The Student Room Group

Ched Evans should have his conviction overturned

Poll

Should Ched Evans have his conviction overturned?

Facts of the case laid out in a superb article. No bias from the author, just the facts.

"I can't remember" isn't evidence, I'm afraid. This conviction is unsafe and should be overturned immediately.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794715/predatory-soccer-stars-drunken-girl-seedy-night-premier-inn-richard-pendlebury-revisits-disturbing-events-led-rape-trial-ched-evans.html

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
If he is innocent, it should be overturned.

However, I cannot imagine how 12 different people, including men and women, who unlike us have seen all the evidence, could have previously come to a unanimous decision that he is not innocent, if he was in fact innocent. Mind you, it is definitely possible that all 12 of them made a mistake, but it just seems so unlikely. Furthermore, showing up uninvited at the hotel (he was invited by his friend, but there is no evidence that the semi-conscious woman was complicit in that invitation, while there is evidence that she was already incredibly drunk at the time), and then climbing out of the window and leaving via the fire-escape doesn't sound like something I could see an innocent man doing either. So on balance, I voted "no".

Either way, he will play again, if that's what you are worried about. I don't have a problem with that, either - every criminal who has served his sentence must have a chance at rehabilitation, however much of a jerk he may be.

Can't understand his girlfriend though, what a douche she is.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 2
Original post by llys
If he is innocent, it should be overturned.

However, I cannot imagine how 12 different people, including men and women, who unlike us have seen all the evidence, could have previously come to a unanimous decision that he is not innocent, if he was in fact innocent. Mind you, it is definitely possible that all 12 of them made a mistake, but it just seems so unlikely.


What matters are the facts of the case. Unlikely does not mean impossible - basic probability tells us that every now and then we will get juries who mess things up.

Showing up uninvited at the hotel (he was invited by his friend, but there is no evidence that the semi-conscious woman was complicit in that invitation, while there is evidence that she was already incredibly drunk at the time)


She was drunk when she had sex with Clayton McDonald. Sex with a drunk girl is not rape. An absence of evidence that she consented is not strong enough - it would need to be demonstrated that she did not consent, of which there is no evidence. At no point did she dissent or state that she was unwilling to have sex with Evans. In court, she just kept going on about how she couldn't remember anything, which simply isn't strong enough evidence to secure a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

and then climbing out of the window and leaving via the fire-escape doesn't sound like something I could see an innocent man doing either.


Circumstantial evidence is not robust.

So on balance, I voted "no".


To be found guilty, guilt needs to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. This case fails that test. Regardless of circumstantial evidence that does not do him any credit, failing to demonstrate that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt means that this conviction is unsafe and must therefore be overturned.

Either way, he will play again, if that's what you are worried about. I don't have a problem with that, either - every criminal who has served his sentence must have a chance at rehabilitation, however much of a jerk he may be.


Agree entirely.

Can't understand his girlfriend though, what a douche she is.


She's very brave for standing up to the wave of feminist authoritarianism and media bias against her position. I wouldn't encourage my daughter to stay with a man in such a situation, but each to their own.
Reply 3
Original post by arson_fire
Given how drunk she was in it`s up to him to prove he had consent, not her to prove he didn`t.


Uh-uh, that's not how evidence works. If there is reasonable doubt that a person is guilty then they must be found not guilty. Given that she never denied consenting, and just kept going on about how she couldn't remember anything, the conviction is clearly unsafe.
Original post by #Ridwan
Facts of the case laid out in a superb article. No bias from the author, just the facts.

"I can't remember" isn't evidence, I'm afraid. This conviction is unsafe and should be overturned immediately.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794715/predatory-soccer-stars-drunken-girl-seedy-night-premier-inn-richard-pendlebury-revisits-disturbing-events-led-rape-trial-ched-evans.html


Based on what, a Daily Mail article? He's been found guilty in a Court of Law, who had access to far more information than you do. Loads of footballers get accused of rape simply because they have consensual sex with a girl and want nothing to do with her in the morning, however for a sentence to actually have been passed there must have been some strong evidence.
Reply 5
Original post by #Ridwan
What matters are the facts of the case.


