Ingram85 Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 That's what's confusing for me, based on the evidence presented originally, unless I'm missing something or admittedly, I could just be being oblivious to something or just plain wrong even, but how the hell can the jury & judge sentence him to 5 years and be put on the sex offenders register and have him legally labelled 'Rapist'? From what I read, I can't see how they can 100% come to that conclusion without any doubt at all and be secure enough in their decision and consciences to say as such. I'd need more evidence than what that link said they had to be so 100% sure to condemn a man to such a sentences whether I think he is scum or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 34 minutes ago, Ingram85 said: Care to elaborate? If it's what I'm assuming, and after you've read the link Tony gave, can you categorically say 100% that Evans raped her and deserved a 5 year jail sentence? Because I can't. From the information available I believe there's every chance I'd have found him guilty beyond 'reasonable doubt', of course nothing in these kind of scenarios is 100% certain but just semantics I guess. Numerous evidence stating how drunk she is, including the fact she'd pissed herself in the night. Evans arrives with two mates, who then begin filming from outside which kind of suggests to me they know she isn't really aware of what's going on. Evans leaves sharpish after the deed, down a fire escape, while Mcdonald leaves through the front door, telling the hotel porter to keep an eye on her as she's 'sick', again suggesting she's out of it. Given the definition of rape being (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents. I can see how the jury have come to the conclusion that Evans didn't have a reasonable belief of consent. His actions to me from the account, are that of someone who fully well knows he's taking advantage. I'm very interested to see what the new evidence is though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 6 minutes ago, penguin said: Given the definition of rape being (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. I guess the debate around it could be , the victim herself has said she remembers nothing of the event ... therefore how can she be sure she didn't consent ? unless you go with the jury view she was so drunk and thus couldn't consent ..which would then still possibly raise the question as to how Macdonald is innocent ? Evans entering the room via a key could be viewed that she didn't consent to him being there , in the way a knock on the door would have ... but then it comes down to the discussion (if there was one) about his involvement with the victim ... 30 seconds * earlier she was consenting to sex with MacDonald , what's changed at the point when Evans then performs oral sex on her .. has she passed out ? but Evans believes he had that consent based on a conversation that took place .. which is the debatable part as we only have Evan's word for it ( and Macdonalds ?) as the victim can't remember ... and so we come back to the too drunk to consent line again ... * I don't know the exact timeline on that discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 36 minutes ago, Ingram85 said: That's what's confusing for me, based on the evidence presented originally, unless I'm missing something or admittedly, I could just be being oblivious to something or just plain wrong even, but how the hell can the jury & judge sentence him to 5 years and be put on the sex offenders register and have him legally labelled 'Rapist'? From what I read, I can't see how they can 100% come to that conclusion without any doubt at all and be secure enough in their decision and consciences to say as such. I'd need more evidence than what that link said they had to be so 100% sure to condemn a man to such a sentences whether I think he is scum or not. To be fair, I don't think a precis of the basic facts for the purposes of the appeal judgement is the best thing to base our (i.e. those of us who were not present throughout the trial) judgement on. I don't know how long the actual trial took (or how long the jury took to deliberate) but I guess there is much more than in the few hundred words on that page to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ingram85 said: Care to elaborate? If it's what I'm assuming, and after you've read the link Tony gave, can you categorically say 100% that Evans raped her and deserved a 5 year jail sentence? Because I can't. I'll respond in more detail shortly, but I will say now it's not for me - or indeed any of us - to say categorically whether he did or he didn't. The situation is obviously ambiguous. He was convicted, failed an appeal, served a sentence and has now had that sentence quashed due to evidence we don't know about. Edited April 22, 2016 by HanoiVillan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted April 22, 2016 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2016 And to come at it from the other angle. The problem that she has, and others in her situation have, is that because of the alcohol and because of the lack of recollection, it becomes very difficult to prove that it happened, even if it did happen. Which is a horrible predicament to be in too. Depending on who the innocent party is here, and even regardless of who it is, this is all a bit of a shit show. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: I'll respond in more detail shortly, but I will say now it's not for me - or indeed any of us - to say categorically whether he did or he didn't. The situation is obviously ambiguous. He was convicted, failed an appeal, served a sentence and has now had that sentence quashed due to evidence we don't know about. It's obviously an ambiguous situation. Very true I guess. Plus like snowy says, the courthouse was probably privy to a lot more detail than I know about. Such a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: I guess the debate around it could be , the victim herself has said she remembers nothing of the event ... therefore how can she be sure she didn't consent ? unless you go with the jury view she was so drunk and thus couldn't consent ..which would then still possibly raise the question as to how Macdonald is innocent ? Evans entering the room via a key could be viewed that she didn't consent to him being there , in the way a knock on the door would have ... but then it comes down to the discussion (if there was one) about his involvement with the victim ... 30 seconds * earlier she was consenting to sex with MacDonald , what's changed at the point when Evans then performs oral sex on her .. has she passed out ? but Evans believes he had that consent based on a conversation that took place .. which is the debatable part as we only have Evan's word for it ( and Macdonalds ?) as the victim can't remember ... and so we come back to the too drunk to consent line again ... * I don't know the exact timeline on that discussion From how I understand it, and I'm by no means an expert, Macdonald was found not guilty as he had the reasonable belief she had consented as she went back with him, just from looking at the definition. She may have been too drunk to consent the whole time - (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. but that would satisfy only one of the criteria, as long as he reasonably believed she wanted to. Hence why it's not rape every time someone has sex drunk, as long as there is the reasonable belief of consent. The difference with Evans is that the jury didn't believe he had a reasonable belief of her consent. I could be wide of the mark here but this is my understanding. Edited April 22, 2016 by penguin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted April 22, 2016 Administrator Share Posted April 22, 2016 7 hours ago, Ingram85 said: IF he is found innocent of course. In the UK, you can't be found innocent. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Signed for Chesterfield on a one year deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Well he did his Time, there is also now Another retrial I have no problem with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 20, 2016 Moderator Share Posted June 20, 2016 The reactions I've seen online have been quite supportive of him. Which is slightly surprising, knowing online as I do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Good on Chesterfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) On 4/21/2016 at 12:21, penguin said: Rightly or wrongly whether he gets found not guilty at his retrial or not, I have little sympathy for the situation he's found himself in as it came about from him acting like such an odious scumbag. For having consensual sex? That's a really warped opinion. Assuming him to be innocent at this stage I have every sympathy for him, for what he has had to go through and is still going through. Edit - let me just add that if she was too pissed to consent, then he should be found guilty. Again. I'm not arguing otherwise. Edited June 21, 2016 by dont_do_it_doug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 1 minute ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: For having consensual sex? That's a really warped opinion. Assuming him to be innocent at this stage I have every sympathy for him, for what he has had to go through and is still going through. He is the type of guy who finds out his mate is at a hotel, shagging some bird to drunk to know what planet she is on, and thinks to himself 'I fancy some of that.' **** him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Just now, rodders0223 said: He is the type of guy who finds out his mate is at a hotel, shagging some bird to drunk to know what planet she is on, and thinks to himself 'I fancy some of that.' **** him. How do you know that's how it went down? That sounds like rape to me and I'm sure it would be enough to convict, but he's had his conviction quashed so anything we think we know up to this point should be too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, rodders0223 said: He is the type of guy who finds out his mate is at a hotel, shagging some bird to drunk to know what planet she is on, and thinks to himself 'I fancy some of that.' **** him. Really? So why wasn't his mate guilty if she was "too drunk to know what planet she is on"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 If they've all had a bit to drink* and fancy a spit roast, what would be wrong with that? I'm asking genuinely. It's not for me, I don't want to be looking at another bloke when I'm having sex with a lady, but it's hardly perverted. I don't understand the big issue with it, even from a feminist standpoint. *not too much that you can't provide lawful consent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 57 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: For having consensual sex? That's a really warped opinion. Assuming him to be innocent at this stage I have every sympathy for him, for what he has had to go through and is still going through. Edit - let me just add that if she was too pissed to consent, then he should be found guilty. Again. I'm not arguing otherwise. Not at all. CCTV, the night porters statement and the fact she woke up the next morning having pissed herself and no recollection of what happened all point to her being heavily intoxicated. Evans lied to gain access to the hotel room, his mates waiting at the window. Then after the deed escaped down a fire escape to avoid the main reception, all sounds to me that he knew he was taking advantage at the very least. So as I said whether he gets found not guilty or not my sympathy is very limited, as this isn't the behaviour of a decent human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, penguin said: Not at all. CCTV, the night porters statement and the fact she woke up the next morning having pissed herself and no recollection of what happened all point to her being heavily intoxicated. Evans lied to gain access to the hotel room, his mates waiting at the window. Then after the deed escaped down a fire escape to avoid the main reception, all sounds to me that he knew he was taking advantage at the very least. So as I said whether he gets found not guilty or not my sympathy is very limited, as this isn't the behaviour of a decent human being. The conviction has been overturned. We don't know why at this stage. What we do know is that it has happened which casts a shadow over all of the evidence stated above, does it not? I'm not his lawyer and I agree with @HanoiVillan that we don't really know what went on and we probably never will. But you are pretty much still talking about it in terms of rape, when he is, so far as we know, innocent of such. Edited June 21, 2016 by dont_do_it_doug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts