Ched Evans

[Keith S30S]

From the appeal hearing judgment:

"The applicant and McDonald had spent the evening with friends visiting various licensed premises. At some time shortly before 4am McDonald became separated from the group of friends. The complainant seems to have wandered into his path. They had a conversation and got into a taxi. The taxi driver thought that her upper clothing was somewhat dishevelled. The taxi driver took them to the hotel, where the applicant had booked and paid for a room in McDonald's name. During the taxi journey McDonald sent a text message to the applicant telling him that he had "got a bird" or words to that effect.

The prosecution case was that the applicant had booked the room at the hotel with the main or sole purpose of procuring a girl or girls later that night. According to the Crown's case, both men were on the look-out for any girl who was a suitable target. The complainant had literally stumbled across McDonald's path.

The complainant had no recollection of anything which took place after 3am. That extended to the fact that she and McDonald entered the hotel at 4.15am. The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". That reinforced the Crown's case based on the evidence of witnesses and the CCTV footage before she had arrived at the hotel. While en route to the room the porter heard her say to McDonald "You're not going to leave me, are you?" They entered a bedroom in which various sexual acts took place and eventually they had sexual intercourse.

In the meantime, no doubt in answer to the message that he had received from McDonald, the applicant arrived at the same hotel with two other male friends. He persuaded the night porter to give him a key card to the room occupied by McDonald and the complainant. He said that he had booked the room for a friend who no longer needed it. The applicant entered the room. Sexual intercourse between McDonald and the complainant ceased. The applicant performed oral sex on the complainant and then had vaginal sex with her. While it was taking place the porter went to check what was happening. He waited outside the room for a while and concluded from the noises that he could hear within the room that a couple were having sexual intercourse. No other concerns were raised in his mind.

The applicant's two companions remained outside the hotel. They looked through the bedroom window and filmed what was taking place with a mobile telephone until the curtains to the bedroom were closed.

After about half an hour McDonald left the hotel via the reception. He had a brief word with the night porter, telling him that he should look out for the girl in room 14 (the room in question) because she was sick. The applicant did not leave by the front door; he went out by an emergency exit. McDonald and the applicant met up outside and they returned to the applicant's home.

The complainant said that her next memory was waking up in the hotel room at about 11.30am. She realised that she was alone. She was naked and had urinated in the bed. She had a headache and was confused. She reported the matter to the police."

Note how the defenders of this rapist PoS miss out almost all of the evidence above when stating their case.
Most interesting is that fact that at least some of it was filmed by Evan's cronies - now we haven't seen that video but either (a) the jury saw it and drew their own conclusions or (b) the cronies deleted it -- which in itself raises an obvious inference about how bad it must have looked for Ched.

It was reported at the time that it was dark in the room and that the footage taken througb a crack in the curtains was unwatchable.

What you're posting is nothing new. It's full of grey areas and contradictions. The receptionist says the girl is extremely drunk but she walks into the hotel unaided and he easily makes out a sentence she says to Clayton. He listens at the door and hears a man panting (Ched) and a woman groaning and decides they're having sex. Not rough sex or rape and there's no physical damage to the girl after having sex with 2 different men.

She says she remembers nothing, says she might have had her drink spiked. Canabis and Cocaine found in her system, no other drug. Both men freely and seperately admit to having consentual sex.

IMO very little the girl says adds up. No evidence of being spiked just a fair amount of drink taken over a short period but by her own admission she usually drank more. Memory loss? Not fact. Boils down to her word against there word.

At some stage she was drunk enough to fall over and lose her bag, fact. She is seen later at the hotel a lot more steady on her feet but more bothered about a pizza than her missing belongings. She then had sex, not rape.

After that as she continued to sober up? Grey area.

 

[andymcnish]

The only independent witness around at the relevant time was the hotel night porter. The porter says the girl was "extremely drunk' when entering the hotel. Mcdonald on exiting the hotel is sufficiently concerned about her condition to tell the porter to keep an eye on her as 'she is sick'. That doesn't at all sound like someone who has sobered up like the defence is trying to paint does it? Any jury hearing that is going to think that she was in fact very drunk/drugged at the relevant time.

 

[Keith S30S]

The only independent witness around at the relevant time was the hotel night porter. The porter says the girl was "extremely drunk' when entering the hotel. Mcdonald on exiting the hotel is sufficiently concerned about her condition to tell the porter to keep an eye on her as 'she is sick'. That doesn't at all sound like someone who has sobered up like the defence is trying to paint does it? Any jury hearing that is going to think that she was in fact very drunk/drugged at the relevant time.

Drugged based on what evidence? None, none at all.

 

[HellsBells]

I like how we're all suddenly experts in the case and qualified to judge guilt or innocence by simply reading the papers.

The jury found him guilty based on the evidence presented.

If you disagree with that then you have a fundamental problem with the British Justice system.

If he feels he was wrongly convicted, he can appeal, which I believe he is.

No one on here - No one - was in the jury and can make the decision on his guilt.

 

[monkeytassle]

storm in a teacup. he'll rightly cops dogs abuse if he plays but it's the club's prerogative to employ him which will include the bad press that comes with it.

 

[andymcnish]

Drugged based on what evidence? None, none at all.

Based on her level of intoxication. She was extremely intoxicated. If it wasn't alcohol alone it could have been drink and drugs. It doesn't matter why she was out of it mind, only that she was. But the possibility was raised in front of the jury...young girls do get their drinks spiked you know?

And the thing is he needs new evidence to have the conviction overturned. He already tried to appeal twice and 4 judges thought his case so weak they refused him leave.

The review commission is his last throw of the dice legally..

 

[Keith S30S]

I like how we're all suddenly experts in the case and qualified to judge guilt or innocence by simply reading the papers.

The jury found him guilty based on the evidence presented.

If you disagree with that then you have a fundamental problem with the British Justice system.

If he feels he was wrongly convicted, he can appeal, which I believe he is.

No one on here - No one - was in the jury and can make the decision on his guilt.

I have my own opinions. Part of that opinion is based on real life experiences. Jury's do make mistakes, that is a fact.

That doesn't mean I have a problem with the whole justice system.

As an example of the so called facts being trotted out. The next time someone gets pulled for trying to enter a sports ground drunk they should simply say that their behaviour is down to having their drink spiked. They can then let us know if the police accepted this as verbatim and let them off!

 

[elder]

I like how we're all suddenly experts in the case and qualified to judge guilt or innocence by simply reading the papers.

The jury found him guilty based on the evidence presented.

If you disagree with that then you have a fundamental problem with the British Justice system.

If he feels he was wrongly convicted, he can appeal, which I believe he is.

No one on here - No one - was in the jury and can make the decision on his guilt.

there's a lot more information out there than what's been in the press (the law report posted earlier for instance) and unfortunately one of the fundamental problems with jury trials is that it still relies on those 12 jurors to make a decision based on what they are presented with and how they individually and collectively process that information and decide on it. it's likely to some degree, especially in such a trial as this that a different 12 jurors would or could come up with a different verdict.

it's really not cut and dry and justice is not always either fair or just, though i'm not sure how you can improve on it. from what i've read i'm really not sure if i would have convicted him (or both of them) or not. so it's fair to question the outcome to a reasonable degree.

 

[HellsBells]

there's a lot more information out there than what's been in the press (the law report posted earlier for instance) and unfortunately one of the fundamental problems with jury trials is that it still relies on those 12 jurors to make a decision based on what they are presented with and how they individually and collectively process that information and decide on it. it's likely to some degree, especially in such a trial as this that a different 12 jurors would or could come up with a different verdict.

it's really not cut and dry and justice is not always either fair or just, though i'm not sure how you can improve on it. from what i've read i'm really not sure if i would have convicted him (or both of them) or not. so it's fair to question the outcome to a reasonable degree.

I agree with that. However it's the British justice system. So if you disagree with his charge and guilt then you disagree with the fundamental tenets of British Justice and we need a shit load of reform.

Or we trust the jury and the evidence provided to them, and the appeals process

 

[PixieFaceFTM]

It's the "shes a woman, he's a footballer, she's clearly slag wanting fame and money" comments that annoy me, Making out like famous people don't ever commit crimes.

The lass has suffered horrific abuse and if she is lying then it's vile however he's been found guilty by a jury that heard a hell of a lot more evidence than any of us did

 

[elder]

I agree with that. However it's the British justice system. So if you disagree with his charge and guilt then you disagree with the fundamental tenets of British Justice and we need a shit load of reform.

Or we trust the jury and the evidence provided to them, and the appeals process

i don't think it's as simple as that. you can disagree with a verdict but still respect the process it's gone through. many people have been wrongly convicted, even on appeal, just as many guilty have walked free. i actually hate the term 'justice has been served' because i really don't think it has. 'the court process has been observed' is more apt.

 

[HellsBells]

i don't think it's as simple as that. you can disagree with a verdict but still respect the process it's gone through. many people have been wrongly convicted, even on appeal, just as many guilty have walked free. i actually hate the term 'justice has been served' because i really don't think it has. 'the court process has been observed' is more apt.

You're more than welcome to disagree with the verdict but as Pixie says you have to respect the fact that your opinion is based on nowhere near the full evidence and the jury's is based on it all.

I think it's very disrespectful to believe that any of us are qualified to make a decision based on snippets and that we know better than the jury.

 

[Muppet]

It's the "shes a woman, he's a footballer, she's clearly slag wanting fame and money" comments that annoy me, Making out like famous people don't ever commit crimes.

The lass has suffered horrific abuse and if she is lying then it's vile however he's been found guilty by a jury that heard a hell of a lot more evidence than any of us did

The issue is not really whether she's lying. It's more along the lines of whether CE could reasonably believe she was capable of consenting to have sex with him (and him specifically), and it was found that he couldn't, given the evidence of quite how drunk she was.

 

[Keith S30S]

T

Based on her level of intoxication. She was extremely intoxicated. If it wasn't alcohol alone it could have been drink and drugs. It doesn't matter why she was out of it mind, only that she was. But the possibility was raised in front of the jury...young girls do get their drinks spiked you know?

And the thing is he needs new evidence to have the conviction overturned. He already tried to appeal twice and 4 judges thought his case so weak they refused him leave.

The review commission is his last throw of the dice legally..

The drug test found no evidence of her being spiked. She alone planted the spiked 'testimony' based on her opinion not fact. Had she been spiked before so knew what it felt like? I somehow doubt it.

It's a grey area that's not based on anything tangible.

 

[Deleted member 22590]

If I was Ched, having arrived at a hotel room in response to a text from a mate reading " I've got a girl", I'd be making absolutely certain that she was in a state to be able to fully comprehend any sexual advances that I made because I'd understand that if she wasn't fully capable, I'd be taking advantage of her. If I was certain she consented to me having sex with her, I probably wouldn't feel the need to leave via a fire exit.

 

[lordy]

The only independent witness around at the relevant time was the hotel night porter. The porter says the girl was "extremely drunk' when entering the hotel. Mcdonald on exiting the hotel is sufficiently concerned about her condition to tell the porter to keep an eye on her as 'she is sick'. That doesn't at all sound like someone who has sobered up like the defence is trying to paint does it? Any jury hearing that is going to think that she was in fact very drunk/drugged at the relevant time.

I've never pissed the bed whilst being sober, ever.

T

The drug test found no evidence of her being spiked. She alone planted the spiked 'testimony' based on her opinion not fact. Had she been spiked before so knew what it felt like? I somehow doubt it.

It's a grey area that's not based on anything tangible.

you ever pissed the bed?

 

[Keith S30S]

I've never pissed the bed whilst being sober, ever.



you ever pissed the bed?

Drunk? Certainly. Not remember one single thing about major event the night before. Taxi journey, arrive at hotel, have sex with 2 blokes?

I've forgotten stuff and had to have my memory jogged. Forgot minor things completely. I went with a lass on my birthday chemist off drinking for over 12 hours and only remember some of it but not nothing at all?

 

[lordy]

Drunk? Certainly. Not remember one single thing about major event the night before. Taxi journey, arrive at hotel, have sex with 2 blokes?

I've forgotten stuff and had to have my memory jogged. Forgot minor things completely. I went with a lass on my birthday chemist off drinking for over 12 hours and only remember some of it but not nothing at all?

point I'm making, ever pissed the bed when you can remember getting home and stuff? I certainly havn't and I've pissed the bed many times unfortunately. Some people blank out.

 

[Keith S30S]

point I'm making, ever pissed the bed when you can remember getting home and stuff? I certainly havn't and I've pissed the bed many times unfortunately. Some people blank out.

She started drinking after midnight and had about 7 drinks. No evidence to suggest she was drugged. We've all had nights when we've been more pissed than usual despite only drinking normal amounts. She was pissed, fine but no recollection at all?

Her word, not fact.

 

[lordy]

She started drinking after midnight and had about 7 drinks. No evidence to suggest she was drugged. We've all had nights when we've been more pissed than usual despite only drinking normal amounts. She was pissed, fine but no recollection at all?

Her word, not fact.

mate I agree with you it is dubious and I also believe the law is skewed but people do blank out completely, its happened to me hundreds of times over the years and god knows whats happened during those hundreds of lost hours.