Of course. But I do not know all the facts of the case, neither does the journalist, and neither do you. Not knowing all the facts of the case I can only weigh the probabilities based on whatever has been reported, based on the original jury's verdict who did have all the evidence before them, and based on my own experience of "innocent behaviour", before I vote on an internet poll of no consequence at all. If I was a jury member and really had all the evidence before me, I might indeed decide differently based on real evidence, but that's not the case here.

She's very brave for standing up to the wave of feminist authoritarianism and media bias against her position. I wouldn't encourage my daughter to stay with a man in such a situation, but each to their own.


At best he is a sleazy scumbag who cheated on her with a slag* who had just had sex with one of his friends and had it filmed by two other friends (presumably "for the bantz"). At worst he is a rapist. How a woman could profess "love" for either type of man is beyond me. She must be an idiot.

* I do not usually use this word, I just imagine that's how the girlfriend sees the other woman.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 6
Original post by sr90
Based on what, a Daily Mail article? He's been found guilty in a Court of Law, who had access to far more information than you do. Loads of footballers get accused of rape simply because they have consensual sex with a girl and want nothing to do with her in the morning, however for a sentence to actually have been passed there must have been some strong evidence.


What strong evidence? There wasn't any. The case was extensively covered by the media while it was in progress, who never said that they had been prevented from revealing any evidence put before the court (the media normally state when such an order has been made by a judge).

We should therefore assume that the information revealed by the media present at the trial is exhaustive. Based on that evidence, I don't see how he can be found guilty.

I'm aware that getting a rape conviction is difficult but simply stating that a guilty verdict was passed is not an argument that is relevant to this thread. Not every jury is going to be capable, this one clearly wasn't.
Reply 7
Very biased. She could not remember is not acceptable. Sadly he was jailed, and she's gone on ti make money. Injustice. Girls have to take responsiblity for their "drunk" actions and just blame the guy because he has the Penis!

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 8
Original post by llys
Of course. But I do not know all the facts of the case, neither does the journalist, and neither do you. Not knowing all the facts of the case I can only weigh the probabilities based on whatever has been reported, based on the original jury's verdict who did have all the evidence before them, and based on my own experience of "innocent behaviour", before I vote on an internet poll of no consequence at all. If I was a jury member and really had all the evidence before me, I might indeed decide differently based on real evidence, but that's not the case here.


The media never reported any evidence beyond what is in that article. Given that the media have never made any statement to suggest that there were restrictions on what they could report (other than the complainant's name, which is a given in rape cases), then we should assume that the evidence given in that article is exhaustive.
Reply 9
Original post by arson_fire
If the person is out of it then it`s assumed they were unable to give consent, and its up to you to supply evidence that you had consent, and crucially, show that you reasonably believed you had consent. A paralytically drunk person muttering yes isn`t consent.


So why was Clayton McDonald found not guilty then? There's no evidence to suggest that she was out of it.

The burden of proof does and always will lie with the prosecution. That is an indisputable principle of any robust legal system.
Reply 10
Original post by arson_fire
I`m afraid it doesn`t. Try reading section 75 of the sexual offences act, or the CPS guidance notes. It`s made quite clear that if someone is drunk or drugged to the point that they are incapacitated then the onus is on the defendant to prove that consent was explicitly given, AND that the defendant reasonably believed that the person was capable of making the decision.

Quite simply there was plenty of evidence she was blind drunk (caught on CCTV being unable to walk, the receptionists statement, etc) and not one bit of evidence that he obtained consent hence he was convicted.


She was not "blind drunk" or "unable to walk". Being unsteady on your feet is not the same as being unable to walk.

More facts of what happened that night are available on this website. Yes, it exists with the sole purpose of getting his conviction overturned, but if there was anything libellous on this page, it would have been taken down by now as it's received a lot of media attention.

http://www.chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts
Reply 11
Original post by arson_fire
Both the CPS, the judge, and all the jury disagreed. She was seen on CCTV outside the club falling into a wall, staggering around, and then having difficulty getting in to a car. The hotel receptionist described her in court as "extremely drunk". The judge even remarked "The complainant was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. She was in no condition to have sexual intercourse."

The law as it stands is that you can`t go round having sex with people who are unable to give consent through drink or drugs.


