alchemist Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 There is something happening at the club, there has to be. Why would they put themselves through all this turmoil? It would have been simple to make a statement about their intents.... Why does one get the feeling that they have already signed him up and now find themselves in the doodoo as it all blows up ---------- Post added 16-11-2014 at 20:19 ---------- But you are defending a rapist, a man who after receiving a text message that his mate had "Got a bird" lied his way into a hotel room, raped a black out drunk woman who was in no position to consent and then sneaked out via the fire escape. Well you have to admit thats the expected behaviour of an innocent man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I agree I'm not defending rape at all. As I haven't said I don't think you're defending rape don't reply to my posts implying that I have. You are, even if inadvertently through poor wording, misrepresenting my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Sorry but you are misinformed. The girl wasn't drunk. Watch this video of her entering the hotel. Now I used to drink a few in my time. So some of this would be impossible for someone who was on the verge of being passed out.... To walk in high heels, unaided, crouch and pick a box up and then walk again... without so much of a wobble would be impossible if drunk.. never mind on the verge of collapse. "CCTV footage, which was recovered, showed her outside the bar, inside and outside a kebab shop, and eventually her arrival at the hotel where the offence with which the court is concerned took place. The CCTV footage showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet, at one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very drunk. ... The complainant had no recollection of anything which took place after 3am. That extended to the fact that she and McDonald entered the hotel at 4.15am. The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". That reinforced the Crown's case based on the evidence of witnesses and the CCTV footage before she had arrived at the hotel. While en route to the room the porter heard her say to McDonald "You're not going to leave me, are you?" They entered a bedroom in which various sexual acts took place and eventually they had sexual intercourse." Incidentally, it was indeed Evans' hotel room. He paid for it and booked it for MacDonald. That is why he was given entry. They checked the payment was the same as the card he had... He lied to gain entry: "the applicant arrived at the same hotel with two other male friends. He persuaded the night porter to give him a key card to the room occupied by McDonald and the complainant. He said that he had booked the room for a friend who no longer needed it" Then he crept away like a rapist in the night. It is an interesting case, for someone like me who likes studying court cases... I feel he is innocent, reading all the stuff and viewing the video tape the girl is lying if she said she had enough to drink that it made her lose her memory... Anyway this is the video. http://www.chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself You claim you "study court cases" yet you link [not to a court judgement](https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans) but the extraordinarily partial page set up by Evans himself. For another example of just how disingenuous that site is, this is what it says in it's "Key and Undisputed Facts" page about the message McDonald sent to Evans: "On the way to the Premier Inn Clayton sent a message to Ched saying words to the effect of ‘I am with a girl'." Not "got a bird" as recorded in the court transcript. If that sight is about "facts" then why rephrase the message in an attempt to make it seem benign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Who do you think is likely to provide a more reliable conclusion as to what happened, the court or the site you linked to earlier that describes itself as "The official Ched Evans website. This website is the only official representation for Ched and the content is managed by his friends and family."? Well that sites bound to be the bastion of neutrality then isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 There is no evidence to prove the girl was raped because she claims she can't remember anything because she was drunk. But the video shows she clearly wasn't drunk. Both men admit having sex with her. The girl claims she can't remember any of it. There was no DNA. Signs of violence (apart from the alleged rape of course) and the concierge listened at the door and only heard the girl making noises of pleasure... So when the night porter described the victim as "extremely drunk" it should be ignored but when he says that he didn't hear a struggle that's gospel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 That's my point. It would be very bad, financially and morally for the club to sign him again... especially now they know what sort of backlash they would get. Unless they know something we don't. I only know what others know, with the information available. So its just my opinion. The case rests on two basic principles. The girl lied. The men lied. There is no evidence to prove the girl was raped because she claims she can't remember anything because she was drunk. But the video shows she clearly wasn't drunk. Both men admit having sex with her. The girl claims she can't remember any of it. There was no DNA. Signs of violence (apart from the alleged rape of course) and the concierge listened at the door and only heard the girl making noises of pleasure... So why pass off your opinion as fact? You are also being very selective over your video evidence. How about this? "The CCTV footage showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet, at one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very drunk." LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellco Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Then you obviously know just how difficult a rape case is to bring to court,let alone reach a unanimous guilty verdict,im pretty sure there was more evidence than the video tape.Anyway we should proberly get back on topic. I thought that the court passed judgement that the girl was too drunk to consent? Have you offered you legal services to Ched, because according to your opinion he'd have been free if you had represented him. I appreciate that he was found guilty. It doesn't matter what I think. But as is frequently said its as though there has never been a wrong decision reached in a court of law. Wasn't Joan of Arc burnt at the stake for heracy... only for it to be overruled after her death... Can someone who has seen the above video explain why the girl was judged to be incapable of consent but she seemed perfectly sober? I'm not sure how the court came to the conclusion she was drunk when she clearly wasn't and the tests they did the next day didn't prove she was drunk either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 A Blade of 43 years <snip> I feel sorry for the Blades who share your attitude to this whole sorry affair. The management of the club have been totally inept in the way they've handled this. It was easy to see how this was likely to go from the beginning and it would have been so easy for them to say "Let us know if your appeal is successful but we are not interested until then". It would have saved so much damage to the club's reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I appreciate that he was found guilty. It doesn't matter what I think. But as is frequently said its as though there has never been a wrong decision reached in a court of law. Wasn't Joan of Arc burnt at the stake for heracy... only for it to be overruled after her death... Can someone who has seen the above video explain why the girl was judged to be incapable of consent but she seemed perfectly sober? I'm not sure how the court came to the conclusion she was drunk when she clearly wasn't and the tests they did the next day didn't prove she was drunk either. You are coming across strongly as a rapist apologist, can I ask why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellco Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 So why pass off your opinion as fact? You are also being very selective over your video evidence. How about this? "The CCTV footage showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet, at one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very drunk." LINK My opinion, is fact to me, unless someone can prove otherwise. That's slightly ironic, you pick your video to highlight the point that she was drunk but then disagree with what mine shows... Perhaps she sobered up by the time she got back to the hotel.. This also begs the question if she was that drunk in the take away why wasn't Macdonald found guilty as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts