Another Ched Evans question

[David Johnson]

Another question for esteemed forumites.

I was reading this link in the Mirror



which explains that the reason Ched Evans was found guilty for rape was that the victim was "too drunk to give consent".

Now I have no problem understanding that offence. However, the same jury minutes earlier had found fellow footballer, Clayton McDonald not guilty of the same offence of rape.

Apparently, McDonald had turned up with the girl at the hotel, arm in arm and had sex in the room. Evans allegedly turned up about 10 minutes later and also had sex with the girl. The following morning the girl woke up and stated she could not remember how she had ended up in the hotel room.

Whilst in the nightclub she stated in her evidence that she consumed 4 double vodka/ lemonade drinks and a shot of Sambuca. It was accepted at the trial that this amount of consumption would have placed her at approximately 2.5 times the legal drink drive limit. The complainant submitted in evidence that she would normally and regularly drink well in excess of what she had consumed on this particular night out.

So my question for esteemed forumites is how in the above situation was one guy found not guilty of rape due to the victim being too drunk to give consent and one guy did get found guilty of the same offence, having had sex with her shortly after as far as I can make out?

[Essex Lad]

I always wonder why in court/reports they say that so and so was x number of times over the drink driving limit. As long as they were not driving what difference does it make? And who can tell at the time? I drank about six pints on NYE. I could not tell you if my life depended upon it how many times over the drink drive limit that would make me.

And if you read the tweets from the victim shortly after that night, it might give you a whole new perspective on what she could or could not remember...

[Porn Baron]

My guess is she went willingly with the first guy but the Evans was summoned by his mate not the girl. Who was according to the porter and ccv coverage extremely drunk. They both left telling the porter to keep an eye on her as she was in a bad way.

[David Johnson]

I guess I don't understand the logic here, given:

1. My understanding is that you can walk and still be too drunk to give consent so arriving arm in arm with someone at a hotel does not mean that consent was given.
2. The porter's comments apply to the time that the victim arrived with Clayton McDonald.
3. The reason the victim gave for not being able to remember anything of the night even though she drank less than she normally would on a night out (her statement in evidence) was that her drink in the club might have been spiked.

None of the above points, some of which you give, explain why Clayton McDonald was cleared of rape and Evans was not, based on this consent issue.

[Porn Baron]

Mcdonald turns up with the girl clearly drunk. While en route to the room the porter heard her say to McDonald "You're not going to leave me, are you?" This is the vital point I believe.
The problem as I see it are is the 3 guys turning up at a later time 10 or 15 mins later at the invite of Mcdonald. Did the girl ask the three to come to the room? Evans then has sex with the girl while the other two film it on phones.
I doub't anyone would consent to this if they were thinking clearly???? That's my view anyway. Maybe that's what the jury thought too? And at this point they believe she was no longer consenting? All then left her. Some by a fire escape door and Mcdonold by the front entrance and told the porter the girl was ill. Apparently she pissed the bed at some point? So I was told. All these things point to someone so drunk they are no longer in control.

[Sam Slater]

Some good points. Alcohol affects us differently at different times. Maybe she was dehydrated, drinking on an empty stomach or had a little bug....all could have meant she got drunk quicker, on less alcohol, than usual.

I have not seen the evidence or kept tabs on the trial so just going on the bits I know and if I had to guess I think this woman remembers talking to McDonald and knows she found him attractive. She quite possibly believes she would have consented to sex with him. If she's told that the jury then it could be why McDonald was believed.

Conversely, if she's told the jury she doesn't (and thus wouldn't have) find Ched Evans attractive and wouldn't have consented, and the fact that he came later and left via a fire escape, I can see why they didn't believe Evans when he said she consented.

But who knows.

[David Johnson]

"Mcdonald turns up with the girl clearly drunk."

This is a statement supporting the belief that McDonald should have been found guilty if she was noticeably drunk on arrival.

"While en route to the room the porter heard her say to McDonald "You're not going to leave me, are you?" This is the vital point I believe. "

Why? It has nothing to do with the concept of consent in terms of having sex.

" The problem as I see it are is the 3 guys turning up at a later time 10 or 15 mins later at the invite of Mcdonald. Did the girl ask the three to come to the room? "

No, but that has nothing to do with the concept of consent.

"Evans then has sex with the girl while the other two film it on phones.
I doub't anyone would consent to this if they were thinking clearly????"

I think there is a misunderstanding on your part here. First, the two guys with the phones were trying to film it from outside through the room window until the curtains were drawn. Thee is no evidence that she consented to or even was aware of the mobiles being used. With regard to sex with Evans, it is na?ve for anyone to think that only men are up for a threesome!

"Apparently she pissed the bed at some point? So I was told. All these things point to someone so drunk they are no longer in control."

Yes and that points towards either finding both of them innocent or both of them guilty.

[David Johnson]

None of your guesses are borne out by the evidence/statements in court so no point in discussing this further.

[Porn Baron]

Without seeing Evans under cross examination it is impossible to understand why the jury came to their conclusion.

I suggest the fact she turned up willingly with Mcdonald and her asking him not to leave her puts the him in the clear, or at least raises doubt with the jury that she was not there willingly.

Evans meanwhile has had no contact with the girl and turns up out of the blue without being asked to join in by either Mcdonald or the girl. Nothing in the text meassage said join us or film us. Maybe that is significant? He lies by telling the porter the room is for someone who didn't turn up and gets a key.

Mcdonald on leaving raises concerns for the girls safety with the porter while Evans furtively leaves via a fire escape door. I can't understand why he would do that and not leave the same why he entered with his mate?
The circumstances in which each of them came to be involved in the sexual activity were quite different and so were the circumstances in which they left her. This is the big difference as I see it.

I would have thought if Evans is guilty he was assisted in rape by Mcdonald? Who didn't come to the girls aid while Evans was having sex. But what do I know of the law. If the two guys had said they were both drunk would the law look differently on their actions too?

It seems to me that the law is saying we have a duty of care for people who are clearly drunk and do nothing to them involving their consent.

I the girl hadn't woken alone naked pissed the bed in a strange room would she have reported it? I doubt it.

[JamesW]

Sam Slater wrote:

> if I had to guess I think this
> woman remembers talking to McDonald and knows she found him
> attractive. She quite possibly believes she would have
> consented to sex with him. If she's told that the jury then it
> could be why McDonald was believed.


These comments have no basis in reality.

a) She didn't remember talking to McDonald.
b) She didn't say she found him attractive.
c) She didn't state that she consented to sex with him.
d) She didn't say she believed she would have consented to sex with him.
e) And if this was her story McDonald would never have been on trial.

In order for the case against McDonald to come to court in the first place it was necessary for the complainant to testify that she did not and would not have consented to sex with him.