nelto
Tim Sherwood
Sloppy seconds? Nah..
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Ched Evans
- Thread starter Jurgen the German
- Start date
Sloppy seconds? Nah..
Baleforce
Ron Henry
it doesn't work like that, the system considers him rehabilitated (despite what he has said in public I suspect he's shown remorse in his counselling sessions and psychological evaluations hence the decision to release him)
there are 2 issues here, whether or not he is actually guilty (as he was found in court) shouldn't be relevant to whether he continues his career or not, he has served his sentence, he is now a free man, he should have the same chance in life as the rest as us, either he is allowed to fit back into the community or he isn't,
we can't have shades of grey here or the entire legal system would be overloaded, decisions have to be made on facts alone, the emotion has to be removed
there are 2 issues here, whether or not he is actually guilty (as he was found in court) shouldn't be relevant to whether he continues his career or not, he has served his sentence, he is now a free man, he should have the same chance in life as the rest as us, either he is allowed to fit back into the community or he isn't,
we can't have shades of grey here or the entire legal system would be overloaded, decisions have to be made on facts alone, the emotion has to be removed
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Nah did DHSF from behind once but he was so drunk he did not know about it.
Superted
Jonathan Woodgate
He knew.
clevelandspur
Pascal Chimbonda
This case is really disturbing. Evans sounds like a real **** but it does kind of bother me that one person's drunk yes isn't the same as anothers. I had a good friend get accused of rape when we were at university together under almost identical circumstances. I saw the girl minutes before him and another had sex with her and she clearly was drunk but also clearly was up for some. Next day she wakes up says she was so drunk she didn't know what happened etc.. it was rape and he got kicked out of school. Eventually the charges were dropped but it totally ruined his life for years and for what?
I am happily married now but aside from the times you have a serious girlfriend how many times are you actually having sex sober? I mean not many people hooking up dead sober on a random Wednesday afternoon. It is really scary because if you end up with the wrong girl this could literally happen to almost anyone.
I am happily married now but aside from the times you have a serious girlfriend how many times are you actually having sex sober? I mean not many people hooking up dead sober on a random Wednesday afternoon. It is really scary because if you end up with the wrong girl this could literally happen to almost anyone.
Last edited:
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
The is an old John Lennon quote about alcohol and sex but I think I forgot it, just remember thinking it true. Wonder if the is higher incidents of this happening in this country with our binge drinking culture.
So how come the Jury didn't convict McDonald then? You see its this particularly that means his conviction is wholly unsafe for me. Says to me that Evans was convicted due to who he was, rather than on the facts of the case.
Reading the facts of this case, its hard not to feel Evans hasn't been royally stitched up.
Firstly, let's get one thing out of the way, yes, it would appear to my mind that McDonald and Evans were on the lookout for a girl to get dirty with. You may feel that makes them lads, scumbags, dingdongheads, whatever. What it doesn't make them, is rapists.
Secondly, the standard of evidence in this country to convict someone of a criminal offence is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In this case, it is not denied that both men had sexual intercourse with the girl. This case hinges purely on the girl's consent, or not. Actually, as was stated by a judge in the appeal I believe, drunken consent is still consent and also a lack of memory of events does not mean consent was not given at the time (even if the jury were to find that she could not remember events - which was called into question by the expert witness called by the defence).
Now, moving onto the actual evidence, well we have:
* The girl - basically her allegation amounts to: "well i can't remember s***, but I can be sure I didn't consent to sex". Medical examination of her revealed no external or internal injuries, therefore meaning that sex was not forced on her. This means that the only remaining area where rape could be claimed is that she was too intoxicated to make any kind of decision (she doesn't have to make an informed decision - or even be capable of a wise decision - she just has to be capable of making a decision in order for charges of rape to fail). This leads us onto...
*CCTV footage - shows that while she was drunk, she arrived at the hotel unassisted and was chatting and ate a pizza.
*Toxicology report - found no alcohol in her body, but found traces of cocaine and cannabis, but in quantities that was more likely prior to the night in question.
*Expert witness - could therefore only estimate the level of intoxication at the time of the intercourse (as there was no alcohol present in her system at the time of examination) but estimated that she was 2.5 times the legal limit, which would have been enough for her to slur her words at times and could have rendered her unsteady on her feet, but in his opinion would not have resulted in memory loss.
Now we move onto the decision of the Jury. They believed McDonald's testimony that when he met her and got in a taxi she was fully concious and aware and that this was also the case when they got to the hotel room. Further, that she had initiated sexual intercourse. McDonald was acquitted of rape by the jury.
Yet, Evans was found guilty on the basis that she was too intoxicated to provide consent to sexual intercourse (i.e. she was too intoxicated to be able to make a decision).
Not only is this going against the expert opinion and estimation as to how intoxicated she was, but it is also in my mind inconsistent with their verdict regarding McDonald.
I don't think what McDonald and Evans did that night was very big or clever, but it is behaviour that many young lads engage in up and down the country every night. Once they've got the girl in the hotel room, in my view it is boiling down to it being beyond reasonable doubt that she was too intoxicated to make any kind of decision.
In my view I don't see how a jury could have found that it was beyond reasonable doubt given the CCTV footage, the questionable nature of a girl who claims that she can't remember anything, yet is adamant that she did not consent (so how do you know that?), the expert witness evidence and the fact that in Evans case they felt she was too intoxicated to make a decision, but that she wasn't in McDonald's case, which just doesn't make sense.
To me this is an example of a highly unsafe conviction.
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
Says a lot to me that he was convicted as famous/rich people tend to get away or get off extremely lightly with crimes.
Actually he hasn't served his sentence, he's on license serving a 5 year term. He isn't actually technically a free man. He's been released more than likely because the prisons are full and he isn't considered a risk to the general public.
They don't. What they can do is afford to hire the best legal representation that are better able to point out flaws in the prosecution case and present that to judge/jury in a convincing manner.
Looking at this case, Evans' team did do that, but for whatever reason the jury found him guilty when the submissions from his team were pretty powerful (in my view if you read the court transcript).
Baleforce
Ron Henry
ok, i think even that case <released convicted criminal> should still be allowed to go back to work
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
Part of the reason they get away with it is because they have the best legal teams as you point out.
Oscar Pistorious got a ridiculous sentence for his crimes. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.
He didn't get a ridiculous sentence for his crimes.
Firstly, it's South Africa, a completely different legal system to here, but...
*he was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of culpable homicide.
So basically, the court or justice system found that he did not intentionally kill his girlfriend, but acted recklessly and negligently and his actions brought about her death.
The sentence reflects that and also his psychological state, his disability and the fact that he probably isn't considered a danger to the public.
Once you've ruled out a deliberate death, the sentencing will always dramatically reduce.
You can argue until the cows come home as to whether you feel that he murdered her or not, but the court found that he didn't. They didn't find her death to be accidental, as they found that his actions, while not deliberate, did endanger life and led to her death and were not the actions of a reasonable person.
But the sentence reflects the fact that he was not found guilty of murder.
I can see both points of view in terms of a convicted rapist being allowed to pursue a high-profile and highly rewarded sporting profession. However in Evans case, my concern is that the conviction wasn't the safest that I've seen and I'm not sure he should have been convicted (I must qualify this in that I am a law graduate and work as a fraud investigator and I am therefore involved with our legal system day-to-day in my job, but I'm not a solicitor/barrister)
Superted
Jonathan Woodgate
He's not really famous or rich though is he? And besides, I don't agree with the assertion that celebs get off more than us regular folk.