Not sure she has to apologise. She’s entitled to her opinion.
It wasn’t as simple as that because consent was never given verbally. Evans and McDonald’s testimony’s contradicted each other in who asked the girl for consent. The obvious implication was both were lying.
The girl was also unaware of the fact Evans was getting his cousins to video/take pictures of the action, indicating she wasn’t in a fit states.
Evans also lied to get a room key and entered the room without the girl’s permision when he was aware she’d be undressed and having sex. It’s all predatory behaviour.
A convicted rapist giving a 50,000 reward for any dirt on the victim, which saw ‘new witnesses’ come forward. And for some reason tarring of the victim was allowed for this case. If this isn’t bribary and a strong case for a mistrial then I don’t know what is.
The case never should have gone to trial.
If it were an opinion, it would have been okay.
But she requested to remove her name off the stand if Evans was to resign.
The guy was trying to get his career back together & she went out of her way to make sure he didn’t get that chance.
He lost time & opportunity because of her intervention.
I do agree that it’s weird that the court took her sexual preference & past to come to a judgement.
That seems really weird.
However as SCRJJ said, this should not have been a trial to begin with.
I don’t find it weird at all.
What are you talking about? I think you’re unfamiliar with the timeline tbh. It was in January 2015 the CCRC publicised to the media the supposed new evidence in relation to Evans’ case and it was later in October 2015 that the CCRC actually officially referred Evans’ case to the court of appeal on the basis of the new evidence.
Ennis’ comments was in November 2014 when he was, at that time, convicted as a rapist by a jury, his first appeal already rejected and he was in no official appeal process. To a layperson and the general public he was a guilty convinced rapist.
The debate at the time was whether a convicted sex offender should be allowed to play professional football ever again. His potential innocence never entered the discussion because his guilt had been already established. I don’t think Ennis has to apologize for not wanting a convinced rapist associated with her name in any way. In her mind he was guilty and she could not of had any real insight into his case or forthcoming evidence or eventual appeal
It should of done though. If you have sex with a passed out girl or near enough you’re simply a rapist. All of Evans actions that day were that of a rapist. They both blatantly lied about consent being given for Evans.
He’s got off second time because a judge has given him every leeway in the book and he’s got away with blatantly bribing witnesses and I wouldn’t be suprised if he’s bribed the judge too given she’s actually broken the law by allowing the victims sexual history be reported to the jury.
So what, she’s well within her rights to remove her name from a business employing a convicted rapist or even someone she considers a mysoginist.
Whats that you say you were raped?..
Well lets call up your ex boyfriends and ask them to relay the most embarrassing sex stories they can against you in a court of law which are of 0 value as to whether you were raped that night and humiliate you as much as we can. Also your name is somehow going to get leaked into the media and your going to be abused for the rest of your life by buffoons online.
Let that be a lesson for anyone who dares come and speak out against potentially being raped by a famous guy.
Why are you so sure that the drunk girl didn’t give consent?
Personally I tend to believe she didnt because he showed up, uninvited, lied to the night porter to get into the room and got his mate to video proceedings. At what point do you reckon he stopped and considerately asked if it was ok?
Whether hes technically guilty of rape or not is one thing, but to me its not even debatable that he treated that girl in a deplorable manner.
I thought it was his mate who was behind the secret taping, and the one who invited Ched to the hotel room.
He was not invited to the room by anyone apart from himself.
I think its scummy and sleazy myself.
I also feel that something being completely missed in this is that just because he isnt guilty does not mean the girl lied.
Been thinking about this case.
The Evidences don’t give any direction as to who is wrong here.
Unless you have been in that room, there is no way to know what happened.
Ched Evans served a good amount of time anyway for a crime with so sketchy evidence, so i guess it balances out.
Rape is a disgusting offence and offenders should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law !
In this case though the only people who actually know what went on in that room are the people themselves . . . . and they were all pissed too !
Having sex with someone who is drunk happens every night all over the world,it’s commonplace .
There is a HUGE difference between bieng intoxicated and bieng incapacitated .
Ched Evans maybe a nasty predatorySOB but does it make you a rapist ? I dont know , without bieng a member of the Jury its impossible to know …Most people have made judgement without reading the case which is dangerous because the media spoon feed people their opinions in their narrative .
One thing that was disturbing was that in the 1st trial the entire case was built on the fact that the woman could not have consented because she was drunk ,in which case there are milllions of rapists out there because many woman and men who have sex after a night on the booze and. drugs !
Such a Prosecution seems to place the burden of proof on to the defendant which shouldnt be the case ,it also presumes the man is in a position to judge if a woman is too drunk to fuck when he might also be drunk ,and thats kind of mad too.
From what I’ve read it was a combination of that plus the circumstances of how he found himself in the room at all. I think there is a big difference between a woman and a bloke going home together both pissed and what happened in this case. And i thought that was recognised by the jury in the original case where one was found guilty and one was not.
Thats the problem Sham ,its all a case of “from what I’ve read” ,and the problem with that what we read comes from newspapers who themselves have an opinion and want to shape ours in this and other matters and thus doctor the quotes from the trial to fit their view !
Well we’re stuck with what we’re stuck with in that regards (but still seeing diverging opinions). We might as well not discuss it at all (or any other case for that matter) if that’s the policy you want to adopt.