Charlie Webster

[Grachan 7,362]

a degree of consent?? How do you know she wasnt going back to take drugs? How do you know she wasnt going back because she had no taxi fare home??.... You dont, especially because she cant remember... She cant remember anything, total anmesia so how do you or the jury know??.... Quick answer is you dont.

The case centred around consent, going to a room with someone is not consent, no matter how you dress it up. So they both Raped her, because she had no knowlege of mcdonald having sex with her.

It wasnt that did she consent or not, its was she medically capable of consenting.... If she deeped not capable with one then she isnt medically cabable with either....

You don't know for sure, maybe, but it is enough to cast reasonable doubt. I only know from what is on here. I don't know the full details of the case. But that's how it seems to me.

 

There is a clear difference between the two though.

 

It does seem to me that the first guy is guilty of some form of aiding and abetting, however, with regard to the second case.

Edited December 26, 2014 by grachan

[orion 7,615]

The case isn't about her being drunk. The case is that in the first instance she willingly went to a hotel with the guy, hence a degree of consent was assumed. Not guilty.

 

In the second instance the guy snuck in the room, gave her one without her knowledge, and snuck out again. Sounds like rape to me.

The whole case is about her being so drunk she could not defend her self without that there is no case as there was no sign of her being forced .

[Arson fire 4,785]

Police brought the case because she was deemed medically unable to consent to both men, meaning she cant make an informed decision... Whats wrong is how the jury and appeal court ruled she could and couldnt..... What happened before and after should have no bearing if she was unable to make informed decisions... So either they both did or they both didnt??

Evans acted shadily, but his actions dont mean he raped her...

 

If i stood outside the bank on a cold day in a balyclava whilst it was been robbed, then ran for my bus it doesnt mean ive robbed the bank or played any part in it.... But my actions would suggest otherwise.

[E I Addio 15,845]

What happened before and after should have no bearing if she was unable to make informed decisions... So either they both did or they both didnt??

.

h

 

That is incorrect. What happened before and after has a lot to,do with it. There is a whole raft of case law on what constitutes consent. Stacks of it, but you are choosing to dismiss it in making that comment. If it was a simple case that both did or both didn't they would have been charged jointly but they faced separate charges even though they were tried together. The fact that they were separetely charged always allowed the possibility of separate verdicts. One of the reasons for separate charges was because in some area their evidence contradicted each other.

 

We can argue the merits of the case until the cows come home but your argument is based on the premise that the Jury, the trial judge and the four appeal judges that looked at it were all in some way corrupt or incompetent . There is a possibility that Evans own legal team were. Incompetent and possibly his new legal team may get somewhere on that point, but the fact remains that on the evidence before the court Evans has been found guilty, and the jury did hear the entirety of the evidence, not just what has been summarised in the press. I don 't think many forum members have absolute blind faith in the legal system but there is no particular evidence at this stage that the total of 5 judges involved in the case were corrupt, yet for your opinion to stand they must all have been corrupt or incompetent.

. I only know from what is on here. I don't know the full details of the case.

.

That surely is the point.

 

All of us only really know what is on here. The jury had the advantage of stitting through the entire evidence for several days, and their decision was unanimous. One must give 12 people some credit for being reasonably intelligent even if individually some are not as sharp as others. That is why we have a jury system.

Edited December 26, 2014 by E I Addio

[Arson fire 4,785]

h

 

That is incorrect. What happened before and after has a lot to,do with it. There is a whole raft of case law on what constitutes consent. Stacks of it, but you are choosing to dismiss it in making that comment. If it was a simple case that both did or both didn't they would have been charged jointly but they faced separate charges even though they were tried together. The fact that they were separetely charged always allowed the possibility of separate verdicts. One of the reasons for separate charges was because in some area their evidence contradicted each other.

 

We can argue the merits of the case until the cows come home but your argument is based on the premise that the Jury, the trial judge and the four appeal judges that looked at it were all in some way corrupt or incompetent . There is a possibility that Evans own legal team were. Incompetent and possibly his new legal team may get somewhere on that point, but the fact remains that on the evidence before the court Evans has been found guilty, and the jury did hear the entirety of the evidence, not just what has been summarised in the press. I don 't think many forum members have absolute blind faith in the legal system but there is no particular evidence at this stage that the total of 5 judges involved in the case were corrupt, yet for your opinion to stand they must all have been corrupt or incompetent.

That surely is the point.

 

All of us only really know what is on here. The jury had the advantage of stitting through the entire evidence for several days, and their decision was unanimous. One must give 12 people some credit for being reasonably intelligent even if individually some are not as sharp as others. That is why we have a jury system.

to my knowlege ive never said they were corrupt at all??so no need to put words in my mouth.

She was deemed in no fit state to make an informed decision, what does that tell you??

 

Do I think they were incompetent?? Yes probably i do.... The case was all about 2 blokes raping a woman who couldnt consent,,.. 2 blokes, not one, they ( the cps) could not charge them together and get one verdict?? So dont understand that bit... The consenting of sexual relations relates to the act and the abilty to consent to go to a room, pizza shop or taxi rank doesnt constitute having sex... It consents to going to a room, pizza shop or taxi rank.

 

To say that anyone consenting to go to a room is consenting to intimacy is both foolhardy and incorrect.

 

The judge jury and appeals are wrong now and again you know, ive had first hand experience of it with one of my staff.... Who after trial, sentence and 2 appeals was cleared of any wrong doing, they are not bomb proof whatsoever.

 

 

What is fact is that she was deemed not to have the capacity to make a decision, so what makes have capacity 15-20mins beforehand?? Thats what i cant get my head around, she had total amnesia according to the prosecution.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/

 

Getting like the Mccann thread this where you cant have a differing opinion than the norm, before being accused or called

Edited December 26, 2014 by Arson fire

[Steve55 340]

Can't believe some of the posts I've read on here! I'm totally behind Charlie Webster & Jess Ennis on this. How can anybody defend what this man Evans has been found 'guilty' of. The Court/jury found him 'guilty' as charged. The evidence is quite clear as outlined in the previous pages. Don't care what any of you say, why should he go back to what he had before, 5k a week (or whatever) and a privelidged life style.

This bloke has a good looking girl friend (with a millionaire father) why does he react to a text from one of his mates, allegedly saying "got the girl", by going straight to the hotel, entering deviously and leaving anonymously, after having sex with a totally unknown girl!

All this he's paid the price for his misdemeanour is rubbish. He's served half his sentence, not because he's shown remorse, but because he's behaved inside.

His PR video is about as genuine as a plastic gold medal, with his upset girlfriend along side him, what is she all about? What has she got to be forgiving for? He must have got her wrapped around his little finger as has she with her dad!

Well he's got another appeal on the go and to have got that he must have produced 'new evidence' for this. Hope it's good and not one of his mates coming out with something he's heard! But let's wait and see, he's got the best defence team money can buy, but he also had that for his PR stunt - which wasn't very good, was it?

[Arson fire 4,785]

Can't believe some of the posts I've read on here! I'm totally behind Charlie Webster & Jess Ennis on this. How can anybody defend what this man Evans has been found 'guilty' of. The Court/jury found him 'guilty' as charged. The evidence is quite clear as outlined in the previous pages. Don't care what any of you say, why should he go back to what he had before, 5k a week (or whatever) and a privelidged life style.

This bloke has a good looking girl friend (with a millionaire father) why does he react to a text from one of his mates, allegedly saying "got the girl", by going straight to the hotel, entering deviously and leaving anonymously, after having sex with a totally unknown girl!

All this he's paid the price for his misdemeanour is rubbish. He's served half his sentence, not because he's shown remorse, but because he's behaved inside.

His PR video is about as genuine as a plastic gold medal, with his upset girlfriend along side him, what is she all about? What has she got to be forgiving for? He must have got her wrapped around his little finger as has she with her dad!

Well he's got another appeal on the go and to have got that he must have produced 'new evidence' for this. Hope it's good and not one of his mates coming out with something he's heard! But let's wait and see, he's got the best defence team money can buy, but he also had that for his PR stunt - which wasn't very good, was it?

Nobody is defending him at all, we are questioning how the verdicts were reached....imo i think they are unsafe with alot of things unanswered, am i not entitled to that opinion just because its not the same as the majority?? If hes a footballer or a plasterer it doesnt matter a jot, nor does it if his girlfriend is pretty, her dad has cash or hes shown no remorse. Thats got nothing to do with the verdict.

[Star Lady 5,400]

Just to put another twist on this. Why if some folk are puzzled by the two separate verdicts regarding consent are they not questioning why the other male involved was found innocent? They insist there was no difference in her state of mind (or otherwise) so why was one cleared and one not. Strange that they seem to want both to be innocent and not both guilty.

[Arson fire 4,785]

Just to put another twist on this. Why if some folk are puzzled by the two separate verdicts regarding consent are they not questioning why the other male involved was found innocent? They insist there was no difference in her state of mind (or otherwise) so why was one cleared and one not. Strange that they seem to want both to be innocent and not both guilty.

thats not the case at all?? who has said that?

[Grachan 7,362]

Just to put another twist on this. Why if some folk are puzzled by the two separate verdicts regarding consent are they not questioning why the other male involved was found innocent? They insist there was no difference in her state of mind (or otherwise) so why was one cleared and one not. Strange that they seem to want both to be innocent and not both guilty.

If you read through, you'll see that some people are saying both should be guilty. You seem to be reading things into it that aren't there.

 

There may be a case for both to have been guilty, but there is certainly a difference in the two scenarios.

[Steve55 340]

Nobody is defending him at all, we are questioning how the verdicts were reached....imo i think they are unsafe with alot of things unanswered, am i not entitled to that opinion just because its not the same as the majority?? If hes a footballer or a plasterer it doesnt matter a jot, nor does it if his girlfriend is pretty, her dad has cash or hes shown no remorse. Thats got nothing to do with the verdict.

I'm on about the posts stating that he should be allowed to resume his previous career as a very well paid sports person, in the public eye and as a role model to aspiring young men and boys. That's what matters here. His actions were underhand & devious and he was found 'guilty' of a very serious crime. As a convicted rapist he shouldn't be able to return to his previous fortune & fame as he is not a good example to the rest of society!

As for the other ne'er-do-well involved in the offence well he got off. However for one reason or another his career hasn't really progressed, either nobody is interested in him or he's not very good at football.

Tell you what though if by some miracle Sheffield United had made it back into the Premiership in the interim whilst Evans was inside I believe none of this would be in the news, because they wouldn't have given any thought what so ever in re-signing him.

Also without his girl friend and her rich daddy I don't think he'd be able to afford the new legal team in his current attempt to 'prove himself innocent'. That's always a possibility too. How many times have the 'Guilty' gone free because of some technicality, because the judge used the wrong words when summing up or the prosecution failed to disclose some really un-important material. They'll be going through everything with a fine tooth comb, why because they think he's innocent or because they are being paid very well?

[orion 7,615]

If you read through, you'll see that some people are saying both should be guilty. You seem to be reading things into it that aren't there.

 

There may be a case for both to have been guilty, but there is certainly a difference in the two scenarios.

Don't think there is either was in control or she was not . she still had the same amount of drink in her no matter who slept with her and that is what the case depends on .. no drunk girl no case .

 

Anyhow time to watch the darts with those great role models Phil Taylor and Klassen

Edited December 27, 2014 by orion

[Skidder1 7,637]

Police brought the case because she was deemed medically unable to consent to both men, meaning she cant make an informed decision... Whats wrong is how the jury and appeal court ruled she could and couldnt..... What happened before and after should have no bearing if she was unable to make informed decisions... So either they both did or they both didnt??

Evans acted shadily, but his actions dont mean he raped her...

 

If i stood outside the bank on a cold day in a balyclava whilst it was been robbed, then ran for my bus it doesnt mean ive robbed the bank or played any part in it.... But my actions would suggest otherwise.

 

....but you could have made a quick withdrawal from the 'hole in the wall'!!

[The White Knight 9,039]

You don't know for sure, maybe, but it is enough to cast reasonable doubt. I only know from what is on here. I don't know the full details of the case. But that's how it seems to me.

 

There is a clear difference between the two though.

 

It does seem to me that the first guy is guilty of some form of aiding and abetting, however, with regard to the second case.

If there is "reasonable doubt" he should not have been found Guilty. I would say, though, that the man is certainly no gentleman to take advantage as he is alleged to have done. Is he a Rapist? - I don't know but there does seem to be doubt.