Rev Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 It's also worth noting that at no point did the victim claimed she'd been raped, her initial complaint was theft(she'd lost her handbag previously, but couldn't remember). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekkie_ram Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I'd love to know more about this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Lambchop: do you always have arguments with yourself? Say something you disagree with and then disagree with yourself? You seem to do this a lot. Really? Care to give an example? I don't think you listen to, or consider the points that other people are making. You've obviously made up your mind, based on what seems to me to be a poor knowledge and understanding of the case, and a worryingly misogynistic outlook. You keep repeating the same opinion over and over, regardless of the direction the discussion takes. I have been warned not to make personal remarks, and I genuinely have no wish to offend you or anyone else on this forum. I think the views you are expressing on this topic are actually really offensive and need to be rigorously refuted, but it's clearly a waste of time attempting to reason with you. Maybe it's time to close the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Lambchop I genuinely do not want to cause offence. Many people have suggested the lady in question may be lying, but I have never done that, mainly because I realise that May be offensive to her and to her many supporters. I just feel you get very irate and at times aggressive because you take what someone has said, and then expand that into something which they have never said, and then take offence. You ask for an example, I said evans had good reason to believe casual sex was available in that room. Clearly it was, his mate was having sex with someone he had met only half an hour before. But you then extend that to saying I believe that meant Evan was , without asking ,entitled to have sex with her. You then take offence at something which was never said. No bloke is entitled to have sex with a complete stranger unless he asks her first, and she says yes. ( or unless she unambiguously asks for it eg please fvck me ) I have never said otherwise. What is offensive about that ? All I have said is that I believe the jury was wrong., it had no evidence leave alone proof enough to convict . much though I support women in their support of rape victims, I think they have chosen the wrong issue here. Find a more deserving case , and make no mistake, I will back the anti-rape campaign all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 My opinion is that he didn't and shouldn't have had any reason to believe anything was 'available' to him. If he did think that, he had no bloody right to, or to invite himself in. That's gross. But he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 My opinion is that he didn't and shouldn't have had any reason to believe anything was 'available' to him. If he did think that, he had no bloody right to, or to invite himself in. That's gross. But he did. All agreed lady ram, he had no right , it was gross immoral etc. But I am just asking where is the criminal offence here? Maybe if I tricked my way into angelina Jolie's hotel suite or whatever that would be stalking . Would it be evidence of intended rape? Maybe if I signed in as Brad Pitt, and tried to pretend I was Brad when I got into the room. I could quite easily pretend I was brad due to my uncanny resemblance to him. That could be rape if I tricked angelina into having sex with me against her wishes. Otherwise not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share Posted October 26, 2014 Well I wasnt in the court listening to the evidence presented, nor have I access to transcripts of the evidence. So I cannot say that the only evidence put forward was that of Evans and his mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 The things he did that evening all put together does nothing to help his innocent plea. His behaviour alone suggests he was preditory. I don't know if the jury got this right or not, but isn't it fair to say he didn't do himself any favours that night? His actions = well dodgy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 The things he did that evening all put together does nothing to help his innocent plea. His behaviour alone suggests he was preditory. I don't know if the jury got this right or not, but isn't it fair to say he didn't do himself any favours that night? His actions = well dodgy. As I say all agreed but making moral judgements is not the same as making legal judgements. The same is true of the Lady concerned, the fact that she was not exactly acting like a nun has no bearing on the case except for the fact evans could see she had consented to , and was capable of consenting to macdonald , if not his mate was a rapist too. And as for predatory who picked her up outside the kebab shop? Macdonald. If being predatory was a criminal offence then I know a lot of criminals . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Well I wasnt in the court listening to the evidence presented, nor have I access to transcripts of the evidence. So I cannot say that the only evidence put forward was that of Evans and his mate. That was the only evidence of what happened in the room plus the hotel guy listening. There is evidence for the prosecution that the lady was drunk , and witnesses and some CCTV to support that. Otherwise this case was very evidentially light, forensically no alcohol , no drugs except cocaine and cannabis from a few days before, no semen and no signs or allegations of injury or force. And no memory at all from the accuser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Consented to Mcdude yes, but not him though. Anyway. This is doing me head in now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share Posted October 26, 2014 As I say all agreed but making moral judgements is not the same as making legal judgements. The same is true of the Lady concerned, the fact that she was not exactly acting like a nun has no bearing on the case except for the fact evans could see she had consented to , and was capable of consenting to macdonald , if not his mate was a rapist too. And as for predatory who picked her up outside the kebab shop? Macdonald. If being predatory was a criminal offence then I know a lot of criminals . Macdonald asked her where she was going- she replied by asking where he was going. She went with him to the hotel so every reason to believe she had consented to him. Ched evans didnt speak to her until he tricked his way into the room. She was very drunk so the jury decided that she was too drunk to consent. Thats why the different verdicts. Dont forget that sometimes even whe you stop drinking the effects can worseb in the time after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Consented to Mcdude yes, but not him though. Anyway. This is doing me head in now. Can't have been capable of consenting to one but not the other but again I agree time to say good night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Can't have been capable of consenting to one but not the other. Did you not read Davenportram's comment above? This point has been explained several times now. Also not guilty does not mean innocent. The court may have believed MacDonald was equally culpable, but there were too many areas of doubt to convict him. This seems to me the most likely explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Did you not read Davenportram's comment above? This point has been explained several times now. Also not guilty does not mean innocent. The court may have believed MacDonald was equally culpable, but there were too many areas of doubt to convict him. This seems to me the most likely explanation. Davenport has kindly offered his possible explanation but unfortunately I don't think it's a valid one. First , the lady accompanying macdonald back to the hotel does not represent consent, although he may have thought he had reason to believe it did. An even better reason to believe she consented to sex is if you ask her and she says yes. That is the reason evans says he had to believe. But the crucial thing, which to be fair many people seem to miss, is that the prosecution did not deny she agreed to macdonald or to evans. They just said she was too drunk to consent to either. The question of consent is therefore not what she may or may not have said yes to. It's a question of whether she was capable of consenting given her alleged drunkenness. But yes I agree that just because, as I believe, on proper application of the law neither are guilty , that doesn't necessarily mean they are innocent. They are both sleaze ball scumbags if nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanRam Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 This thread has turned into a discourse on which person has the right opinion or not rather than the true issue at hand it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 This thread has turned into a discourse on which person has the right opinion or not rather than the true issue at hand it seems. The matter in hand is whether he should play again , having seemingly been wrongly convicted in the first place. Answer from me, is yes, and would be yes even if he was guilty of the alleged charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanRam Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 The matter in hand is whether he should play again , having seemingly been wrongly convicted in the first place. Answer from me, is yes, and would be yes even if he was guilty of the alleged charge. Ok.I personally would not a rapist on my team if I were a fan;I meam how much more of a scummier piece of human **** can you be? Good player but as an owner I would not want to deal with all the drama because imo I still think a good chance he did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Ok.I personally would not a rapist on my team if I were a fan;I meam how much more of a scummier piece of human **** can you be? Good player but as an owner I would not want to deal with all the drama because imo I still think a good chance he did it. Fair enough. When's your baby due? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanRam Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Fair enough. When's your baby due? June mate.Thanks for asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.