said 'where are you going' he said 'To my hotel' she said 'I'm coming with you'. She'd had 2 glasses of wine, 4 double vodka lemonades and a shot of Sambucca. I have had this amount several times and gone home with girls about the same level of drunkenness as me. Have I raped them? Have they raped me? Have we raped each other? Safest thing in future is to carry a pocket breathalyzer and a stack of consent forms. Cos then I won't look like a rapist And here's where you're missing the point. Donaldson had implied consent because the girl agreed to come back to his hotel. Hence Donaldson's not guilty verdict. Evans sneaked into the room unannounced and, in his case, the court found that she was incapable of giving consent. Hence his guilty verdict. Edited by Ray in Houston (08 Jan 2015 4.54pm) But that is stupid. You can't give consent if you're not conscious. ....This is meant to have been the girl's position. Whether or not an implication was given beforehand if you put your trouser snake into an unconscious girl then that is rape because she has no means to object. If your position is that this girl was incapable of giving consent in the bedroom then both of them are guilty of rape.....I view the judge's position as insensible. Personally I'm of the view that these two ts have been had.* Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Jan 2015 7.55pm) That's my view, if this girl was so incapable of giving consent for one, then the same applies for both, and if she was capable to consent for one then she was capable to consent to both. If she was so incapacitated by the alcohol she consumed how does she know either or both or which one she had sex with, if she knew she's been raped she should have filed her complaint immediately, and not leave it several days before complaining. Indeed, she wasn't able to give consent. However it is reasonable for Donaldson to have believed consent was given due to her actions leading up to the event. In cases of intoxication and consent things work slightly differently to the simple yes / no, because a person can believe consent was granted, despite the intoxication (a criminal offence requires a degree of intention for conviction - Actus and Mens Rae). Donaldson actions were reasonable in that framework, because whilst the girl was intoxicated their interactions are such that it would be reasonable to assume consent. Evans doesn't have that, its only his word against the prosecution, which presented witnesses as to the victims intoxication. By his actions prior to sex its not reasonable for him to have believed consent had been granted. So Donaldson is not guilty (reasonable doubt) where as Evans is guilty (beyond reasonable doubt). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Jan 15 12.41pm

Quote Sg Bilko at 09 Jan 2015 10.42am

Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Jan 2015 7.54pm

Quote Ray in Houston at 08 Jan 2015 4.52pm

Quote Kingvagabond at 08 Jan 2015 3.05pm
And this is why I have an issue with it. Theres so much misinformation going around its ridiculous. The complainant met Donaldson on his way back to the hotel. They were both in the Pizza place but not together. They didn't drink together. She bumped into him on his way to get a cab. He said 'Where are you going' she said 'where are you going' he said 'To my hotel' she said 'I'm coming with you'.

And here's where you're missing the point. Donaldson had implied consent because the girl agreed to come back to his hotel. Hence Donaldson's not guilty verdict.

Evans sneaked into the room unannounced and, in his case, the court found that she was incapable of giving consent. Hence his guilty verdict.

Edited by Ray in Houston (08 Jan 2015 4.54pm)

But that is stupid.

You can't give consent if you're not conscious. ....This is meant to have been the girl's position. Whether or not an implication was given beforehand if you put your trouser snake into an unconscious girl then that is rape because she has no means to object.

If your position is that this girl was incapable of giving consent in the bedroom then both of them are guilty of rape.....I view the judge's position as insensible.

Personally I'm of the view that these two t***s have been had.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Jan 2015 7.55pm)

That's my view, if this girl was so incapable of giving consent for one, then the same applies for both, and if she was capable to consent for one then she was capable to consent to both.

If she was so incapacitated by the alcohol she consumed how does she know either or both or which one she had sex with, if she knew she's been raped she should have filed her complaint immediately, and not leave it several days before complaining.

Indeed, she wasn't able to give consent. However it is reasonable for Donaldson to have believed consent was given due to her actions leading up to the event.

In cases of intoxication and consent things work slightly differently to the simple yes / no, because a person can believe consent was granted, despite the intoxication (a criminal offence requires a degree of intention for conviction - Actus and Mens Rae).

Donaldson actions were reasonable in that framework, because whilst the girl was intoxicated their interactions are such that it would be reasonable to assume consent.

Evans doesn't have that, its only his word against the prosecution, which presented witnesses as to the victims intoxication. By his actions prior to sex its not reasonable for him to have believed consent had been granted.

So Donaldson is not guilty (reasonable doubt) where as Evans is guilty (beyond reasonable doubt).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 09 Jan 15 1.01pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 09 Jan 2015 12.07pm I suggest that this girl brought all of this on herself and the fact that she was drunk was no excuse. She cannot remember what she did and it can be argued that she led both men on. Your brain scares me Hoof 2nd Paragraph. It cannot be argued that she led both men on. Nobody - repeat, nobody has attempted to argue or even suggest that. I honestly cannot see how you've made that conclusion. Ched sneaked his way into their hotel room - how did she lead him on to do that? Or did she choose to start leading him on then? 1st paragraph. One of the most loathsome thing I've ever read on HOL. Well done. Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre London Oratory School SW6 1RX with Superfly in the chorus [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly

The sun always shines in Catford 09 Jan 15 1.01pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 09 Jan 2015 12.07pm

I suggest that this girl brought all of this on herself and the fact that she was drunk was no excuse.

She cannot remember what she did and it can be argued that she led both men on.

Your brain scares me Hoof

2nd Paragraph. It cannot be argued that she led both men on. Nobody - repeat, nobody has attempted to argue or even suggest that. I honestly cannot see how you've made that conclusion. Ched sneaked his way into their hotel room - how did she lead him on to do that? Or did she choose to start leading him on then?

1st paragraph. One of the most loathsome thing I've ever read on HOL. Well done.

Lend me a Tenor

31 May to 3 June 2017

John McIntosh Arts Centre
London Oratory School
SW6 1RX

with Superfly in the chorus
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

EagleEyedAlbert ...too far north of the water. 09 Jan 15 1.31pm
[Link] Somehow, the scousers have managed to get offended. Its an odd comparison yes, but there's logic to it... "IS HE!!?" -Can often be found on HOL Radio chatting Palace-related nonsense: Catch it here, Sunday Nights 8pm: [Link] HOL Radio Twitter: [Link] Me on the Twitter: [Link] "You don't own a dog & bark yourself, do you?"
Alert a moderator to this post

EagleEyedAlbert

...too far north of the water. 09 Jan 15 1.31pm

Send a Private Message to EagleEyedAlbert

[Link]

Somehow, the scousers have managed to get offended.

Its an odd comparison yes, but there's logic to it...

"IS HE!!?"

-Can often be found on HOL Radio chatting Palace-related nonsense:

Catch it here, Sunday Nights 8pm: [Link]

HOL Radio Twitter: [Link]

Me on the Twitter: [Link]

"You don't own a dog & bark yourself, do you?"

Alert a moderator to this post

derby eagle Derby 09 Jan 15 2.24pm
Now Bruce is piping up as if he was some legal expert. What a detestable vvanker that guy is.
Alert a moderator to this post

derby eagle

Derby 09 Jan 15 2.24pm

Now Bruce is piping up as if he was some legal expert. What a detestable vvanker that guy is.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Jan 15 2.58pm
Quote EagleEyedAlbert at 09 Jan 2015 1.31pm [Link] Somehow, the scousers have managed to get offended. Its an odd comparison yes, but there's logic to it... Scousers, more easily upset than a Muslim Fantatic at a Mohammed Comic-Con. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Jan 15 2.58pm

Quote EagleEyedAlbert at 09 Jan 2015 1.31pm

[Link]

Somehow, the scousers have managed to get offended.

Its an odd comparison yes, but there's logic to it...

Scousers, more easily upset than a Muslim Fantatic at a Mohammed Comic-Con.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 09 Jan 15 2.59pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 09 Jan 2015 12.07pm I would like this judge to have been in charge of my drink drive conviction. At the point I set off in my car p1ssed as a parrot I had no idea if I was doing the right thing and was totally oblivious to the dangers to myself or others because I was so drunk. The magistrate I had quite reasonably and fairly decided to disqualify me from driving and give me a hefty fine.... and a lengthy lecture on my future responsibilities and the absurdity of my actions and the effect it could have on others. I suggest that this girl brought all of this on herself and the fact that she was drunk was no excuse. She cannot remember what she did and it can be argued that she led both men on. Most definitely an unsafe conviction. I hate to rain on your parade, but you made the decision to drink - knowing that you'd driven - before you were drunk. That's where your conviction comes from. In her case, she was deemed to have given consent to have sex with Donaldson by dint of agreeing to go back to his hotel room with him. Evans just showed up and has his way. This clear (and legal) difference between the two has been repeated over and over in this thread, yet plenty of you still don't - or choose not to - understand it. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 09 Jan 15 2.59pm

Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston

Quote Hoof Hearted at 09 Jan 2015 12.07pm
I would like this judge to have been in charge of my drink drive conviction.

