Ched Evans - serious injury

[forevermancity]

looks like justice is finally prevailing but he wont have a chance of a career here anymore. acquitted and then he will play abroad next season onwards

 

[ComfySeats]

Has his decision been turned over yet. If so what are the financially implications i.e loss of earnings will he be able to sue someone and if so who?

 

[Matty]

The details of what happened that night, the text messages, the going back to the hotel room, the sneaking in through the fire exit, are all well and good but, ultimately, filler with no relevance whatsoever to the pertinent issue, did she consent? The only point where it really matters is, once Evans was in the room, and starting to initiate the "encounter" was she capable of active participation? Did she engage in sexual intercourse willingly? The only people who can answer that are Evans, Mackenzie, and her. Evans and Mackenzie say yes, she says "I don't remember". For me that should have been it. The prosecutions case was almost entirely circumstantial. Their argument was that she was so drunk she couldn't have agreed to have sex with either of the two men (the jury only agreed she didn't agree to Evans, but did agree to Mackenzie, albeit based on her interaction with Mackenzie prior to reaching the room). Even with medical and scientific evidence regarding alcohol levels etc that's still a judgement call. There will be hundreds, possibly thousands , of Bluemoon members who have got pissed and ended up sleeping with someone, then in the morning had, at best, hazy memories of what went on the night before. Failing to remember events doesn't mean you were forced into undertaking those events. It just means you can't remember, nothing more, nothing less.

The scenario that Evans showed up at the room, found a passed out, or barely conscious woman, and slept with her without her knowing what was going on is certainly a possibility. However, in order to convict him of rape it has to be the only possibility that could have happened, beyond any reasonable doubt. How on earth other scenarios, such as Evans arriving at the room, the woman being pissed (so lower inhibitions) and deciding (although possible not verbalising) "fuck it, I've never had a threesome before" and having sex with Evans, can be discounted beyond all reasonable doubt seems baffling to me.

Evans is clearly a complete dick, and this is the kind of young lad/young footballer behaviour we all hate. That doesn't make him guilty of rape however, it just makes him a grade A twat.

 

[Matty]

Has his decision been turned over yet. If so what are the financially implications i.e loss of earnings will he be able to sue someone and if so who?

At this stage all that has happened is a decision has been made that there's enough reason to reconsider the original verdict. There's no guarantees that any legal decision will, eventually, be changed. The outcome could still be that Evans is guilty of rape.

However, should the verdict be overturned, and Evans be found to have been wrongfully convicted, then someone is going to be paying Evans a shit load of money. His lost earnings, both since the incident, and potential future earnings (he'll still be tarred with this going forward) for a professional footballer, and International one to boot, will be sizeable to say the least. It would be the CPS I suspect who would be the target, the police gather the evidence and present it to the CPS, it's their call as to whether to proceed to trial, so it's them who decided there was enough evidence to suggest rape was likely.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

That's spot on Matty. The only issue is was she in a fit state to consent and, if so, did she consent.

The same also applies to McDonald though. The fact they got in a taxi together is circumstantial but irrelevant I would have thought. The key issue is did she consent to have sex with one, both or neither.

We don't know what the jury discussed or how they came to their verdicts but the implication is they came to the conclusion that she was in a fit state to consent to sex with McDonald yet, just 10 minutes later, wasn't in a fit state to do so with Evans. That's the disturbing part as far as I'm concerned.

Given that the only testimony came from Evans & McDonald, then there surely had to be some doubt?

 

[ComfySeats]

At this stage all that has happened is a decision has been made that there's enough reason to reconsider the original verdict. There's no guarantees that any legal decision will, eventually, be changed. The outcome could still be that Evans is guilty of rape.

However, should the verdict be overturned, and Evans be found to have been wrongfully convicted, then someone is going to be paying Evans a shit load of money. His lost earnings, both since the incident, and potential future earnings (he'll still be tarred with this going forward) for a professional footballer, and International one to boot, will be sizeable to say the least. It would be the CPS I suspect who would be the target, the police gather the evidence and present it to the CPS, it's their call as to whether to proceed to trial, so it's them who decided there was enough evidence to suggest rape was likely.

Ahh ok so if it is overturned the CPS will have to write him a blank cheque essentially.

I have mixed feelings about this situation as if he has been wrongly convicted of rape then yeah he deserves to be recompensed but in the same respect don't be cheating on your missus.

 

[FantasyIreland]

It is a fucking disgrace what this lad has been through. He is no rapist and never has been. 5 years of his life fucked up.

I couldn't have put it better,other than cheating on his bird......his only crimes are stupidity and naivety

 

[Matty]

That's spot on Matty. The only issue is was she in a fit state to consent and, if so, did she consent.

The same also applies to McDonald though. The fact they got in a taxi together is circumstantial but irrelevant I would have thought. The key issue is did she consent to have sex with one, both or neither.

We don't know what the jury discussed or how they came to their verdicts but the implication is they came to the conclusion that she was in a fit state to consent to sex with McDonald yet, just 10 minutes later, wasn't in a fit state to do so with Evans. That's the disturbing part as far as I'm concerned.

Given that the only testimony came from Evans & McDonald, then there surely had to be some doubt?

The implication seemed to be that, as she'd spent a fair portion of the night with McDonald, and had gone back to the hotel with him that there was implied consent. Essentially a case of "they both knew what they were going back to the room to do", so the fact she became drunker, and drunker, as the night progressed, and may well have been paralytic by the time they jumped into bed, didn't seem to matter, as there was a degree of assumption on MacDonald's part that they felt was acceptable. Evans, on the other hand, just showed up when she was already in the room, and had had no earlier engagement with her, so couldn't have this "implied consent". It's all bollocks really. I simply refuse to believe that anyone can accurately assess the degree to which a single individuals faculties are impaired by alcohol on a specific night. I've been pissed as a fart after 4 or 5 pints on some nights, yet felt pretty ok after 7 or 8 on others. People are affected differently by alcohol, I will be affected more, or less, by a few pints than the bloke sat next to me, and equally I will be affect more, or less, by alcohol today than I will be tomorrow. There is absolutely no way to accurately tell exactly how she was affected by alcohol on that night, which means there's no way to tell whether she was or wasn't a willing participant. The fact she suffered a degree of memory loss is no indicator of her ability to consent at the point she was required to do so, that's a totally different part of the brain to the one which makes decisions and communicates. Anyone who suggests otherwise is guessing, and guessing is no basis for a criminal conviction.

 

[M18CTID]

The implication seemed to be that, as she'd spent a fair portion of the night with McDonald, and had gone back to the hotel with him that there was implied consent. Essentially a case of "they both knew what they were going back to the room to do", so the fact she became drunker, and drunker, as the night progressed, and may well have been paralytic by the time they jumped into bed, didn't seem to matter, as there was a degree of assumption on MacDonald's part that they felt was acceptable. Evans, on the other hand, just showed up when she was already in the room, and had had no earlier engagement with her, so couldn't have this "implied consent". It's all bollocks really. I simply refuse to believe that anyone can accurately assess the degree to which a single individuals faculties are impaired by alcohol on a specific night. I've been pissed as a fart after 4 or 5 pints on some nights, yet felt pretty ok after 7 or 8 on others. People are affected differently by alcohol, I will be affected more, or less, by a few pints than the bloke sat next to me, and equally I will be affect more, or less, by alcohol today than I will be tomorrow. There is absolutely no way to accurately tell exactly how she was affected by alcohol on that night, which means there's no way to tell whether she was or wasn't a willing participant. The fact she suffered a degree of memory loss is no indicator of her ability to consent at the point she was required to do so, that's a totally different part of the brain to the one which makes decisions and communicates. Anyone who suggests otherwise is guessing, and guessing is no basis for a criminal conviction.

Do you know, that's pretty much exactly what I said word for word much earlier in this thread. It largely went unnoticed but what you've said there is absolutely bang on the money. From my own experiences over many years, there is no uniformity to how I may be affected by alcohol on any given night. You can call up all the experts in the world on this but not one person who wasn't in attendance will be able to definitively deduce exactly what happened in that room.

 

[EalingBlue2]

I'd be surprised if that amounted to enough to constitute launching an appeal - there has to be something more compelling for them to consider an appeal surely.

As for it being his word against hers, well technically speaking it's more like his word against the police and CPS because she never made a complaint against him.

Legally new evidences as you say likely to be something new that the defence should have had at the first trial. Contradictory evidence wouldn't be new that was always there to be explored as statements were made and available. Comments on her rep and what other people think are irellevant legally to this so it won't be that either, unless a significant pattern of deliberate entrapment was alleged which seems outlandish.

Would have to be a new witness, new footage or something else not availble at the time.

It will be interesting to see if it changes the case and verdict? However unless it is incredibly strong it may not change the verdict or public perception. Guilt is after all in most people's eyes a judgement made for themselves and a murdered who gets away with it is still a murdered just as an innocent who gets life is still innocent. Unless there is a smoking gun then the likelihood is he will still be perceived as guilty anyway by many just as people didn't respect the guilty verdict.

Hopefully it is resolved quickly, the question will then be was this defence incompetence or prosecution skullduggery that meant a trial was conducted without evidence that was relevant