Ched Evans Appeal

[Vincent Vega]

Had his rape conviction referred to the court of appeal    http://news.sky.com/story/1564189/ched-evans-conviction-referred-to-appeal-court

[Kid in the Riot]

New evidence that supports his case has come to light so it sounds like there is a very real chance his conviction will be quashed.

[Jesus]

Good. He's so innocent its madness. 

[Bs4Red]

After studying the case and reading lots of different things, I truly believe he is innocent and I hope once it is overturned (if so) I hope every single person who slated him apologises. Especially Jessica Ennis who went so far down in my estimation for her part in not allowing him to join Sheff u

[Buckeyed]

After studying the case and reading lots of different things, I truly believe he is innocent and I hope once it is overturned (if so) I hope every single person who slated him apologises. Especially Jessica Ennis who went so far down in my estimation for her part in not allowing him to join Sheff u

I am not sure if they do need to apologise.. he is currently officially a rapist, so to not want to be part of a club that would employ him is fair enough. I think if the appeal is successful the woman in question needs to face criminal charges.

P.S. After reading the notes, I too believe he is innocent.

[Bs4Red]

I am not sure if they do need to apologise.. he is currently officially a rapist, so to not want to be part of a club that would employ him is fair enough. I think if the appeal is successful the woman in question needs to face criminal charges.

P.S. After reading the notes, I too believe he is innocent.

Maybe you're right but I was just disappointed with the way everybody slated him and stopped him from trying to rebuild his life. I also believe he is very much innocent and I'm glad he hasn't apologised because if he doesn't think he is wrong he shouldn't.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

If this is overturned then good, having read his site many times, it all stank a bit for me, hope he is able to get on with his career afterwards and if he is truly innocent then he deserves some very humble apologies. 

'Truly innocent' is an interesting concept in this case.  The issue for the Appeals Court to decide is whether his conviction for rape is safe or not.  However, I have difficulty concluding that any footballer who has sex with a drunken woman while in a stable relationship with someone else can be regarded as 'truly innocent'.  If the Appeals Court overturns his conviction then he is a very lucky young man.  He may then be not guilty of the offence with which he was charged, but 'truly innocent'?  Sorry, not in my book.  Footballers and the like who think they can exert control over other people through their status and their wealth need to take a look at their behaviour, if you ask me. 

[Guest]

'Truly innocent' is an interesting concept in this case.  The issue for the Appeals Court to decide is whether his conviction for rape is safe or not.  However, I have difficulty concluding that any footballer who has sex with a drunken woman while in a stable relationship with someone else can be regarded as 'truly innocent'.  If the Appeals Court overturns his conviction then he is a very lucky young man.  He may then be not guilty of the offence with which he was charged, but 'truly innocent'?  Sorry, not in my book.  Footballers and the like who think they can exert control over other people through their status and their wealth need to take a look at their behaviour, if you ask me. 

That's a question of morality, not criminal culpability. If he is truly innocent of rape then I think him very unfortunate to have been labelled as such.

[BCFC Jimmer]

After studying the case and reading lots of different things, I truly believe he is innocent and I hope once it is overturned (if so) I hope every single person who slated him apologises. Especially Jessica Ennis who went so far down in my estimation for her part in not allowing him to join Sheff u

Good. He's so innocent its madness. 

Are you serious chaps?

Which piece of evidence makes him innocent beyond doubt? I have not seen any that's for sure.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

After studying the case and reading lots of different things, I truly believe he is innocent and I hope once it is overturned (if so) I hope every single person who slated him apologises. Especially Jessica Ennis who went so far down in my estimation for her part in not allowing him to join Sheff u

Firstly there is a long way to go before his conviction is or is not quashed and secondly and far more importantly your anger is firmly pointed in the wrong direction, if this 'new information' was not presented to the jury in the original trial then your anger should be turned upon his original defence team, who didn't do a very good job in the first place in either investigating and uncovering this 'new information' or if in possession of it not presenting it, probably the reason that he has new counsel.

 

[Major Isewater]

May be this is why we have n't signed another forward ! Wait for him to be cleared and Bingo .

[BRISTOL86]

May be this is why we have n't signed another forward ! Wait for him to be cleared and Bingo .

Can he play as a defensive midfielder? 

[LondonBristolian]

We'll see what happens.  Rape is a notoriously difficult crime to prove.  I have no idea whether he's guilty or innocent.  In truth, two people will ever know and at least one of those doesn't remember.  But, certainly, I think the burden of proof being beyond reasonable doubt means that it's very possible an appeals court will decide there's not sufficient reasonable doubt for him to be found guilty.  But, even if he is cleared, that doesn't prove innocence but proves insufficient proof of guilt which is an important but subtle difference.

If the conviction is overturned - and let's not pre-empt that until it happens - then clearly he should be allowed to rebuild his life in the manner of anyone who has not been convicted of a criminal offence.  But that won't change the fact that Jessica Ennis, and the others involved, were perfectly right to say it would have sent out a terrible image for football for a convicted rapist who had not shown remorse to be automatically re-employed by their club the moment they were released.

[Spoons]

After studying the case and reading lots of different things, I truly believe he is innocent and I hope once it is overturned (if so) I hope every single person who slated him apologises. Especially Jessica Ennis who went so far down in my estimation for her part in not allowing him to join Sheff u

innocent or guilty it wasn't Jessica Ennis who sent him to prison its called the British justice system. Democracy we should be proud of. How much we all read about it in the papers and articles the people on the jury would have had their reasons for sending him down. For me personally this case raises the issues of alcohol etc and consent. Lets see justice run its course in the appeal courts and await the outcome only then Is it appropriate to comment really.

 

 

 

[Guest]

Good. He's so innocent its madness. 

In the eyes of the law, at the moment he's a convicted rapist. So no, he's not innocent just yet.    He's already taken this to the court of appeal once and failed.

Even if he's aquitted, he's hardly an angel with regards to what happened that night anyway. I think even if aquitted he might find it very hard to get another football club in this country to employ him..

[Lrrr]

If he were to be found innocent would he have a case for suing someone for loss of earnings/wages? 

[Super]

Yes he's clearly innocent because he says so!

[Esmond Million's Bung]

If he were to be found innocent would he have a case for suing someone for loss of earnings/wages? 

Highly unlikely, new information that never came to light at the original trial cannot be considered a miscarriage of judgement.

 

[BRISTOL86]

I think even if aquitted he might find it very hard to get another football club in this country to employ him..

Which would actually be pretty unfair, if we're being honest.

Whilst his conduct that night was certainly not in tune with my own moral values, IF he is cleared and thus, ultimately, not a convicted criminal, should someone's moral values be brought into question in determining whether he should be able to gain employment in his profession?

There are a great deal of other examples of very successful and highly paid footballers whose morals are clearly not in tune with the average Joe (I'm thinking Wayne Rooney, John Terry et al) , but it doesn't hinder their ability to earn a living doing what they do.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

That's a question of morality, not criminal culpability.

Exactly.  My contribution was really about emphasis, as I think there is a huge difference in some cases between 'not guilty' and 'truly innocent'.  Of course it is important that the law is right as to his guilt in this case, but the notion of 'truly innocent' seems to me to imply that he has no moral culpability.

[Dollymarie]

Regardless of anything, she had still drunk too much to be able to consent

Here we go again  

[Guest]

Which would actually be pretty unfair, if we're being honest.

Whilst his conduct that night was certainly not in tune with my own moral values, IF he is cleared and thus, ultimately, not a convicted criminal, should someone's moral values be brought into question in determining whether he should be able to gain employment in his profession?

There are a great deal of other examples of very successful and highly paid footballers whose morals are clearly not in tune with the average Joe (I'm thinking Wayne Rooney, John Terry et al) , but it doesn't hinder their ability to earn a living doing what they do.

Oh I'm not saying it wouldn't be unfair, but I think that's what will happen. I guess with such a high profile and priveledged job though, these things may well happen.

This debate is going to rage on till the appeal and if his conviction is upheld it'll probably rage on a bit longer after that.

[BRISTOL86]

Oh I'm not saying it wouldn't be unfair, but I think that's what will happen. I guess with such a high profile and priveledged job though, these things may well happen.

This debate is going to rage on till the appeal and if his conviction is upheld it'll probably rage on a bit longer after that.

Yep, no doubt about that. Certainly no one coming out of it with any credit, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

[cityexile]

Regardless of anything, she had still drunk too much to be able to consent

Here we go again  

Yes and no. That is pretty established now in law, and the jury decided that she was to drunk to consent, and therefore he was guilty of rape. The basis of the appeal can only be new evidence that challenges this basic assumption, which if known by the jury at the time would have led them to a different decision. At least, that is what the Court of Appeal must now decide. 

I did not want a convicted rapist within a million miles of the club. Equally, if his conviction is over turned I need to be humble enough to accept it is then a different equation.

There is nothing that changes the law here. Sex with somebody whilst they are not in a position to give consent is, and remains rape.

I am also disappointed to read some claiming that if this is appeal is successful, the woman should face prosecution. She has never cried rape, simply that she could not remember what happened. Since then she has been vilified and chased from pillar to post. If anyone is undoubtedly 100% innocent of anything, right now it is her. That should also be respected, whatever the final outcome.

 

[Red-Robbo]

Yes and no. That is pretty established now in law, and the jury decided that she was to drunk to consent, and therefore he was guilty of rape. The basis of the appeal can only be new evidence that challenges this basic assumption, which if known by the jury at the time would have led them to a different decision. At least, that is what the Court of Appeal must now decide. 

I did not want a convicted rapist within a million miles of the club. Equally, if his conviction is over turned I need to be humble enough to accept it is then a different equation.

There is nothing that changes the law here. Sex with somebody whilst they are not in a position to give consent is, and remains rape.

I am also disappointed to read some claiming that if this is appeal is successful, the woman should face prosecution. She has never cried rape, simply that she could not remember what happened. Since then she has been vilified and chased from pillar to post. If anyone is undoubtedly 100% innocent of anything, right now it is her. That should also be respected, whatever the final outcome.

 

Re your last paragraph: I think it rather depends what this "new evidence"  is.

Since we don't know,  we aren't in a position to really comment.

On anything.  

 

[cityexile]

Re your last paragraph: I think it rather depends what this "new evidence"  is.

Since we don't know,  we aren't in a position to really comment.

On anything.  

 

 

I agree, hence why I used 'right now', but your conclusion is most likely the right one, right now.

[BS2 Red]

As things stand he is a rapist and I wouldn't want him anywhere near my club.

If new evidence comes to light and he is found innocent on appeal then there should be no reason for anybody to not want to employ him because of his history (obviously people might just think he isn't a good enough player!).

[BS4 on Tour...]

Good. He's so innocent its madness. 

Well, if he is found to be innocent how will the many on here who condemned him react?!

So many people believe rumour and digest tabloid speculation - he got loads of abuse and condemnation on here from people who just chose the bandwagon approach.

I've read lots of documents about this case and I'm not surprised he's been allowed to appeal.

It's not a clear and obvious case. When someone (allegedly because I didn't see them) posts on Facebook and Twitter that they've 'stitched up a couple of footballers' and 'how should they spend the inevitable pay off?' then alarm bells will ring.

Anyway, I'm not a legal expert, but there is obviously more to this if it's gone to the Court of Appeal.

Whatever happens, I'll never understand why young, rich footballers get into these situations and naively leave themselves open to getting involved in horrible cases like this one. 

 

[Calculus]

As things stand he is a rapist and I wouldn't want him anywhere near my club.

If new evidence comes to light and he is found innocent on appeal then there should be no reason for anybody to not want to employ him because of his history (obviously people might just think he isn't a good enough player!).

There is no chance he will be 'found innocent'. The guilty verdict might be overturned, but even if that happens the stigma of this and his behaviour will stay with him forever. Only if the alleged victim is found to have stitched him up and found guilty herself will Evans be totally exonerated in the public eye. 

[BS4 on Tour...]

Regardless of anything, she had still drunk too much to be able to consent

Here we go again  

With all due respect, how do you know that? Were you there? 

It's dangerous to believe all that you read in the media. 

If the legal system has concluded that there are grounds to appeal then something isn't right.

 

[Bs4Red]

Firstly there is a long way to go before his conviction is or is not quashed and secondly and far more importantly your anger is firmly pointed in the wrong direction, if this 'new information' was not presented to the jury in the original trial then your anger should be turned upon his original defence team, who didn't do a very good job in the first place in either investigating and uncovering this 'new information' or if in possession of it not presenting it, probably the reason that he has new counsel.

 

Apparently the evidence wasn't allowed due to his job and some technical reasoning. 

[TBW]

Are you serious chaps?

Which piece of evidence makes him innocent beyond doubt? I have not seen any that's for sure.

Which piece of evidence makes him guilty beyond doubt? I have not seen any that's for sure.

Regardless of anything, she had still drunk too much to be able to consent

Here we go again  

And that is also her responsibility. She is as responsible as he is.

[cityexile]

Which piece of evidence makes him guilty beyond doubt? I have not seen any that's for sure.

And that is also her responsibility. She is as responsible as he is.

Last statement is in no way supported by the current law of the land. Sadly it is the 'hidden view' that has informed many opinions it seems. 

Talking generally, not about this case, it is rape to have sex with somebody who simply cannot give consent, for whatever reason. Some may not like it, but it simply is.

If somebody is drunk, is it ok to mug them, beat them up, commit GBH on them because they are drunk? I have been drunk in my youth many times. I would not have taken kindly to waking up, finding I had been buggered, and then told it was as much my fault as the person that did it.

 

[Dollymarie]

 

And that is also her responsibility. She is as responsible as he is.

In this case, the jury decided that in the eyes of the law she was unable to give consent due to her being so drunk. 

 

Here you go, read this. Sums things up from my point of view pretty well. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30743018/ched-evans-the-definition-of-rape-and-consent

[Bs4Red]

 

Are you serious chaps?

Which piece of evidence makes him innocent beyond doubt? I have not seen any that's for sure.

Just my opinion, I don't believe he's a rapist, I think what he did was morally wrong but after watching the videos and CCTV and reading all accounts I personally feel this case has more to it than Rapist or Not A Rapist

[Spoons]

Just my opinion, I don't believe he's a rapist, I think what he did was morally wrong but after watching the videos and CCTV and reading all accounts I personally feel this case has more to it than Rapist or Not A Rapist

know one on here can claim to have watched cctv or read articles then base That as a defence for your opinion?? Why don't you/everyone just let justice run its course. I'm sure the courts have got alot more evidence etc to go through than what you have read in the papers! As it stands he is a convicted rapist.. Fact. Its up to his legal team to prove otherwise. But I do appreciate this is a difficult case but that's even more reason to have faith in the jury that found him guilty first time round.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MarcusX]

'Truly innocent' is an interesting concept in this case.  The issue for the Appeals Court to decide is whether his conviction for rape is safe or not.  However, I have difficulty concluding that any footballer who has sex with a drunken woman while in a stable relationship with someone else can be regarded as 'truly innocent'.  If the Appeals Court overturns his conviction then he is a very lucky young man.  He may then be not guilty of the offence with which he was charged, but 'truly innocent'?  Sorry, not in my book.  Footballers and the like who think they can exert control over other people through their status and their wealth need to take a look at their behaviour, if you ask me. 

yet it's ok for a woman to target a footballer because of their status or wealth? Not suggesting that's what happened of course because that would be slanderous. (Once she learned who he was I mean, there's no suggestion she targeted him on the night)

My personal stance on the case is that a lot of people seem to think it completely unthinkable that a girl would consent to sleeping with two men in such a short space of time and therefore must have been without consent and he's just "jumped in". He's put himself in a dangerous position considering who he is, but at the time probably thought he was doing nothing wrong.

that being said, he has been convicted of rape, as it stands he IS a rapist and therefore I empathise with stance taken by people like Jessica Ennis and Sheffield United as a club.

 

[cityexile]

 

My personal stance on the case is that a lot of people seem to think it completely unthinkable that a girl would consent to sleeping with two men in such a short space of time and therefore must have been without consent and he's just "jumped in". He's put himself in a dangerous position considering who he is, but at the time probably thought he was doing nothing wrong.

 

The only way we come to a decision on difficult areas like this is to have a very high threshold for conviction. Central to that is a jury. Having listened to all the evidence (available at the time) they decided unanimously that it was rape. It frankly does not matter what anyone else thinks, unless we are going to convict on a straw poll of what people may or may not have read. 

There is now seemingly new evidence that either was not available, or not used by the defence team at the time. The Appeal may then succeed on the basis the conviction is unsafe. We must await that.If that happens, it will almost certainly turn on the new evidence showing that he could reasonably have believed she had consented. 

The general principle remains. Any person who has sex with another who cannot give consent is committing rape. No contributory negligence, no 'she (or he) was as much to blame for getting drunk', no blaming the victim whatsoever.

It would be rape.

 

[LondonBristolian]

Well, if he is found to be innocent how will the many on here who condemned him react?!

So many people believe rumour and digest tabloid speculation - he got loads of abuse and condemnation on here from people who just chose the bandwagon approach.

 

Erm, I don't think it was rumour and tabloid speculation.  I think he got a lot of condemnation on here because he was convicted of rape in a court of law and, as it stands, he at present is a convicted rapist.  Which happened because, based on the original trial, a jury felt there was sufficient proof to convict him of rape.  Whatever happened from here on in, that's nothing to do with rumour and speculation. 

[Bs4Red]

know one on here can claim to have watched cctv or read articles then base That as a defence for your opinion?? Why don't you/everyone just let justice run its course. I'm sure the courts have got alot more evidence etc to go through than what you have read in the papers! As it stands he is a convicted rapist.. Fact. Its up to his legal team to prove otherwise. But I do appreciate this is a difficult case but that's even more reason to have faith in the jury that found him guilty first time round.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything I have read on this case has come from the court and what they let out, along with the CCTV footage they had, I don't read papers. All of this is easily accessible and I'm not disagreeing with you that he is a convicted rapist at this moment in time but we will see what happens. 

[BS4 on Tour...]

know one on here can claim to have watched cctv or read articles then base That as a defence for your opinion?? Why don't you/everyone just let justice run its course. I'm sure the courts have got alot more evidence etc to go through than what you have read in the papers! As it stands he is a convicted rapist.. Fact. Its up to his legal team to prove otherwise. But I do appreciate this is a difficult case but that's even more reason to have faith in the jury that found him guilty first time round.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, are you saying that the CCTV/video evidence should be disregarded? And, I have to ask, where is there always so much 'space' under your posts when no-one else seems to achieve that?!

[Spoons]

So, are you saying that the CCTV/video evidence should be disregarded? And, I have to ask, where is there always so much 'space' under your posts when no-one else seems to achieve that?!

No not disregarded but realise there is more than just cctv /video evidence. And lets realise the jury would have seen all the evidence then came to the guilty decision. Now to the important bit.. Its a mystery why there is so much space under my posts?! Its not me, sometimes it doesn't let me reply at all. Not sure, I use mobile as tablet broke.

 

 

 

[Spoons]

Everything I have read on this case has come from the court and what they let out, along with the CCTV footage they had, I don't read papers. All of this is easily accessible and I'm not disagreeing with you that he is a convicted rapist at this moment in time but we will see what happens. 

Important bit you said 'what they let out'. The bit they didn't let out is probably the bit that they(jury) felt was enough to say guilty. If he gets his conviction overturned then fine but untill then put faith in the justice system.

[shelts]

Ched must be a City target I can see him playing just behind the front two in the hole

[Spoons]

Ched must be a City target I can see him playing just behind the front two in the hole

brave or stupid?? Not sure. You must have been up all night planning that hilarious joke?

 

 

 

[Bs4Red]

brave or stupid?? Not sure. You must have been up all night planning that hilarious joke?

 

 

 

If he wasn't a rapist he would actually be a top player right now. Had the world at his feet and blew it

[Spoons]

If he wasn't a rapist he would actually be a top player right now. Had the world at his feet and blew it

agreed this all seemed to happen when his form was excellent and scoring for fun. But that 'if' he wasn't a rapist is irrelevant because he is untill proved otherwise.

 

 

 

[Jesus]

[AshtonGreat]

Regardless of anything, she had still drunk too much to be able to consent

Here we go again  

The level of someone's inebriation is a very grey area though isn't it. How can anyone truly know?

[Dollymarie]

The level of someone's inebriation is a very grey area though isn't it. How can anyone truly know?

that's what the jury and the first lot of appeal court judges decided, hence the guilty verdict. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Apparently the evidence wasn't allowed due to his job and some technical reasoning. 

What does that even mean?.

 

[Bs4Red]

What does that even mean?.

 

SSN said something along these lines, due to his occupation at the time that evidence couldn't be used. 

[downendcity]

The level of someone's inebriation is a very grey area though isn't it. How can anyone truly know?

In my experience, the level of someone's inebriation is usually a multicoloured area.

[downendcity]

I have to ask, where is there always so much 'space' under your posts when no-one else seems to achieve that?!

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've though the same.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

SSN said something along these lines, due to his occupation at the time that evidence couldn't be used. 

Everything I have read on this case has come from the court and what they let out, along with the CCTV footage they had, I don't read papers. All of this is easily accessible and I'm not disagreeing with you that he is a convicted rapist at this moment in time but we will see what happens. 

You don't read the papers but obviously read and quote his 'propaganda' website and SSN?.

[BRISTOL86]

The level of someone's inebriation is a very grey area though isn't it. How can anyone truly know?

Grey area doesn't even come close. I can't think of any other examples where the responsibility for your own welfare at some indeterminate point passes onto another person without notice!

Him : Hello my dear, what a super smashing blouse you have on. Want to do it with me?

Her : Yeah ok. 

The next morning it turns out she was too drunk to consent and he can be prosecuted because she drank too much to make good decisions?

Not saying that's what's happened in this case but how on earth can a jury possibly decide whether or not 

a) she was too inebriated to make a consent decision

b) it's the man's responsibility to ensure that a) hasn't happened

And at what point does the responsibility for her actions pass to him, considering everyone's reaction to alcohol is different. And how is level of inebriation measured after the event? Or am I missing something?

What if they're both equally inebriated and therefore he isn't able to make a good decision about whether or not she is too inebriated to make a good decision....you could play that game all day! 

I knew a girl that as far as I can tell has been drunk since around 1993 - is it rape every time she jumps into bed with someone?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Grey area doesn't even come close. I can't think of any other examples where the responsibility for your own welfare at some indeterminate point passes onto another person without notice!

Him : Hello my dear, what a super smashing blouse you have on. Want to do it with me?

Her : Yeah ok. 

The next morning it turns out she was too drunk to consent and he can be prosecuted because she drank too much to make good decisions?

Not saying that's what's happened in this case but how on earth can a jury possibly decide whether or not 

a) she was too inebriated to make a consent decision

b) it's the man's responsibility to ensure that a) hasn't happened

And at what point does the responsibility for her actions pass to him, considering everyone's reaction to alcohol is different. And how is level of inebriation measured after the event? Or am I missing something?

What if they're both equally inebriated and therefore he isn't able to make a good decision about whether or not she is too inebriated to make a good decision....you could play that game all day! 

I knew a girl that as far as I can tell has been drunk since around 1993 - is it rape every time she jumps into bed with someone?

it's simple really, why put yourself into that position?, especially when there is 4 or 5 of you involved?, it is a recipe for disaster especially if you are a professional footballer and if you do put yourself into that position bigger fool you, especially when you have a girlfriend at home (whom you claim to love) and better still is the daughter of a millionaire.

The consequences of what Evans did should be clear enough for any professional footballer, sadly the message never filtered through to the 3 young Leicester players earlier this year.

So if you are a professional footballer and you and your mates go looking for a drunken female to humiliate, think again, because it really ain't worth it, leave her to humiliate herself or you might pay the price of a career in tatters, a spell inside, all things that you cannot change.

As for the appeal unless this 'new witness' was actually in the room during the act, I suspect that his/her evidence will only serve for a judgement of, armed with this new evidence, a jury might not have convicted, which considering it is almost impossible for the appeal court to order a re-trial (because he has already served his prison sentence) it is still not and will never be absolute exoneration.

 

[BCFC Jimmer]

The level of someone's inebriation is a very grey area though isn't it. How can anyone truly know?

Hang on everyone.

I thought a fundamental reason that Ched was in the wrong is that he hadn't even been on the night out with this girl?  He just turned up at the hotel because his mate told him to come over to get his end away.  That is a sick thing to do, or am I living in a different world to some people?

She was completely justified to wake up the next morning and think, "errr, hang on - that wasn't right". 

Jeez, I have ended up in some strange situations with mates over the years when drinking - but I still know that what Ched did was completely out of order and I would never put myself in that situation.  Unfortunately you get this 'lad' mentality these days where young men think behavior like this is acceptable.  There is also a stigma which if she isn't found kicking and screaming with bruises all over her that it can't be rape.

 

[Septic Peg]

Regardless of anything, she had still drunk too much to be able to consent

Here we go again  

I agree 100%. Innocent or not, the guy took advantage of a clearly very drunk woman and cheated on his Mrs. That makes him a scumbag in my book. If found innocent and aquitted, it should have no bearing on his future employment but if he chatted me up in a bar? I'd tell him where he can go...

This also applies to women who take advantage of very drunk men and same sex couples. You just can't take advantage of people. 

[BRISTOL86]

it's simple really, why put yourself into that position?, especially when there is 4 or 5 of you involved?, it is a recipe for disaster especially if you are a professional footballer and if you do put yourself into that position bigger fool you, especially when you have a girlfriend at home (whom you claim to love) and better still is the daughter of a millionaire.

The consequences of what Evans did should be clear enough for any professional footballer, sadly the message never filtered through to the 3 young Leicester players earlier this year.

So if you are a professional footballer and you and your mates go looking for a drunken female to humiliate, think again, because it really ain't worth it, leave her to humiliate herself or you might pay the price of a career in tatters, a spell inside, all things that you cannot change.

As for the appeal unless this 'new witness' was actually in the room during the act, I suspect that his/her evidence will only serve for a judgement of, armed with this new evidence, a jury might not have convicted, which considering it is almost impossible for the appeal court to order a re-trial (because he has already served his prison sentence) it is still not and will never be absolute exoneration.

 

Like I said, I wasn't specifically referring to this case, more that I can't get my head around the general principle of how the responsibility for someone else's decision making transfers from them to you. 

[shelts]

Fair to say doubt will always be associated with this case and we will never for sure know the truth. What a situation for all of them to find themselves in and one that could definitely been avoided. If he is innocent I hope he gets on with his life and what's  left of his career, he will never be top class pro  as the prem clubs would never employ him for fear of a massive media backlash. He's done his time. Move on?

[BCFC Jimmer]

After studying the case and reading lots of different things, I truly believe he is innocent and I hope once it is overturned (if so) I hope every single person who slated him apologises. Especially Jessica Ennis who went so far down in my estimation for her part in not allowing him to join Sheff u

Or you could say that Jessica Ennis did an incredibly brave and commendable thing by making a public statement that Ched's behaviour isn't acceptable.  Most famous people would have avoided talking about it.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Like I said, I wasn't specifically referring to this case, more that I can't get my head around the general principle of how the responsibility for someone else's decision making transfers from them to you. 

it's quite simple think with your brain and not your dick. it might prove to be the best decision you have ever made.

 

 

[BRISTOL86]

it's quite simple think with your brain and not your dick. it might prove to be the best decision you have ever made.

 

 

It's anything but simple 

Person A and Person B have been out drinking all day. 

Person A says 'would you like to have sex?'

Person B says 'sounds like a good idea to me, let's do it!'

In the morning Person B has no recollection of saying what they said and in the eyes of the law Person A has committed a crime and is a rapist. 

I struggle to see how that's simple. And that's nothing to do with 'thinking with your dick' as you so eloquently put it. 

Both Person A and Person B were equally inebriated and Person A asked for consent and consent was given. Person A thinks - quite rightly - they have done the right thing in seeking consent before partaking in any act.

So my question to you is - in the very specific situation I've laid out above - why is Person A responsible for Person B's actions. It's not right to me that in this situation it's Person A being held accountable for Person B's decision making.  

[AshtonGreat]

Whether or not Ched Evans had a girlfriend or not has absolutely no bearing on this case. Cheating on your girlfriend is not a criminal offence

[Esmond Million's Bung]

It's anything but simple 

Person A and Person B have been out drinking all day. 

Person A says 'would you like to have sex?'

Person B says 'sounds like a good idea to me, let's do it!'

In the morning Person B has no recollection of saying what they said and in the eyes of the law Person A has committed a crime and is a rapist. 

I struggle to see how that's simple. And that's nothing to do with 'thinking with your dick' as you so eloquently put it. 

Both Person A and Person B were equally inebriated and Person A asked for consent and consent was given. 

So my question to you is - jn the very specific situation I've laid out above - why is Person A responsible for Person B's actions. 

Again it's very simple my friend, in that very 'specific' situation you set out, it could happen to absolutely anybody, anywhere at anytime, it could be as you describe a man and a woman, two women or indeed two men.

Firstly do you honestly think that if somebody truly believes that your scenario had occurred that they not be allowed to test that belief in the first instance with the police? and secondly unless there was other evidence of extreme violence or a video of the event, I cannot think of circumstances in which the police or cps would proceed with an attempted prosecution.

However in the Evans case, there was evidence that they were looking for a female and his mate denies that he was present when she allegedly gave Evans her consent, in fact he leaves immediately by the front door of the room and even passes on his concerns to the person at the front desk about the state she was in and then after the event Evans skulks out of hotel unnoticed via the fire escape.

Whether or not Ched Evans had a girlfriend or not has absolutely no bearing on this case. Cheating on your girlfriend is not a criminal offence

Nobody is suggesting that for one minute, what I am suggesting is to a normal person given the full sordid circumstances of what happened that night it should have been a very important factor in his decision making process and clearly it wasn't.

[AshtonGreat]

Grey area doesn't even come close. I can't think of any other examples where the responsibility for your own welfare at some indeterminate point passes onto another person without notice!

Him : Hello my dear, what a super smashing blouse you have on. Want to do it with me?

Her : Yeah ok. 

The next morning it turns out she was too drunk to consent and he can be prosecuted because she drank too much to make good decisions?

Not saying that's what's happened in this case but how on earth can a jury possibly decide whether or not 

a) she was too inebriated to make a consent decision

b) it's the man's responsibility to ensure that a) hasn't happened

And at what point does the responsibility for her actions pass to him, considering everyone's reaction to alcohol is different. And how is level of inebriation measured after the event? Or am I missing something?

What if they're both equally inebriated and therefore he isn't able to make a good decision about whether or not she is too inebriated to make a good decision....you could play that game all day! 

I knew a girl that as far as I can tell has been drunk since around 1993 - is it rape every time she jumps into bed with someone?

[AshtonGreat]

Esmond, I will have to reply to you in this way because this daft new site won't let me reply to your specific comment...

No one is explicitly saying that his cheating on his girlfriend is a crime, but by even mentioning it they are clouding the issue: mistaking immorality for criminality. It is irrelevant that he cheated on his girlfriend. A normal person wouldn't do that? Statistics would suggest that the majority of people cheat at some point in their life. I agree that the whole episode was sordid though.

[BRISTOL86]

EMB - as stated, I was not referring to the Evans case, more the general principle of how a jury of people who weren't anything to so with the events of a particular case can make a decision as to whether or not someone has consented to intercourse. 

From the BBC article that was posted earlier in the thread:

The footballer argued that the woman replied "yes" when asked if he could join in with sex between her and his friend.

 

In court the woman said she could not remember what she had said in the hotel room.

To me that suggests that despite there being nothing to prove whether or not consent was given, it has been decided that it wasn't. 

Again, I'm not saying it was or wasn't, as seemingly not even the people involved know! 

 

[cityexile]

EMB - as stated, I was not referring to the Evans case, more the general principle of how a jury of people who weren't anything to so with the events of a particular case can make a decision as to whether or not someone has consented to intercourse. 

From the BBC article that was posted earlier in the thread:

The footballer argued that the woman replied "yes" when asked if he could join in with sex between her and his friend.

 

In court the woman said she could not remember what she had said in the hotel room.

To me that suggests that despite there being nothing to prove whether or not consent was given, it has been decided that it wasn't. 

Again, I'm not saying it was or wasn't, as seemingly not even the people involved know! 

 

Although it was also the case that his fellow footballer refused to corroborate her consent to Ched under oath.

Its too simplistic, but 'drunken consent' is still consent. The law which the jury had to decide on was not actually whether she consented or not. It was whether, given the facts before them, Ched could have reasonably believed consent had been given. They decided, unanimously, that he could not, and convicted.

All the cases you outline are simply not within a million miles of the facts of this case (as were put before the jury at that time).