Ched Evans (Again)

[WTFiGO!?!]

The hardest part about discussing these subjects is some people are so opinionated yet either don't actually know what happened (I appreciate none of us know everything the jury does, but at least familiarise yourself with the facts that are in the public domain first) or chose to exaggerate to gain effect.

Iv quoted yours, as there's a few points you got wrong, but there are so many throughout this thread.

Fair enough, the truth is that everything I wrote in that post I believed to be fact (or stated it was guesswork) through familiarising my self with the case best I reasonably could. I certainly DID NOT fabricate any of it, I formed that post from what I had read.

Perhaps you could give us a summary of the most important facts that are in the public domain?

[WTFiGO!?!]

Also, just like to say that there are no winners here (apart from rivals of Sheffield Utd).

[MarcusX]

If someone deliberately takes advantage of an inebriated girl and has sex with her, that's disgusting and I do not condone that in any way. If that's indeed what happened in this case, then he deserves what he got. But I believe that society is on very thin ice if every time a woman gets drunk and a man has sex with her (when he might well be pretty inebriated himself), his whole life should be destroyed because he is now a 'sex beast' and can never work again.

As Dez said as well, going out with the sole intent of raping someone is very different to pulling a girl on a night out, going back to yours/theirs and having sex - then her regretting the next day (it does happen unfortunately!!) and that person getting arrested. Although I would imagine very few of these cases get even as far as court let alone a prosecution.

I have seen first hand what happens when some one is wrongly accused. Perhaps that's why I see the potential other side of the coin.

Think this will be my last post on the subject anyway. I think Evans is stupid for what he did, but I also think at the time he didn't think he was doing anything wrong. He's been convicted because the law says he has to prove he had consent, rather than her prove she didn't - and because she was drunk and doesn't remember and he turned up later there's no proof.

If I was in his shoes (believing I'm innocent) I would have come out and apologised anyway because clearly regardless of what he thinks he has caused distress to several people. I think people would have taken more kindly to him playing again had he done so.

I do think he should be allowed to continue playing, there's a precedent set by allowing ex-cons to continue in the game - king, Hughes, McCormick the more serious ones, so no need to make an example of him. However, he's gonna get hell wherever he goes from the stands.

[phantom]

I do think he should be allowed to continue playing, there's a precedent set by allowing ex-cons to continue in the game - king, Hughes, McCormick the more serious ones, so no need to make an example of him. However, he's gonna get hell wherever he goes from the stands.

 

Not sure that he should be allowed, bearing in mind his influence on the local community / supporters etc. I've already heard people on the train to Swindon last Saturday JOKING about what he did, and talking of "doing a Ched" - so clearly some people do see this all differently

 

Personally speaking I know that if I get a conviction of ANY kind, I would lose my job and never be able to work in the same line of work again.

I'm sure Ched (or any footballer) would understand if they were convicted of something as severe as rape would know the same ... why should a footballer be treated differently?

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

Blimey- this thread still going? Anyone said anything new?

 

 

Blimey- this thread still going? Anyone said anything new?

[Super]

Blimey- this thread still going? Anyone said anything new?

 

Nope he's still a Rapist.

[IdliketoRogerMoore]

Dolly if I pull a girl in town, go back to her house, both drunk, we have sex, then the next morning she cries rape as she was drunk. That is very much an accident I assure you.

I expect it happens alot.

same scenario then dez! Then your mate jumps in a bed after and she has passed out does his business with his brother and another man filming at a window then you leave via the fire escape!

If that is not rape then I don't know what is!

[dezgimed]

same scenario then dez! Then your mate jumps in a bed after and she has passed out does his business with his brother and another man filming at a window then you leave via the fire escape!

If that is not rape then I don't know what is!

 

You were there were you? She wasn't passed out by the account of the hotel worker listening. 

[Vincent Vega]

What's worrying is a few on here are unclear what rape actually is 

[Vincent Vega]

You were there were you? She wasn't passed out by the account of the hotel worker li

[IdliketoRogerMoore]

You were there were you? She wasn't passed out by the account of the hotel worker listening.

those are facts of the case! The other big point I missed out his ched the saviour of women's rights said in his sworn statement to the courts that macdonald was there when she gave consent!

Macdonald in his sworn statement to the courts basically said " nah mate dunno what u is talking about innit"

[dezgimed]

those are facts of the case! The other big point I missed out his ched the saviour of women's rights said in his sworn statement to the courts that macdonald was there when she gave consent!

Macdonald in his sworn statement to the courts basically said " nah mate dunno what u is talking about innit"

 

I'm not aware and haven't read anywhere that she was unconscious. Obviously that is a whole different ball game. All the reports I read was that she was very drunk, on drugs etc, but awake. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

As Dez said as well, going out with the sole intent of raping someone is very different to pulling a girl on a night out, going back to yours/theirs and having sex - then her regretting the next day (it does happen unfortunately!!) and that person getting arrested. Although I would imagine very few of these cases get even as far as court let alone a prosecution.

I have seen first hand what happens when some one is wrongly accused. Perhaps that's why I see the potential other side of the coin.

Think this will be my last post on the subject anyway. I think Evans is stupid for what he did, but I also think at the time he didn't think he was doing anything wrong. He's been convicted because the law says he has to prove he had consent, rather than her prove she didn't - and because she was drunk and doesn't remember and he turned up later there's no proof.

If I was in his shoes (believing I'm innocent) I would have come out and apologised anyway because clearly regardless of what he thinks he has caused distress to several people. I think people would have taken more kindly to him playing again had he done so.

I do think he should be allowed to continue playing, there's a precedent set by allowing ex-cons to continue in the game - king, Hughes, McCormick the more serious ones, so no need to make an example of him. However, he's gonna get hell wherever he goes from the stands.

 

So you don't believe that deliberately setting out to find an incredibly drunk female for their sordid little game might have had some bearing on the outcome?, what I love is that you believe that all of the onus is on the female in this case and the 2 blokes and their 2 cameramen were trapped into what happened and just did what blokes do, one day sadly some if not all of these blokes will be fathers themselves, I wonder if their view about women will change then? and please don't try the pathetic excuse that they will bring their daughters up better because clearly the evidence is that they won't.

[AshtonGreat]

So you don't believe that deliberately setting out to find an incredibly drunk female for their sordid little game might have had some bearing on the outcome?, what I love is that you believe that all of the onus is on the female in this case and the 2 blokes and their 2 cameramen were trapped into what happened and just did what blokes do, one day sadly some if not all of these blokes will be fathers themselves, I wonder if their view about women will change then? and please don't try the pathetic excuse that they will bring their daughters up better because clearly the evidence is that they won't.

I may be wrong but I was of the impression that it was the girl who approached them.

[Vincent Vega]

I may be wrong but I was of the impression that it was the girl who approached them.

You are wrong,

[LondonBristolian]

Think this will be my last post on the subject anyway. I think Evans is stupid for what he did, but I also think at the time he didn't think he was doing anything wrong. He's been convicted because the law says he has to prove he had consent, rather than her prove she didn't - and because she was drunk and doesn't remember and he turned up later there's no proof.

 

 

Minor but important point.  That's not how the law works at all.  In a UK court the burden is always on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant broke the law, not for the defendant to prove he is innocent.  The result of this is that, in a rape trial the law actually forces the victim and the legal team representing her interests to prove she did not consent.  If there is any reasonable suspicion that she may have consented then the jury must acquit the accused.  This is the precise reason why rape convictions are so hard to secure.

 

The point of this here is that he has been convicted because the jury heard the evidence and were convinced she did not give meaningful consent to sex.  Any idea that it was because there is no proof and the jury convicted on balance on probabilities is a misunderstanding of how the UK legal system works.

 

Where I do agree with you is that the lack of apology is a major issue.  I for one don't have any problem with criminals being rehabilitated after serving thier sentece.  But, to be rehabilitated, they must show remorse and take responsibility for their actions.  I appreciate that Evans does not feel he did anything wrong - although, to my mind, even if his his version of events is true it does not rule out the possibility that he is guilty of rape - and he has every legal right to pursue an appeal through appropriate legal channels.  What he and his supporters do not have the right to do, in my view, is set up a website blaming the victim and trying to undermine the validity of the trial and her testimony in the court of public opinion.  It is that, combined with his pathetic and needless excuse for an apology that failed to even acknowledge what he has done, that has done all the damage in my eyes.

 

Unless he takes responsibility for his actions, or at the very least confines his appeal to the court of law where it should be and stops using the internet to denigrate and demean his victim - as she must be considered in the eyes of the law - then how can he possibly be seen to be seeking rehabilitation or redemption?

[Red-Robbo]

Minor but important point.  That's not how the law works at all.  In a UK court the burden is always on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant broke the law, not for the defendant to prove he is innocent.  The result of this is that, in a rape trial the law actually forces the victim and the legal team representing her interests to prove she did not consent.  If there is any reasonable suspicion that she may have consented then the jury must acquit the accused.  This is the precise reason why rape convictions are so hard to secure.

 

The point of this here is that he has been convicted because the jury heard the evidence and were convinced she did not give meaningful consent to sex.  Any idea that it was because there is no proof and the jury convicted on balance on probabilities is a misunderstanding of how the UK legal system works.

 

Where I do agree with you is that the lack of apology is a major issue.  I for one don't have any problem with criminals being rehabilitated after serving thier sentece.  But, to be rehabilitated, they must show remorse and take responsibility for their actions.  I appreciate that Evans does not feel he did anything wrong - although, to my mind, even if his his version of events is true it does not rule out the possibility that he is guilty of rape - and he has every legal right to pursue an appeal through appropriate legal channels.  What he and his supporters do not have the right to do, in my view, is set up a website blaming the victim and trying to undermine the validity of the trial and her testimony in the court of public opinion.  It is that, combined with his pathetic and needless excuse for an apology that failed to even acknowledge what he has done, that has done all the damage in my eyes.

 

Unless he takes responsibility for his actions, or at the very least confines his appeal to the court of law where it should be and stops using the internet to denigrate and demean his victim - as she must be considered in the eyes of the law - then how can he possibly be seen to be seeking rehabilitation or redemption?

 

 

Why confine yourself to Evans though. Why not condemn everyone banged up who considers themselves the victim of a miscarriage of justice?

 

As I understand it, Evans has acknowledged that his behaviour that night was vile and has apologised to his girlfriend for infidelity and general stupidity, but of course he maintains the girl was consenting.

 

As he's been found guilty in a court of law, we have to accept he IS a rapist, however, as I've said before there are several troubling factors in the case, that would give me pause for thought were I a juror hearing it. (And usually, I'm a 'string em up!' sort!)

 

A) No-one disputes that the girl was drunk. as were the footballers if it comes to that. But the verdict suggests that she became MORE intoxicated (and thus less able to give consent) as time went on. Basic toxicology suggests you sober up with time, not vice versa. 

 

B) No-one witnessed the sex other than Evans and the victim. Jurors had to decide on the basis of no supporting evidence other than how drunk she was earlier in the evening when she went back to McDonald's hotel room, just how drunk she was when Evans entered the room. No-one would dispute she regretted what went on, but we've all done things we regret when a bit drunk. The jury decided she couldn't even declare her lack of interest in Evans, due to being so drunk. Tough call unless you were there, I'd have thought.

 

C) The crime wasn't reported for many days, until after someone who'd learned of the incident called the victim a slag. This upset her, she told the story to her mum, and they went to the police. 

 

None of those points prove Evans's innocence, that's not what I'm saying at all, but they are all troubling aspects to the case. This isn't some bloke appearing in a burgled house with a hood saying rapist, it's less cut and dried. There is a possibility that the legal system got it wrong. If that happened, why would you expect anyone to apologise?

[LondonBristolian]

Why confine yourself to Evans though. Why not condemn everyone banged up who considers themselves the victim of a miscarriage of justice?

 

I'm not condeming anyone.  But, as you say he's been found guilty in a court of law and - unless he appeals successfully - we have to assume he is guilty.  It's not impossible he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice but I see no reason to assume that simply because he says he is.  But ultimately that's not my decision to make.  There are legal channels for appeals and ways and means to lobby MPs for changes in the law if those legal channels are insufficient.  But, as a bystander and a member of the publlic, I can only really act on the basis of the jury's decision - particularly as I see little flawed about it.

 

As I understand it, Evans has acknowledged that his behaviour that night was vile and has apologised to his girlfriend for infidelity and general stupidity, but of course he maintains the girl was consenting.

 

I've not heard Evans say his behaviour was vile - the only thing he seems to have said he has done wrong was ceated on his girlfriend.

 

As he's been found guilty in a court of law, we have to accept he IS a rapist, however, as I've said before there are several troubling factors in the case, that would give me pause for thought were I a juror hearing it. (And usually, I'm a 'string em up!' sort!)

 

A) No-one disputes that the girl was drunk. as were the footballers if it comes to that. But the verdict suggests that she became MORE intoxicated (and thus less able to give consent) as time went on. Basic toxicology suggests you sober up with time, not vice versa. 

 

Does it, though?  A few years ago when I was at university a friend of mine drank rather a lot of absinthe.  He was doing alright until he ran for a taxi at which point it suddenly began to really affect him.  And, though he stopped drinking, he got a bit worse at the night went on.  Alchol takes time to travel into your system and through your blood stream.  Depending on what you drank and when, it's anything but impossible to get more intoxicated a while after drinking before beginning to sober up.  And it's not at all possible that the fact she had engaged in physical activity with the first defendant could have had an impact.

 

B) No-one witnessed the sex other than Evans and the victim. Jurors had to decide on the basis of no supporting evidence other than how drunk she was earlier in the evening when she went back to McDonald's hotel room, just how drunk she was when Evans entered the room. No-one would dispute she regretted what went on, but we've all done things we regret when a bit drunk. The jury decided she couldn't even declare her lack of interest in Evans, due to being so drunk. Tough call unless you were there, I'd have thought.

 

Which is precisely why rape is such a difficult crime to convict for.  But, as I understand it,the jury would also have had testimonies from experts, forensic evidence and the witness statements (notably the discrepancies between Evans' account and his co-defendant) to draw upon.  Rape convictions are always going to struggle due to the "his word vs hers" aspect and it's a simple fact that the UK legal system - with its burden of proof set at beyond reasonable doubt - will always favour the defendant in cases of doubt.  The fact the jury still managed to convict in spite of this actually shows the strengh of the supporting evidence, not its weakness.

 

C) The crime wasn't reported for many days, until after someone who'd learned of the incident called the victim a slag. This upset her, she told the story to her mum, and they went to the police. 

 

That's very sad but not an uncommon feature of rape trials.

 

None of those points prove Evans's innocence, that's not what I'm saying at all, but they are all troubling aspects to the case. This isn't some bloke appearing in a burgled house with a hood saying rapist, it's less cut and dried. There is a possibility that the legal system got it wrong. If that happened, why would you expect anyone to apologise?

 

None of those points even suggest Evans' innocence, let alone prove it.  They suggest it is a hard case to convict, as rape trails frequently are. 

 

Again I don't necessarily expect Evans to apologise, though I think he would have done himself a favour if he had.  I expect him to pursue an appeal down appropriate channels and not say anything or create any website that tries to sway any future jury or potentially puts him in contempt of court.  He hasn't managed that.

[Red-Robbo]

 

 

 

I'm not sure he has an appeal left. He appealed against conviction, was denied and another hearing denied him the possibility of taking an appeal to the Supreme Court. He could pursue a civil claim, I suppose, but that's an expensive option which would no doubt inflame the furore rather than calm it.

 

You have a touching faith in the wisdom of juries, is all I'd say from your comments. One that a cynical old observer of the legal system like myself no longer has. 

[LondonBristolian]

I'm not sure he has an appeal left. He appealed against conviction, was denied and another hearing denied him the possibility of taking an appeal to the Supreme Court. He could pursue a civil claim, I suppose, but that's an expensive option which would no doubt inflame the furore rather than calm it.

 

You have a touching faith in the wisdom of juries, is all I'd say from your comments. One that a cynical old observer of the legal system like myself no longer has. 

 

I'm a realistic about the fact the juries are far from perfect but realistically they're all we've got and we can either assume they're probably right and act on that basis or assume every conviction is wrong, which would just get exhausting.  And to be honest Ched Evans was a rich man with an expensive team of lawyers being tried for an offence where it's notoriously difficult to secure a conviction in a case where the circumstances meant it was impossible for the victim to give evidence.  Literally everything was skewed in his favour yet still he wasn't able to prove his innocence.  I don't doubt miscarriages of justice occur but I don't see any real reason to see this as a case where that's likely to have happened.

[AshtonGreat]

Why confine yourself to Evans though. Why not condemn everyone banged up who considers themselves the victim of a miscarriage of justice?

 

As I understand it, Evans has acknowledged that his behaviour that night was vile and has apologised to his girlfriend for infidelity and general stupidity, but of course he maintains the girl was consenting.

 

As he's been found guilty in a court of law, we have to accept he IS a rapist, however, as I've said before there are several troubling factors in the case, that would give me pause for thought were I a juror hearing it. (And usually, I'm a 'string em up!' sort!)

 

A) No-one disputes that the girl was drunk. as were the footballers if it comes to that. But the verdict suggests that she became MORE intoxicated (and thus less able to give consent) as time went on. Basic toxicology suggests you sober up with time, not vice versa. 

 

B) No-one witnessed the sex other than Evans and the victim. Jurors had to decide on the basis of no supporting evidence other than how drunk she was earlier in the evening when she went back to McDonald's hotel room, just how drunk she was when Evans entered the room. No-one would dispute she regretted what went on, but we've all done things we regret when a bit drunk. The jury decided she couldn't even declare her lack of interest in Evans, due to being so drunk. Tough call unless you were there, I'd have thought.

 

C) The crime wasn't reported for many days, until after someone who'd learned of the incident called the victim a slag. This upset her, she told the story to her mum, and they went to the police. 

 

None of those points prove Evans's innocence, that's not what I'm saying at all, but they are all troubling aspects to the case. This isn't some bloke appearing in a burgled house with a hood saying rapist, it's less cut and dried. There is a possibility that the legal system got it wrong. If that happened, why would you expect anyone to apologise?

Point C is very interesting

[Red-Robbo]

I'm a realistic about the fact the juries are far from perfect but realistically they're all we've got and we can either assume they're probably right and act on that basis or assume every conviction is wrong, which would just get exhausting. And to be honest Ched Evans was a rich man with an expensive team of lawyers being tried for an offence where it's notoriously difficult to secure a conviction in a case where the circumstances meant it was impossible for the victim to give evidence. Literally everything was skewed in his favour yet still he wasn't able to prove his innocence. I don't doubt miscarriages of justice occur but I don't see any real reason to see this as a case where that's likely to have happened.

The point is moot anyway, as we'll probably never know.

It would be best for him to pursue a career outside the UK, or in a "backroom " capacity within this country.

That would be my answer to the original question of this thread.

[phantom]

This is not going to go away in a hurry.

This paints Sheffield United in a poor light to me

http://news.sky.com/story/1377873/sheffield-utd-chairman-angry-over-evans-exit

[MarcusX]

So you don't believe that deliberately setting out to find an incredibly drunk female for their sordid little game might have had some bearing on the outcome?, what I love is that you believe that all of the onus is on the female in this case and the 2 blokes and their 2 cameramen were trapped into what happened and just did what blokes do, one day sadly some if not all of these blokes will be fathers themselves, I wonder if their view about women will change then? and please don't try the pathetic excuse that they will bring their daughters up better because clearly the evidence is that they won't.

I wasn't going to reply, but another reply without full fact, or at least a twist on the actual events. (As per the case notes that are available online)

Where is it said that they went out with that intention? The fact of the case is she approached McDonald whilst he waited for a taxi. Infact, whilst she was stumbling about in the kebab place both Evans and McDonald ignored her.

I don't believe the onus is on the girl at all, however as had been said many times the main focus of the case appears to be was the girl too drunk to consent. Without being there at the time, how can anyone say for certain one way or another?

Obviously he has been found guilty in a court of law so the jury were convinced she wasn't.

As for the people videoing the incident, can that really be his fault? Unfortunately some lads think it's amusing when one brings a girl back to the hotel/on holiday etc to prat about, try and watch etc. obviously that is wrong but it's usually not done with any ill intent.

[Kid in the Riot]

I'm a realistic about the fact the juries are far from perfect but realistically they're all we've got and we can either assume they're probably right and act on that basis or assume every conviction is wrong, which would just get exhausting.  And to be honest Ched Evans was a rich man with an expensive team of lawyers being tried for an offence where it's notoriously difficult to secure a conviction in a case where the circumstances meant it was impossible for the victim to give evidence.  Literally everything was skewed in his favour yet still he wasn't able to prove his innocence.  I don't doubt miscarriages of justice occur but I don't see any real reason to see this as a case where that's likely to have happened.

 

Agree with that.

 

Point C is very interesting

 

Not in the slightest. It's very common for people to report crimes days/weeks/years after the incident has taken place, particularly crimes of a sexual nature as has been well illustrated in the Savile etc etc cases of late.

[MarcusX]

Minor but important point. That's not how the law works at all. In a UK court the burden is always on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant broke the law, not for the defendant to prove he is innocent. The result of this is that, in a rape trial the law actually forces the victim and the legal team representing her interests to prove she did not consent. If there is any reasonable suspicion that she may have consented then the jury must acquit the accused. This is the precise reason why rape convictions are so hard to secure.

The point of this here is that he has been convicted because the jury heard the evidence and were convinced she did not give meaningful consent to sex. Any idea that it was because there is no proof and the jury convicted on balance on probabilities is a misunderstanding of how the UK legal system works.

Where I do agree with you is that the lack of apology is a major issue. I for one don't have any problem with criminals being rehabilitated after serving thier sentece. But, to be rehabilitated, they must show remorse and take responsibility for their actions. I appreciate that Evans does not feel he did anything wrong - although, to my mind, even if his his version of events is true it does not rule out the possibility that he is guilty of rape - and he has every legal right to pursue an appeal through appropriate legal channels. What he and his supporters do not have the right to do, in my view, is set up a website blaming the victim and trying to undermine the validity of the trial and her testimony in the court of public opinion. It is that, combined with his pathetic and needless excuse for an apology that failed to even acknowledge what he has done, that has done all the damage in my eyes.

Unless he takes responsibility for his actions, or at the very least confines his appeal to the court of law where it should be and stops using the internet to denigrate and demean his victim - as she must be considered in the eyes of the law - then how can he possibly be seen to be seeking rehabilitation or redemption?

I appreciate that's how it *should* work, but it doesn't appear to be the way it has worked. I can only think there must have been a key piece of information given in court that hasn't been made public - because surely from the FACTS (not opinion of legality or morality) that are available there is no way anyone can be sure she didn't consent?

An expert even gave evidence to suggest that the girl was possibly lying about not remembering the events, and it's been said that she has a "habit" of claiming not to remember her nights out.

I agree that the way he has gone about defending himself is damaging to his reputation and as I said before he should have at least apologised because regardless of his opinion he IS guilty. However I guess if you genuinely believe you are innocent you'll do anything to get your point out there wouldn't you?

I still don't agree that he shouldn't be allowed to play purely because he has a conviction. There are already ex-cons in our game! If he was the first I could understand the public outcry, but he isn't.

[MarcusX]

Why confine yourself to Evans though. Why not condemn everyone banged up who considers themselves the victim of a miscarriage of justice?

As I understand it, Evans has acknowledged that his behaviour that night was vile and has apologised to his girlfriend for infidelity and general stupidity, but of course he maintains the girl was consenting.

As he's been found guilty in a court of law, we have to accept he IS a rapist, however, as I've said before there are several troubling factors in the case, that would give me pause for thought were I a juror hearing it. (And usually, I'm a 'string em up!' sort!)

A) No-one disputes that the girl was drunk. as were the footballers if it comes to that. But the verdict suggests that she became MORE intoxicated (and thus less able to give consent) as time went on. Basic toxicology suggests you sober up with time, not vice versa.

B) No-one witnessed the sex other than Evans and the victim. Jurors had to decide on the basis of no supporting evidence other than how drunk she was earlier in the evening when she went back to McDonald's hotel room, just how drunk she was when Evans entered the room. No-one would dispute she regretted what went on, but we've all done things we regret when a bit drunk. The jury decided she couldn't even declare her lack of interest in Evans, due to being so drunk. Tough call unless you were there, I'd have thought.

C) The crime wasn't reported for many days, until after someone who'd learned of the incident called the victim a slag. This upset her, she told the story to her mum, and they went to the police.

Not sure where that's come from? It's not the official story though. At no point did she make a claim of rape against her. She woke up in the hotel room unaware of how she got there, and without her bag. She called the police because she thought it had been stolen, the police checked the room details and therefore called McDonald and Evans in for questioning. It was their statements that brought to the police attention the events in the room. I would imagine McDonald and Evans shared their story and the girl probably did receive abuse - though that isn't what sent her to the police originally. (The cynic in me says this abuse, plus the thoughts of her mother, may have lead her to Pursue a rape claim - but I'm not allowed to say that!)

None of those points prove Evans's innocence, that's not what I'm saying at all, but they are all troubling aspects to the case. This isn't some bloke appearing in a burgled house with a hood saying rapist, it's less cut and dried. There is a possibility that the legal system got it wrong. If that happened, why would you expect anyone to apologise?

[Sir Colby-Tit]

I still can't see how one persons word against another's can result in a conviction because of the "beyond reasonable doubt" law. I would have thought that every jury member must have a doubt, to varying degrees, and that it's reasonable to have that doubt.

 

"Rapist" is an extremely evocative word, and crimes like Evans just can't be compared to stranger rape, which psychologists will tell you is all about power over an individual rather than the sex itself. The term rape originally meant take by force.

 

The psychological damage to victims of the two just don't compare I would imagine. If Evans is guilty then yes, he is a scumbag and a deviant and deserved to do time. But carrying the term "rapist" is harsh as they're being put in the same bracket as dangerous, evil, psychopaths. Totally different crime IMO.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I wasn't going to reply, but another reply without full fact, or at least a twist on the actual events. (As per the case notes that are available online)

Where is it said that they went out with that intention? The fact of the case is she approached McDonald whilst he waited for a taxi. Infact, whilst she was stumbling about in the kebab place both Evans and McDonald ignored her.

I don't believe the onus is on the girl at all, however as had been said many times the main focus of the case appears to be was the girl too drunk to consent. Without being there at the time, how can anyone say for certain one way or another?

Obviously he has been found guilty in a court of law so the jury were convinced she wasn't.

As for the people videoing the incident, can that really be his fault? Unfortunately some lads think it's amusing when one brings a girl back to the hotel/on holiday etc to prat about, try and watch etc. obviously that is wrong but it's usually not done with any ill intent.

 

Where did you find this nonsense, Evans and Mcdonald were not even together, neither were in the kebab shop, 'the complainant seems to have wandered into his path', what do think the text Mcdonald sent to Evans meant "got a bird"?, (All this from court documents, not a propaganda site), did he mean "i've got a bird"? or "i've got a bird for us both"?, they deny looking for a target, the text suggests otherwise. 

 

The videoing part just underlines how sleazy the whole incident was, 1 guy picks up a girl, 3 mates just happen to turn up and one manages to get a pass key to get into the room 'uninvited'.

[Loco Rojo]

This is not going to go away in a hurry.

This paints Sheffield United in a poor light to me

http://news.sky.com/story/1377873/sheffield-utd-chairman-angry-over-evans-exit

I know, very strange to come out publicly and say something like that especially given public opinion on this. He doesn't paint himself well.

On another note, i wonder how long Evan's girlfriend will stick with him now it looks unlikely he'll be back playing football anytime soon.