Maybe she tried to play down her level of drunkenness for a fear of being judged?
Not naive Stu. His defence team say they have the police report that states she said she was tipsy and not drunk. They say they atually have the police report.
A few 'facts' from Evans' website are very enlightening. He had booked a hotel room for McDonald, not for himself as he was to sleep where he usually did. They went out on it together with Evans' brother and another couple of friends. Evans later told police that as professional footballers he and McDonald could have had any girl they wanted. The victim was at work until late when she quickly downed a few drinks and went out. There was an altercation involving one of Evans' friends who got arrested after he was apparently racially abused and butted by a girl. As a result, presumably to try and get this mate de-arrested by telling the police he was a victim Evans and his brother and another took a taxi to the police station a few miles away.
En route he received a text from McDonald. Both men are coy about what it said. A bit odd as it was sent on one of their phones and received on the other so they know exactly what it said. The website paraphrases to something like 'I'm with a girl'. Actually it said, according to the court reports, 'I've got a bird'.
Imagine you were Evans and in those circumstances you got that text. What would you do? Carry on to the nick on your mercy mission? What did Evans do? Told the taxi driver to turn round and go to the hotel. There he blagged an extra room key by telling the porter he'd booked the room and wanted to use it as his mate wasn't going to, let himself in and started to have sex with the girl while his brother and the other lad tried to film from outside. After he left the hotel via the fire escape.
as stated before, the girl woke up wondering how she'd got there and without her handbag.
Consent is the key issue here. MCDonald was obviously given the benefit of the doubt by the jury. Evans wasn't.
Can we imagine a scenario whereby there was a prior understanding of what a text saying 'I've got a bird' meant, namely 'game on Ched'.
A few 'facts' from Evans' website are very enlightening. He had booked a hotel room for McDonald, not for himself as he was to sleep where he usually did. They went out on it together with Evans' brother and another couple of friends. Evans later told police that as professional footballers he and McDonald could have had any girl they wanted. The victim was at work until late when she quickly downed a few drinks and went out. There was an altercation involving one of Evans' friends who got arrested after he was apparently racially abused and butted by a girl. As a result, presumably to try and get this mate de-arrested by telling the police he was a victim Evans and his brother and another took a taxi to the police station a few miles away.
En route he received a text from McDonald. Both men are coy about what it said. A bit odd as it was sent on one of their phones and received on the other so they know exactly what it said. The website paraphrases to something like 'I'm with a girl'. Actually it said, according to the court reports, 'I've got a bird'.
Imagine you were Evans and in those circumstances you got that text. What would you do? Carry on to the nick on your mercy mission? What did Evans do? Told the taxi driver to turn round and go to the hotel. There he blagged an extra room key by telling the porter he'd booked the room and wanted to use it as his mate wasn't going to, let himself in and started to have sex with the girl while his brother and the other lad tried to film from outside. After he left the hotel via the fire escape.
as stated before, the girl woke up wondering how she'd got there and without her handbag.
Consent is the key issue here. MCDonald was obviously given the benefit of the doubt by the jury. Evans wasn't.
Can we imagine a scenario whereby there was a prior understanding of what a text saying 'I've got a bird' meant, namely 'game on Ched'.
And this is from several hours after the attack took place. The funny thing with alcohol is that people sober up.
One more question. If the police say she was only tipsy why did they prosecute Evans saying she was in no fit state at the time of the attack? Sounds to me like they have about run out of straws to clutch to.
Not going to get into an argument here, because I believe the bloke is guilty, but Evans' defence are saying that she said to the police, when interviewed, that she was sober at the time of the incident.
We keep retreading the same old ground.
According to his defence team they seem to have 'good' evidence. Well, let's hear it. Even if Evans's conviction ever did prove to be unsafe, he still behaved in a a shitty and obnoxious manner.
She went to the hotel room with one man, Clayton. He (not the girl) invited Evans to join in via a telephone message. Evans then invited his brother and another man to flim them.
The girl was so drunk that she'd already fallen over in front of Evans, and had actually lost her handbag earlier in the night - it wasn't at the hotel. (This was actually why she went to the police in the first place, to report the loss of her handbag.)
She woke up in the hotel, naked, and covered in vomit and urine with no clear idea of what had happened to her. That should provide a pretty clear indication of how drunk she was or wasn't.
Here's the key point, which you and many others seem to be missing. The law states that consent from someone incapable of meaningful consent is not consent - this isn't about cries for help.
The same people here asking that we shouldn't 'judge' Evans are making judgements of the neutral judge and jury in both the original trial and the appeal, and also of the character of the victim here.
Can we just say none of us know and that both rape and false accusations are terrible things and perpetrators of both should be treated badly.
Will that do?
I honestly meant to put tipsy. Freudian slip of the worst kind there.Hang on Otis, you've moved from Tipsy to Sober.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Couple of questions just to throw out there:
Has anyone here ever slept with someone on a drunken night out and not remembered it the next morning? I have...was I raped?
What do you think would have happened if Ched, when questioned the next day, also said he had absolutely no idea what happened?
Although the above sound like im backing him...im not, i think the guys a scumbag. Just think it's an interesting debate about what is "rape".
Has anyone here ever slept with someone on a drunken night out and not remembered it the next morning? I have...was I raped?
Think you've established your credibility here alreadyHowever, due to a lack of penis a woman can't rape a man.
If a person had put their penis into your mouth or anus and you didn't or couldn't consent then yes you'd have been raped.
However, due to a lack of penis a woman can't rape a man.
Incorrect. Women can and have been prosecuted for raping men.
Can you not see that I don't believe a word he says? I am quoting his own website to demonstrate the absurdity of his defence and those whose weasel 'Devils advocate' defence of him demeans them.Hi Ched.
hmm so another side of the story with no evidence to back it up??? If any of this was fundamental to his case it would have come out during the case.
Agree with Tony on this one, lets close this one down and move on....
Can you not see that I don't believe a word he says? I am quoting his own website to demonstrate the absurdity of his defence and those whose weasel 'Devils advocate' defence of him demeans them.
This Evans and McDonalds evidence! And if you and anyone else don't like the thread then read something else or go off and design cathedrals or something rather than arrogantly calling an end to a debate others find worthy of comment.
The debate ended when the jury made a decision and subsequent judges ruled no grounds for appeal. What you're referring to is speculation not debate.
The debate ended when the jury made a decision and subsequent judges ruled no grounds for appeal. What you're referring to is speculation not debate.
I have found on here you can't quote the defences case without being jumped up and down on, even though you don't at all believe the case yourself and are simply stating their defence.
Indeed. Caught between the pitchforked mob and the politically correct mob is a difficult place to negotiate.
Donald Duck thinks he may have a case on appeal too.
Maybe the journalists who followed the case shouldn't be allowed to say the conviction was unsafe either, eh. :thinking about:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?