At the point I set off in my car p1ssed as a parrot I had no idea if I was doing the right thing and was totally oblivious to the dangers to myself or others because I was so drunk.

The magistrate I had quite reasonably and fairly decided to disqualify me from driving and give me a hefty fine.... and a lengthy lecture on my future responsibilities and the absurdity of my actions and the effect it could have on others.

I suggest that this girl brought all of this on herself and the fact that she was drunk was no excuse.

She cannot remember what she did and it can be argued that she led both men on.

Most definitely an unsafe conviction.

I hate to rain on your parade, but you made the decision to drink - knowing that you'd driven - before you were drunk. That's where your conviction comes from.

In her case, she was deemed to have given consent to have sex with Donaldson by dint of agreeing to go back to his hotel room with him. Evans just showed up and has his way.

This clear (and legal) difference between the two has been repeated over and over in this thread, yet plenty of you still don't - or choose not to - understand it.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 09 Jan 15 3.01pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 09 Jan 2015 11.44am If she wasn't raped but intended both to be convicted for her financial gain then she had tricked both....Hence, 'had'. What financial gain? She is on the run, unable to live a normal life and trying desperately to stay anonymous while Evans' apologists hound her and "out" her new identity as soon as she gets one. How the hell is there any financial gain for her in this? We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 09 Jan 15 3.01pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 09 Jan 2015 11.44am
If she wasn't raped but intended both to be convicted for her financial gain then she had tricked both....Hence, 'had'.

What financial gain? She is on the run, unable to live a normal life and trying desperately to stay anonymous while Evans' apologists hound her and "out" her new identity as soon as she gets one.

How the hell is there any financial gain for her in this?

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

EagleEyedAlbert ...too far north of the water. 09 Jan 15 3.01pm
Quote derby eagle at 09 Jan 2015 2.24pm Now Bruce is piping up as if he was some legal expert. What a detestable vvanker that guy is. Whilst i wholeheateredly agree with your second sentence, is he not allowed an opinion? "IS HE!!?" -Can often be found on HOL Radio chatting Palace-related nonsense: Catch it here, Sunday Nights 8pm: [Link] HOL Radio Twitter: [Link] Me on the Twitter: [Link] "You don't own a dog & bark yourself, do you?"
Alert a moderator to this post

EagleEyedAlbert

...too far north of the water. 09 Jan 15 3.01pm

Quote derby eagle at 09 Jan 2015 2.24pm

Now Bruce is piping up as if he was some legal expert. What a detestable vvanker that guy is.

Whilst i wholeheateredly agree with your second sentence, is he not allowed an opinion?

"IS HE!!?"

-Can often be found on HOL Radio chatting Palace-related nonsense:

Catch it here, Sunday Nights 8pm: [Link]

HOL Radio Twitter: [Link]

Me on the Twitter: [Link]

"You don't own a dog & bark yourself, do you?"

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 09 Jan 15 3.09pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 09 Jan 2015 12.07pm I suggest that this girl brought all of this on herself and the fact that she was drunk was no excuse. You get drunk and, for once it seems, decide to crash at a mate's house rather than drive home. Your mate asks if he can borrow 20 quid; you have 40 quid and only need 20 for a cab back to your car so, as he's letting you crash you of course agree before passing out. Your mate's roommate saw that you had 20 quid in your wallet and helps himself to it, leaving you high and dry in the morning. Is he a thief, or is that ok because you'd already given your mate some? Edited by Ray in Houston (09 Jan 2015 5.28pm) We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 09 Jan 15 3.09pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 09 Jan 2015 12.07pm
I suggest that this girl brought all of this on herself and the fact that she was drunk was no excuse.

You get drunk and, for once it seems, decide to crash at a mate's house rather than drive home. Your mate asks if he can borrow 20 quid; you have 40 quid and only need 20 for a cab back to your car so, as he's letting you crash you of course agree before passing out.

Your mate's roommate saw that you had 20 quid in your wallet and helps himself to it, leaving you high and dry in the morning. Is he a thief, or is that ok because you'd already given your mate some?

Edited by Ray in Houston (09 Jan 2015 5.28pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Jan 15 3.11pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 09 Jan 2015 11.44am Quote Mapletree at 08 Jan 2015 9.24pm No, your point is stupid. If you are correct they were both guilty and not innocent. So how can they both of been 'had'? It's just Donaldson just about got away with it. If she wasn't raped but intended both to be convicted for her financial gain then she had tricked both....Hence, 'had'. I'm pointing out the absurdity of the judgement. The idea that you can imply consent from minutes before intercourse takes place when you aren't there. This girl says she wasn't aware what was going on.....How can that be consent? I'm pointing out the illogical and arrogant nature of the assumption. It's stupid. Consent can't be counted upon unless you are actually there.....It's a guess. No one can state that a girl reasonably agrees to sexual intercourse unless they are the girl themself or they are watching it. This girl said neither had consent.....The court delivered the most illogical judgement possible......They convicted one and freed another based purely on assumption. What is far more likely to me is that she was either genuinely raped or she has lied for gain. I cannot know which is actually true but I suspect from what I gather that this isn't a safe conviction. Those who claim with confidence to know that this girl was definitely raped are in my view way over confident in their assumptions. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2015 11.49am) Its beyond reasonable doubt that she was raped by Ched Evans. 1) The prosecution demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the victim to intoxicated to consent 2) The prosecution demonstrated that the basis that we only have Ched Evans word for it that 'it was reasonable for him to have believed her capable of consenting' 3) The Prosecution produced a witness that confirmed that there was a drunk girl in the room and that Evans 'was concerned about her state'. 4) Ched Evans admitted to having sex with the victim. 5) Ched Evans own actions prior to and after sex are sufficient that its reasonable to assume that he went there with intent to have sex. Whilst it is possible that Ched Evans maybe innocent, the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate rape beyond reasonable doubt. Its unreasonable to presume he is innocent. Particually as none of the 'evidence' as to his innocence actually deals with the issue of consent or demonstrates it reasonable for him to assume that he had consent by the actions of the victim. He had sex, she was too drunk to consent, his actions prior to the sexual encounter aren't sufficient to believe he it was reasonable for him to assume consent was valid. That's rape, at least in the legal definition of establishing sex, consent and the validity of consent. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Jan 15 3.11pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 09 Jan 2015 11.44am

Quote Mapletree at 08 Jan 2015 9.24pm

No, your point is stupid. If you are correct they were both guilty and not innocent. So how can they both of been 'had'? It's just Donaldson just about got away with it.

If she wasn't raped but intended both to be convicted for her financial gain then she had tricked both....Hence, 'had'.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of the judgement. The idea that you can imply consent from minutes before intercourse takes place when you aren't there.

This girl says she wasn't aware what was going on.....How can that be consent? I'm pointing out the illogical and arrogant nature of the assumption.

It's stupid. Consent can't be counted upon unless you are actually there.....It's a guess. No one can state that a girl reasonably agrees to sexual intercourse unless they are the girl themself or they are watching it.

This girl said neither had consent.....The court delivered the most illogical judgement possible......They convicted one and freed another based purely on assumption.

What is far more likely to me is that she was either genuinely raped or she has lied for gain.

I cannot know which is actually true but I suspect from what I gather that this isn't a safe conviction.

Those who claim with confidence to know that this girl was definitely raped are in my view way over confident in their assumptions.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2015 11.49am)

Its beyond reasonable doubt that she was raped by Ched Evans.

1) The prosecution demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the victim to intoxicated to consent
2) The prosecution demonstrated that the basis that we only have Ched Evans word for it that 'it was reasonable for him to have believed her capable of consenting'
3) The Prosecution produced a witness that confirmed that there was a drunk girl in the room and that Evans 'was concerned about her state'.
4) Ched Evans admitted to having sex with the victim.
5) Ched Evans own actions prior to and after sex are sufficient that its reasonable to assume that he went there with intent to have sex.

Whilst it is possible that Ched Evans maybe innocent, the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate rape beyond reasonable doubt.

Its unreasonable to presume he is innocent. Particually as none of the 'evidence' as to his innocence actually deals with the issue of consent or demonstrates it reasonable for him to assume that he had consent by the actions of the victim.

He had sex, she was too drunk to consent, his actions prior to the sexual encounter aren't sufficient to believe he it was reasonable for him to assume consent was valid.

That's rape, at least in the legal definition of establishing sex, consent and the validity of consent.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 13 of 32 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Ched Evans saga part ???

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors