Ched Evans cleared of rape in retrial

There are way too many blurred lines. When people say 'reasonable' - that is a massive grey area. Evans must have thought it was reasonable when she 'nodded her head' or didn't say no, does that mean he wasn't given consent? She didn't explicitly say no did she?

People are still saying that his mate denied Evans ever saying that the girl said yes to him when he in fact texted him that he found a drunk girl so surely he should've went to prison for exactly the same reason as Ched Evans as she was too wasted to have the capacity to consent.

When American footballer Brian Banks was cleared of rape, everyone jumped to his support and felt sympathy for him, even though it was in the USA which has more lunatic feminists than the UK does. Why does the media not do the same here?

Brian Banks was acquitted after his accuser was recorded admitting she had fabricated the story.

Evans was acquitted after the second jury was not allowed to know that the third party in the room says Evans is not telling the truth.

Personally, I think that's a significant difference...

Just because someone you should know is extremely drunk isn't telling you to stop, that's not a reasonable belief in their consent.

Let's put you in his position, based on what Evans and McDonald say happened:

You've arrived in a hotel room, uninvited, unexpected and unwanted. (You had to lie to get the door key - you've been drinking, but you're in control of your mind and your actions.) Your mate is having sex with a woman. You've never spoken to the woman before, and you do not speak to her now. You don't actually know who she is... was she the one you stepped over when she was lying drunk on the floor of that kebab shop a while ago? Either way, your mate hears your brother and a friend at the window trying to film what's happening and gets off her to close the curtains. He also doesn't ask her whether you can have sex with her, but you do anyway... without using a condom, and you don't ask about that either.

Where's your reasonable belief in her consent?



McDonald was put on trial for rape himself, and acquitted by the same jury that found Evans guilty. He'd actually talked to her prior to having sex with her for one thing, and may have had a reasonable belief in her consent. The jury that were told that McDonald says he didn't ask her if Evans could have sex with her had no doubts that Evans did not have any reasonable belief.

In that case, Macdonald is guilty of withholding evidence, because that information should've come out first time round. But then again I could be wrong, Clayton Macdonald could be lying about Evans lying.

The evidence did come out at the first trial.

In the second, if Evans is telling the truth, why didn't he call McDonald as a witness? He's a mate, and has never ever had any reason to lie about not asking her. If he had asked, Evans would never have been on trial.

I don't agree with the decision of the CPS not to call him as a witness, but presumably he or someone else said that he'd not cooperate.

The evidence did come out at the first trial.

In the second, if Evans is telling the truth, why didn't he call McDonald as a witness? He's a mate, and has never ever had any reason to lie about not asking her. If he had asked, Evans would never have been on trial.

I don't agree with the decision of the CPS not to call him as a witness, but presumably he or someone else said that he'd not cooperate.

Again, that can be misinterpreted - there was evidence of the girl falling over flat on her face so I believe Mr McDonald took a vulnerable girl and placed her in a dangerous position by taking her back to the hotel. What doesn't make sense is that she was fine walking to the hotel by picking the pizza box up, but wasn't fine to consent to Ched Evans? Did she sober up before she met Ched because she said she couldn't remember anything and that may mean she couldn't remember going back to the hotel with McDonald therefore he could have been charged for rape on the basis of that evidence.

Secondly, drunk consent as juries are reminded by judges is still consent.

Thirdly there is evidence that from her past sexual experiences, the complainant encouraged Evans on that night to penetrate her 'doggy style' and using the words 'f*** me harder*. This, it was argued that she was consenting, and also supported the reasonableness of his belief that she was consenting.

Well if that evidence did come out at the first trial then I don't think he should've been allowed to have a 2nd trial. There must be something else because on that basis alone I don't think he would've been allowed to have another trial. Also he has to tell the truth because he is in court as does Macdonald.

I don't think he should have had a second trial either! It was the dodgy new 'evidence for reward' that led to the new trial.

News just in: people accused of serious crimes sometimes lie in court.

There's zero benefit to McDonald lying about what happened when Evans arrived in the room and started to have sex with her, but plenty of benefit for Evans to do so.

However I'm willing to bet that because the CPS and the Police force in Wales were the ones who launched a rape investigation rather than her reporting one directly, it does suggest something may have gone wrong in the original investigation,

The fact that Evans' highly paid lawyers and investigators failed to find anything whatsoever wrong with it over the past five years strongly suggests that there wasn't.

The rape investigation only started after talking to Evans and McDonald to find out what had happened to the handbag. What they said then lead directly to the trial.

To be honest they're lucky it even got to court in the first place, they're lucky that in a case where there is no definitive answer due to the lack of indisputable evidence, that the CPS even took it on once let alone twice.

The fact that Evans was quickly and unanimously convicted by the first jury and that conviction was upheld by the single Court of Appeal judge and then a full panel of three, including the top judge in England, would suggest that it wasn't a 'lucky' conviction.

The luck aspect comes in him having a girlfriend with a very rich father and a mate who wouldn't give evidence that he was lying.

He might not be lying, I don't know whether he is or not so I'm not going to make an assumption like that.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I meant that if there is insufficient evidence to get a conviction then a crime is unlikely to get to court, in this case it seems that there was insufficient evidence to get a definitive answer (guilty or not guilty) so I have no idea why it went to court.

I have absolutely no idea why our society and police forces don't encourage a guilty plea as soon as possible to save the whole trial routine from going ahead in the first place.

Well, Evans said that McDonald asked her and McDonald has always said that he didn't, including saying so on oath. One of them has to be lying.

As McDonald has nothing to gain by saying that he did not ask, and plenty to gain by saying that he did, I think we can be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that McDonald is telling the truth.

If McDonald is telling the truth, Evans isn't. And he has plenty to gain - an acquittal! - by lying.



You don't have to have an idea, but the CPS do and they (rightly) thought there was a more than 50% chance of a conviction in the first trial.



You get a discount in sentence for an early plea of guilty. But Evans has always believed that what he did isn't rape, and so was never going to plead guilty.

Unfortunately for him, the jury that heard from everyone in the room disagreed.

OK stop saying 'Macdonald said this, that or the other'. Clayton Macdonald has no business dealing with this, he did exactly what Ched did