dezgimed Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Steve Bruce: "I might be upsetting people but there is a question of the rape and how he's been convicted by a jury," said Bruce. "When you look at the evidence, it is there for appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Steve Bruce: "I might be upsetting people but there is a question of the rape and how he's been convicted by a jury," said Bruce. "When you look at the evidence, it is there for appeal. Steve Bruce. What a complete and utter Arsenal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I don't believe he's trying for a retrial, he's trying to get the verdict quashed on unsafe grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 12 jurors who sat through every second of the trial disagreed with that assessment RR and had it been an issue they would have so directed by the trial judge. 12 jurors also convicted Barry George on evidence so hilariously flimsy, I'm genuinely amazed the CPS had the gall to stand up and present it. Anyway, I can't speak for the Evans case jurors, I'm just saying were I there I don't think I'd be able to say BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that she didn't consent and Evans knew that she didn't. I think he is probably guilty, but, you know, probably isn't good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Just had this website emailed round at work. Probably because of the amount of attention the issue of consent is getting at the moment. This is why the jury found Ched Evans guilty, and this is what he needs to take on board, EVEN IF he himself thinks he is innocent. http://pauseplaystop.org.uk/the-law/ The law recognises that a person might not have sufficient capacity because of their age or because of a mental disorder. The amount someone has had to drink or the drugs they have can also affect their ability to consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 12 jurors also convicted Barry George on evidence so hilariously flimsy, I'm genuinely amazed the CPS had the gall to stand up and present it. Anyway, I can't speak for the Evans case jurors, I'm just saying were I there I don't think I'd be able to say BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that she didn't consent and Evans knew that she didn't. I think he is probably guilty, but, you know, probably isn't good enough. Are you are suggesting that 12 jurors didn't have the wit to understand what 'beyond reasonable doubt means'?, if only the 12 jurors who sat through every second of a case and saw every bit of evidence, were as good as you. Also The George case unravelled after conviction, when it became obvious that Police officers had almost certainly planted evidence, it is totally different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 How did she consent to the first guy then? If she was massively intoxicated but says oh no I wanted to sleep with the first guy, but we're saying she was too intoxicated to make an informed decision as to sleep with the second guy, sounds like a massive contradiction to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 How did she consent to the first guy then? If she was massively intoxicated but says oh no I wanted to sleep with the first guy, but we're saying she was too intoxicated to make an informed decision as to sleep with the second guy, sounds like a massive contradiction to me. I keep saying this. She went back to the room with the first bloke, so the jury took that as a sign of consent. Evans turned up afterwards and she had not gone back with him, hence the guilty verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Just had this website emailed round at work. Probably because of the amount of attention the issue of consent is getting at the moment. This is why the jury found Ched Evans guilty, and this is what he needs to take on board, EVEN IF he himself thinks he is innocent.http://pauseplaystop.org.uk/the-law/ But that doesn't make any difference to the fact that the jurors had to decide whether she was incapacitated from being able to make a decision because of drink and whether Ched Evans knew that. Anyway, it's all a bit pointless Otibers arguing about it isn't it. He's been convicted and barring a suprise legal development he won't be playing football for the foreseeable future. The furore will eventually subside. The FA could introduce a lot of clarity by making rules over the kind of people allowed to play professional football. The whole affair has brought terrible publicity for the sport in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 How did she consent to the first guy then? If she was massively intoxicated but says oh no I wanted to sleep with the first guy, but we're saying she was too intoxicated to make an informed decision as to sleep with the second guy, sounds like a massive contradiction to me. How did Evans claim that Mcdonald was there when she consented to him but Mcdonald says he wasn't?, sounds like a massive contradiction to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I keep saying this. She went back to the room with the first bloke, so the jury took that as a sign of consent. Evans turned up afterwards and she had not gone back with him, hence the guilty verdict. That doesn't mean when Evans turned up she didn't consent. Just because he wasn't in attendance to get to the hotel. The whole point is that she is either able to make an informed decision or she isn't. If she was completely out of it and it was just McDonald and Evans never appeared, why isn't it rape still? No consistency at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 if only the 12 jurors who sat through every second of a case and saw every bit of evidence, were as good as you. It's a personal view, Es. If you'd sat through as many court cases as me, you'd have the same jaundiced view of our wonderful legal system and the wisdom of jurors as I have. Anyway, as I say,it matters not a jot what I think. The bloke's not going to play at any club, which is what this thread was about. And personally I don't think a convicted rapist should play professional football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 It's a personal view, Es. If you'd sat through as many court cases as me, you'd have the same jaundiced view of our wonderful legal system and the wisdom of jurors as I have. Anyway, as I say,it matters not a jot what I think. The bloke's not going to play at any club, which is what this thread was about. And personally I don't think a convicted rapist should play professional football. why don't you try out Egypt or Russa's legal system then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 It's a personal view, Es. If you'd sat through as many court cases as me, you'd have the same jaundiced view of our wonderful legal system and the wisdom of jurors as I have. Anyway, as I say,it matters not a jot what I think. The bloke's not going to play at any club, which is what this thread was about. And personally I don't think a convicted rapist should play professional football. HTF can you know that? and it's totally incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Also Dolly when I presented the scenario before that if I went into town and found a pissed up girl and took her home and slept with her, you said it would be classed as rape. That is what McDonald did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Also Dolly when I presented the scenario before that if I went into town and found a pissed up girl and took her home and slept with her, you said it would be classed as rape. That is what McDonald did. This isn't just about the consent of the victim. Read the definition of rape and you might understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 This isn't just about the consent of the victim. Read the definition of rape and you might understand. What Fordy said Dez, we're going round in circles here, you just don't get it, so i'm done trying to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 HTF can you know that? and it's totally incorrect. Htf can I know I've sat through lots of court cases? Errrrrr.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 why don't you try out Egypt or Russa's legal system then? What a fatuous comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Htf can I know I've sat through lots of court cases? Errrrrr.... Interesting... Solicitor? Usher? Barrister? Judge? Police officer? Clerk? Legal rep? Security officer? Press? Serial juror? Have I exhausted all options? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Interesting... Solicitor? Usher? Barrister? Judge? Police officer? Clerk? Legal rep? Security officer? Press? Serial juror? Have I exhausted all options? Court reporter and on two separate occasions jury service. My point is that juries don't always get it right, and as a police officer I expect you'll be even more aware of that than me. I'm not sure why Es is going off on one though, one thing we all agree on is that we have to accept the court's decision and treat Evans accordingly. In my view he has forfeited the right to play professional football in the UK, but I don't feel the need to belittle or stigmatise those that disagree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 This isn't just about the consent of the victim. Read the definition of rape and you might understand. "The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will" Per the Oxford dictionary. So against their will and consent isn't the same thing then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Court reporter and on two separate occasions jury service. My point is that juries don't always get it right, and as a police officer I expect you'll be even more aware of that than me. I'm not sure why Es is going off on one though, one thing we all agree on is that we have to accept the court's decision and treat Evans accordingly. In my view he has forfeited the right to play professional football in the UK, but I don't feel the need to belittle or stigmatise those that disagree with me. I think that our justice system is the best in the world. By a long shot. I had the privilege of seeing some things I'd never seen last week and while you'll understand that I cannot go into detail, you'd be amazed at what tools the police have when things go seriously wrong. Hence why our record at convicting murderers is so good. I think that juries can get things wrong, but there are tens of thousands of trials every year so it's bound to happen. incidentally I don't think they got this one wrong. I don't think he's given up his right to be a footballer, I'm very much on the being able to carry on camp, but probably not while on license. However, the paying fans have the right to have a say and anyone suggesting this shouldn't be the case is as wrong as those suggesting Evans isn't a rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 "The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will" Per the Oxford dictionary. So against their will and consent isn't the same thing then? No. You need to look up the legal definition. Stand by. I'll find it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Ah ok so per part C, it's reasonable for McDonald to think he had consent as she went with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 So for Rape to be committed, sections a, b and c need to be made out. Agreed? Section a. Check. Section b. You'll need to read the part about evidential presumptions, but check. Section c. The only part that differs between between Evans and McDonald. Hence the verdict. McDonald - not made out. Evans - check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Ah ok so per part C, it's reasonable for McDonald to think he had consent as she went with him? That's the one. It's the only thing that differs between the two men. Not that I agree, but there's only one reason you go back to a hotel with a random. But that random wasn't Evans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 That's the one. It's the only thing that differs between the two men. Not that I agree, but there's only one reason you go back to a hotel with a random. But that random wasn't Evans. So back to my original argument with Dolly last month where she insisted I would be a rapist in that scenario, she stands corrected. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.