Ched Evans signing for.....

Status
Not open for further replies.


elder said:
all i can go on is this which is from the court transcript:

"When she was asked if the applicant could join in, the complainant clearly replied "Yes". McDonald stopped.
The complainant asked the applicant to perform oral sex on her. He did so and then they had
sexual intercourse. Throughout all the activities with him she was enthusiastic, wide awake and
she consented to everything that happened."

the night porter/manager also stood outside the door listening to what he deemed to be 'consensual sex' between evans and the girl.

the jury, directed by the judge on the matter of consent decided she was not capable of giving that consent. so they didn't believe either evans or mcdonald(?). personally i'm not convinced either way after all has been said.

his FIL (his lasses dad) has said he'll give him a job. i reckon he should take that offer up at least until the case review is completed later this year.
Click to expand...

When I read of Evans partner sticking by him I jumped to the money grabbers footballers wives presumption.

It appears her family have as much cash if not more than him. Despite him having other threesomes behind her back shes still there n her fathers offered him a job. Mental.
 
Hopefully signing an authority to be castrated so he can't terrorise or assault any more innocent women.
 
andymcnish said:
Er - no - what they decided was that as she was so pissed she couldn't give proper consent (after all McDonald told the hotel staff as he left to look out for her as she 'was sick' and she woke up in a pool of her own urine with no memory several hours later) so what she may or may not have said wasn't going to amount to actual consent in any case. IF YOU DECIDE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A VERY PISSED GIRL IT CAN STILL BE RAPE EVEN IF SHE SAYS THE WORD 'YES' AT SOME POINT.

As Evans didn't stop to consider whether she was capable or giving that consent or not he also couldn't rely on having a reasonable belief.
Here is the summary of the judge's summing up on the consent point:

The judge addressed this issue in clear terms. He began by directing the jury in the precise words of the relevant statutory provision:

"A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree to sexual intercourse."

He then addressed the implications and consequences of the evidence that the complainant had been drinking and had possibly taken cocaine. He said:

"There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an individual who is intoxicated. First, it can remove inhibitions. A person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do, or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness. So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be. Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed her capacity to exercise a choice?"

He went on to explain: "A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."

He went on to direct the jury about the requirement relating to the individual defendant's belief about whether or not the complainant was consenting. He gave clear directions to the jury about how they should approach that issue in the context of the alcohol which had been consumed by the complainant.
Click to expand...
So Cody Mcdonald is the only verifiable guilty party since there's witnesses to say he knew she was in no state to be having sex, with him or Evans.

There is absolutely no way one is guilty and the other isn't.
 
Lewberry pie said:
So Cody Mcdonald is the only verifiable guilty party since there's witnesses to say he knew she was in no state to be having sex, with him or Evans.

There is absolutely no way one is guilty and the other isn't.
Click to expand...

We've been through all this before, but once again: McDonald met her on a night out, got talking to her, went for something to eat/drink with her, invited her back to the hotel room, she agreed, they went back together in a taxi, they eventually had sex. There were several opportunities throughout the night for her to give, or to not give consent to McDonald.

Evans got a text saying that his mate had a bird, he popped around to the hotel, arrived to her naked in bed already having/had sex, started having sex with her straight away, and then just left.

The circumstances are completely different, and it's daft to suggest that if one is found guilty then the other must too.
 
Norton said:
When I saw the "people on the sex Offender reg cannot work abroad" I thought of you!!!!!!:lol::lol::lol:
Did you go ahead with your "plan" at Man City????
Thread got pulled.
Click to expand...
It was for today's game .
Didn't do it after great advice from here. We are planning a charity bike ride in Malta in November. It's at the planning stage currently
 
AC Mack said:
We've been through all this before, but once again: McDonald met her on a night out, got talking to her, went for something to eat/drink with her, invited her back to the hotel room, she agreed, they went back together in a taxi, they eventually had sex. There were several opportunities throughout the night for her to give, or to not give consent to McDonald.

Evans got a text saying that his mate had a bird, he popped around to the hotel, arrived to her naked in bed already having/had sex, started having sex with her straight away, and then just left.

The circumstances are completely different, and it's daft to suggest that if one is found guilty then the other must too.
Click to expand...
Firstly Cody Mcdonald text Evans to say he'd found a bird, so what had he found one for and why was he texting Evans, secondly he's actually said the words that she was sick indicating he knew she was hammered and regardless of whether she consented initially he presumably has continued to have sex with her despite knowing this, we've been through it before because none of it makes any sense and I'll continue to ask the question until someone, anyone can explain it. Which they don't seem able to do.
 
AC Mack said:
We've been through all this before, but once again: McDonald met her on a night out, got talking to her, went for something to eat/drink with her, invited her back to the hotel room, she agreed, they went back together in a taxi, they eventually had sex. There were several opportunities throughout the night for her to give, or to not give consent to McDonald.

Evans got a text saying that his mate had a bird, he popped around to the hotel, arrived to her naked in bed already having/had sex, started having sex with her straight away, and then just left.

The circumstances are completely different, and it's daft to suggest that if one is found guilty then the other must too.
Click to expand...

nope. they were close friends who bumped into each other in the street and after a quick chat got into a cab and went to the hotel. signifcant facts i feel.
 
CatRyan said:
I was about to post the same link.


With regards to the case I find the text message most telling. Mac Donald to Evans "I've got one"

They had decided they were going to pick up a girl to both fuck and booked the room and agreed on what they would do before they even met the complainant.
Click to expand...
To be fair to Macdonald the actual text was 'I've got a bird'.

Now if you were on a night out with a mate and you got split up and received that text you could read it in one of three ways:

a) 'Ha!' I've pulled and you haven't' (brag)
b) 'I'm sorted for the night - don't bother looking for me' (information); or
c) 'I've procured a slapper for us to go porno with. Get your arse over her pronto and bring the rest of our mates to film it' (toe-rag option)

Whilst Evans clearly read the text as option (c), most normal people would read it as meaning (a) or (b). The prosecution tried to prove it meant (c) but couldn't convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt - which is why I said they overpitched the case against MacDonald a bit...
 
elder said:
nope. they were close friends who bumped into each other in the street and after a quick chat got into a cab and went to the hotel. signifcant facts i feel.
Click to expand...

I meant met her on the night, not met her for the first time. I'm pretty sure they went for something to eat together.

Lewberry pie said:
Firstly Cody Mcdonald text Evans to say he'd found a bird, so what had he found one for and why was he texting Evans, secondly he's actually said the words that she was sick indicating he knew she was hammered and regardless of whether she consented initially he presumably has continued to have sex with her despite knowing this, we've been through it before because none of it makes any sense and I'll continue to ask the question until someone, anyone can explain it. Which they don't seem able to do.
Click to expand...

You've said that there is no way one is guilty and the other isn't, and I've explained why their circumstances are different. If you believe both to be guilty then fine, but they're different scenarios.

I'm not sure why that 'doesn't make any sense'.
 
viccarlton said:
I think he's responsible for ruining his own life.
Click to expand...
The point wasn't Evans life being ruined, but that his was completely ruined while the other lad got off scot free. People say rape is rape but it's not really. It's not comparable to dragging someone off the street at knife point or raping a bairn, but nevertheless it is bad enough to have crossed the grey line while the other fella's actions probably just fell short. Both are still predators, granted one worse than the other, but both took advantage of a pissed girl who lacked capacity, to get the same result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top