I'm well aware of the law and there's simply no robust evidence that she was too drunk to consent. What constitutes "extremely drunk" is entirely subjective.

The judge only said that after the conviction. They have pre-written scripts written before the verdict is given, one for guilty and one for not guilty. There's no way he would have said that had it gone the other way.

In fact, the judge had to make last minute adjustments to his script as he didn't forsee a split guilty/not guilty verdict for the defendants.
Reply 12
Original post by arson_fire
CCTV and eyewitnesses is robust enough for a conviction. Simples.



If they can demonstrate that a person is too drunk to consent. Which they didn't.


CCTV showed her standing upright, buying a kebab and communicating with others. Hardly incapable of making decisions.

If what you're saying is true then why wasn't Clayton McDonald found guilty?
Original post by #Ridwan
If they can demonstrate that a person is too drunk to consent. Which they didn't.


CCTV showed her standing upright, buying a kebab and communicating with others. Hardly incapable of making decisions.

If what you're saying is true then why wasn't Clayton McDonald found guilty?


Thats a good question, perhaps they will respond later
Original post by #Ridwan
So why was Clayton McDonald found not guilty then? There's no evidence to suggest that she was out of it.


Because he met the girl, got talking to her & took her home, it was reasonable to believe that there was nothing sinister here. Same thing happens in every single city centre on a Saturday night. Evans simply turned up at the hotel and joined in. It's believable that someone would legitimately have sex with someone they met on a night out, it's also believable that she didn't want one of his mates to randomly turn up and join in.

Original post by SMEGGGY
Very biased. She could not remember is not acceptable. Sadly he was jailed, and she's gone on ti make money. Injustice. Girls have to take responsiblity for their "drunk" actions and just blame the guy because he has the Penis!

Posted from TSR Mobile


As well as having to change her identity and move away from her home town, i'd hardly say that £6000 makes up for that. You're talking 6 months on the minimum wage here, hardly a life changing amount.
I'm more concerned with how a rapist piece of **** can get away with 2.5 years in prison.

I've see far too many people close to me get raped, and seen the damage it does to them and their relationships. Britain seems to has a very relaxed attitude to such crimes and far too many people are willing to excuse such scum.
Reply 16
So many people ignore that he turned up at the hotel later, invited there by his friend, not by her, then had a go with a clearly incapacitated woman, and then climbed out the window and left through the fire-escape. Seriously.

Just read in the Metro today that his family think he is a "role-model". :rofl: Even if he is not a rapist - which I think he quite likely is based on the above events, the jury's verdict and the fact that his first appeal of this verdict was over-turned - this is hardly "role-model" behaviour. Morals in Britain have become seriously skewed. It is quite concerning, actually.
(edited 9 years ago)
A few questions then I will believe him 1. why did he turn up at hotel with 2 others, uninvited, and enter the room while his friends went to the window of the room? 2.why did he leave via the fire escape and not main reception where he had entered and asked for a room key? 3. as he hadn't met the victim before why did he think he would be welcome? 4. if he and his brother/friend were not intending to stay why did they dismiss the taxi? 5. Why did his brother/friend attempt to film it on their phone through the window?
Original post by arson_fire
I`m afraid it doesn`t. Try reading section 75 of the sexual offences act, or the CPS guidance notes. It`s made quite clear that if someone is drunk or drugged to the point that they are incapacitated then the onus is on the defendant to prove that consent was explicitly given, AND that the defendant reasonably believed that the person was capable of making the decision.

Quite simply there was plenty of evidence she was blind drunk (caught on CCTV being unable to walk, the receptionists statement, etc) and not one bit of evidence that he obtained consent hence he was convicted.


Post it please. I have not seen CCTV of her being unable to walk, however I have seen her bend down in high heels and pick up a pizza box then carry it one handed.
Reply 19
Original post by #Ridwan
Facts of the case laid out in a superb article. No bias from the author, just the facts.

"I can't remember" isn't evidence, I'm afraid. This conviction is unsafe and should be overturned immediately.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794715/predatory-soccer-stars-drunken-girl-seedy-night-premier-inn-richard-pendlebury-revisits-disturbing-events-led-rape-trial-ched-evans.html


Case just goes to show that you should never get to bed with a drunk girl. MGTOW seem to have the right idea.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest