' UPDATED ' BREAKING NEWS " CHED EVANS - HUGE!! "

An expert gave evidence that in his belief that given the alcohol consumed she would have not suffered memory loss.

Also in paper by expert that memory loss does not mean there wasn't the ability to be in control of ones actions.

There was no alcohol found in her system as it probably already passed which would indicate a lower level of alcohol. Also this girl tested positive for multiple drugs in her system.

That expert evidence was rejected by the Appeal Judges BTW

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

12 Jurors and the Judge heard all the evidence and that was their conclusion. The problem here is too many of you are looking to pick holes in the victim but are completely ignoring the behaviour of Ched Evans which at best was despicable.

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

An expert gave evidence that in his belief that given the alcohol consumed she would have not suffered memory loss.

Also in paper by expert that memory loss does not mean there wasn't the ability to be in control of ones actions.

There was no alcohol found in her system as it probably already passed which would indicate a lower level of alcohol. Also this girl tested positive for multiple drugs in her system.

That expert evidence was rejected by the Appeal Judges BTW

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

12 Jurors and the Judge heard all the evidence and that was their conclusion. The problem here is too many of you are looking to pick holes in the victim but are completely ignoring the behaviour of Ched Evans which at best was despicable.

As you say we ignoring certain aspects such as you are also. Like I said before you can't have it both way tony. You ignore that it is fact you can have memory loss which does not mean you weren't in control of you actions. You ignore the facts that 3 judges have overturned quashed a lay jury's conviction. Lay jury that got confused and emotional that felt they had to convict someone. So easier to convict ched than McDonald as she met him in the street.
This girl is clearly a party girl drinking that night as soon as finished work getting drunk within hours booking up with a stranger in the street. Traces of multiple drugs found in her system from previous days. So probably out of it every given opportunity.
Does she deserved to get raped for behaving like this? No she doesn't,
Did she get raped I very much doubt it.

Tony when you said you read court papers I thought you meant you read the transcripts of the actual trial. Not appeal papers which are brief at best on evidence.little more than what's been reported in the press. So like the rest of us you have only read edited details like the rest of us. And not been privileged to full case transcripts so are unable to make a fair and true decision. That said we are entitled to a limited informed opinion. Which we differ on.

There's lots of appeLs that don't get this far as they presided over by expert legal people. This case is so shakey they effectively saying that they would have found him not guilty.

Who would you take legal advice off 12 random lay members of public or 3 highly qualified legal experts? Juries make wrong verdicts which is why the appeal system is in place and verdicts given by legal experts. To assure when these mis carriages of justice happen they can rightly over rule.
They will not over rule on a willy nilly bit of evidence or confusion. There is some serious hard evidence to prove ched was wrongly found guilty.

But tony I think ched behaved immorally that I agree with you. Buts it not illegall. Why he did who know he has an amazing partner who clearly loves him and belives him, ( plus she is stunning ) I can't understand why he want to cheat.

Who are you and me to decide on his guilt or innocence based on very limited court case details??

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

having seen someone i know get away scott free for a crime he 100% committed im not going to hold any weight to what the judge said.

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

That's because he passing sentence on a verdict whether he liked it or not. he's hardly going to say I sentence you to 5 years but to be honest think you've be stitched up here as in my opinion she was able although drunk to make decisions.

Lol. Think you clutches at straws now tony.

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

you are aware new evidence has come to light yeah? hence the reason for the quashed verdict. I will be highly surprised if the re-trial goes ahead even. Ched has been ruined by a mis-carriage of justice simple f*cking as, and it angers me the people on here who now start calling him a f*cking knob and he deserves it for cheating on his girlfriend lol, that is 90% of my mates being knobs too then. His girlfriend knew he wasn't guilty of rape from day one that's why she hasn't fucked off

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

you are aware new evidence has come to light yeah? hence the reason for the quashed verdict. I will be highly surprised if the re-trial goes ahead even. Ched has been ruined by a mis-carriage of justice simple f*cking as, and it angers me the people on here who now start calling him a f*cking knob and he deserves it for cheating on his girlfriend lol, that is 90% of my mates being knobs too then. His girlfriend knew he wasn't guilty of rape from day one that's why she hasn't fucked off

How did she 'know' he wasn't guilty of rape then?she hasn't fucked off because the guy got a right few quid in the bank

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

you are aware new evidence has come to light yeah? hence the reason for the quashed verdict. I will be highly surprised if the re-trial goes ahead even. Ched has been ruined by a mis-carriage of justice simple f*cking as, and it angers me the people on here who now start calling him a f*cking knob and he deserves it for cheating on his girlfriend lol, that is 90% of my mates being knobs too then. His girlfriend knew he wasn't guilty of rape from day one that's why she hasn't fucked off

How did she 'know' he wasn't guilty of rape then?she hasn't fucked off because the guy got a right few quid in the bank

And there we have it. He's got a few quid in the bank. Ideal for a waitress to help fund her drug and alcohol consumption. Maybe !!!

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

you are aware new evidence has come to light yeah? hence the reason for the quashed verdict. I will be highly surprised if the re-trial goes ahead even. Ched has been ruined by a mis-carriage of justice simple f*cking as, and it angers me the people on here who now start calling him a f*cking knob and he deserves it for cheating on his girlfriend lol, that is 90% of my mates being knobs too then. His girlfriend knew he wasn't guilty of rape from day one that's why she hasn't fucked off

How did she 'know' he wasn't guilty of rape then?she hasn't fucked off because the guy got a right few quid in the bank

what, and she wouldn't have got any would she if she had fucked off? lol - no of course not hahaha

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

you are aware new evidence has come to light yeah? hence the reason for the quashed verdict. I will be highly surprised if the re-trial goes ahead even. Ched has been ruined by a mis-carriage of justice simple f*cking as, and it angers me the people on here who now start calling him a f*cking knob and he deserves it for cheating on his girlfriend lol, that is 90% of my mates being knobs too then. His girlfriend knew he wasn't guilty of rape from day one that's why she hasn't fucked off

How did she 'know' he wasn't guilty of rape then?she hasn't fucked off because the guy got a right few quid in the bank

and also, you would stay with a rapist just for the money would you?

He's not guilty of rape ,word is a video was shown and she know exactly what she was doing not just laying there so was in control and was consented

He's not guilty of rape ,word is a video was shown and she know exactly what she was doing not just laying there so was in control and was consented

whoooshhhhh - thankfully somebody with common sense. The verdict was quashed because of new evidence available which was wasn't submitted at original trial - now wonder what that was??

That was the theory I posted early.

That was the theory I posted early.

Spot on mate, others on here will not believe anything different though. The man said from day one (and others who know him/and the case) he would fight to prove his innocence and I thought his stance and behaviour yesterday was first class. People will follow this up with 'he still has to go to re-trial' yeah right lol, I would be surprised if it goes to re-trial and if it does it will be thrown out by the second day

An expert gave evidence that in his belief that given the alcohol consumed she would have not suffered memory loss.

Also in paper by expert that memory loss does not mean there wasn't the ability to be in control of ones actions.

There was no alcohol found in her system as it probably already passed which would indicate a lower level of alcohol. Also this girl tested positive for multiple drugs in her system.

That expert evidence was rejected by the Appeal Judges BTW

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

12 Jurors and the Judge heard all the evidence and that was their conclusion. The problem here is too many of you are looking to pick holes in the victim but are completely ignoring the behaviour of Ched Evans which at best was despicable.

As you say we ignoring certain aspects such as you are also. Like I said before you can't have it both way tony. You ignore that it is fact you can have memory loss which does not mean you weren't in control of you actions. You ignore the facts that 3 judges have overturned quashed a lay jury's conviction. Lay jury that got confused and emotional that felt they had to convict someone. So easier to convict ched than McDonald as she met him in the street.
This girl is clearly a party girl drinking that night as soon as finished work getting drunk within hours booking up with a stranger in the street. Traces of multiple drugs found in her system from previous days. So probably out of it every given opportunity.
Does she deserved to get raped for behaving like this? No she doesn't,
Did she get raped I very much doubt it.

Tony when you said you read court papers I thought you meant you read the transcripts of the actual trial. Not appeal papers which are brief at best on evidence.little more than what's been reported in the press. So like the rest of us you have only read edited details like the rest of us. And not been privileged to full case transcripts so are unable to make a fair and true decision. That said we are entitled to a limited informed opinion. Which we differ on.

There's lots of appeLs that don't get this far as they presided over by expert legal people. This case is so shakey they effectively saying that they would have found him not guilty.

Who would you take legal advice off 12 random lay members of public or 3 highly qualified legal experts? Juries make wrong verdicts which is why the appeal system is in place and verdicts given by legal experts. To assure when these mis carriages of justice happen they can rightly over rule.
They will not over rule on a willy nilly bit of evidence or confusion. There is some serious hard evidence to prove ched was wrongly found guilty.

But tony I think ched behaved immorally that I agree with you. Buts it not illegall. Why he did who know he has an amazing partner who clearly loves him and belives him, ( plus she is stunning ) I can't understand why he want to cheat.

Who are you and me to decide on his guilt or innocence based on very limited court case details??

What is online is the court papers I can't be held responsible if you miss interpret that Good Greif.

As for ignoring facts no I haven't. I have already conceded that the conviction has been quashed but that doesn't mean Ched Evans has been found not guilty in the eyes of the Appeal Court. It means the verdict has been put aside until this 'fresh evidence' is heard by a new jury. The Appeal Court Judges are prohibited from passing any opinion on whether the appeal will be successful so you have no grounds to start sounding smug that Evans will get away with it.

Evans at his trial and appeal introduced an expert witness (which he paid for) who gave his opinion on alcohol intake and memory loss. At Evans appeal this is what the Appeal Judge said

"I have perused the 29 page report but have found difficulty in identifying those 'specific areas' on which reliance is placed. In any event, the applicant called expert evidence at trial and it appears that the applicant now wishes to adduce some further and better expert evidence. I am not persuaded, especially where the specific aspects of a long report on which reliance is placed have not been identified with clarity, that the fresh evidence, even if admissible on appeal, is such as to render the verdict of the jury unsafe." The court agreed with those observations; this fresh evidence does not, taken at its highest from the applicant's point of view, serve to undermine the safety of the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the court declined to admit it."

So unless you want it both ways you have to accept that the appeal court considered the evidence put forward by Evans as insufficient to undermine the safety of the Jury's verdict with regard to memory loss.

Also appeals don't generally get this far because most people don't have the means to buy justice like Evans has.

Again you refer to the appeal judges and somehow come up with the conclusion the Jury got it wrong or where not qualified enough to make a decision All I can say to that is the Jury system has been around since the Magna Carter and if it was that bad it would have been abolished long ago

Finally who are we to decide if he is guilty or innocent? We are citizen's of the UK where we have freedom of speech and can voice an opinion. I have based my opinion on what I have read. Unlike you I'm not willing to sweep the circumstantial evidence of Evans' behaviour under the carpet. When viewed in full with the evidence at hand then my conclusion is he is guilty. If he wins his appeal I will reconsider my opinion on the grounds of this 'fresh' evidence. But based on what I know now he's guilty.

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

That's because he passing sentence on a verdict whether he liked it or not. he's hardly going to say I sentence you to 5 years but to be honest think you've be stitched up here as in my opinion she was able although drunk to make decisions.

Lol. Think you clutches at straws now tony.

You are really scraping the barrel. The Judge was giving his opinion after hearing all the evidence and the Jury returned a guilty verdict.

He's not guilty of rape ,word is a video was shown and she know exactly what she was doing not just laying there so was in control and was consented

At the Trail it was stated that the 2 friends of Evans who stayed outside attempted to video what was going on from the bedroom window. Hard to understand why that video was unavailable at both trial and appeal if it exists.

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

That's because he passing sentence on a verdict whether he liked it or not. he's hardly going to say I sentence you to 5 years but to be honest think you've be stitched up here as in my opinion she was able although drunk to make decisions.

Lol. Think you clutches at straws now tony.

You are really scraping the barrel. The Judge was giving his opinion after hearing all the evidence and the Jury returned a guilty verdict.

let it go Tone!! new evidence has been submitted and for now the verdict is quashed. That decision was obviously not taken lightly so it must be quite damning (like the video that has become admissible I suspect) we should have a 'justice for Ched' smilie

An expert gave evidence that in his belief that given the alcohol consumed she would have not suffered memory loss.

Also in paper by expert that memory loss does not mean there wasn't the ability to be in control of ones actions.

There was no alcohol found in her system as it probably already passed which would indicate a lower level of alcohol. Also this girl tested positive for multiple drugs in her system.

That expert evidence was rejected by the Appeal Judges BTW

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

12 Jurors and the Judge heard all the evidence and that was their conclusion. The problem here is too many of you are looking to pick holes in the victim but are completely ignoring the behaviour of Ched Evans which at best was despicable.

As you say we ignoring certain aspects such as you are also. Like I said before you can't have it both way tony. You ignore that it is fact you can have memory loss which does not mean you weren't in control of you actions. You ignore the facts that 3 judges have overturned quashed a lay jury's conviction. Lay jury that got confused and emotional that felt they had to convict someone. So easier to convict ched than McDonald as she met him in the street.
This girl is clearly a party girl drinking that night as soon as finished work getting drunk within hours booking up with a stranger in the street. Traces of multiple drugs found in her system from previous days. So probably out of it every given opportunity.
Does she deserved to get raped for behaving like this? No she doesn't,
Did she get raped I very much doubt it.

Tony when you said you read court papers I thought you meant you read the transcripts of the actual trial. Not appeal papers which are brief at best on evidence.little more than what's been reported in the press. So like the rest of us you have only read edited details like the rest of us. And not been privileged to full case transcripts so are unable to make a fair and true decision. That said we are entitled to a limited informed opinion. Which we differ on.

There's lots of appeLs that don't get this far as they presided over by expert legal people. This case is so shakey they effectively saying that they would have found him not guilty.

Who would you take legal advice off 12 random lay members of public or 3 highly qualified legal experts? Juries make wrong verdicts which is why the appeal system is in place and verdicts given by legal experts. To assure when these mis carriages of justice happen they can rightly over rule.
They will not over rule on a willy nilly bit of evidence or confusion. There is some serious hard evidence to prove ched was wrongly found guilty.

But tony I think ched behaved immorally that I agree with you. Buts it not illegall. Why he did who know he has an amazing partner who clearly loves him and belives him, ( plus she is stunning ) I can't understand why he want to cheat.

Who are you and me to decide on his guilt or innocence based on very limited court case details??

What is online is the court papers I can't be held responsible if you miss interpret that Good Greif.

As for ignoring facts no I haven't. I have already conceded that the conviction has been quashed but that doesn't mean Ched Evans has been found not guilty in the eyes of the Appeal Court. It means the verdict has been put aside until this 'fresh evidence' is heard by a new jury. The Appeal Court Judges are prohibited from passing any opinion on whether the appeal will be successful so you have no grounds to start sounding smug that Evans will get away with it.

Evans at his trial and appeal introduced an expert witness (which he paid for) who gave his opinion on alcohol intake and memory loss. At Evans appeal this is what the Appeal Judge said

"I have perused the 29 page report but have found difficulty in identifying those 'specific areas' on which reliance is placed. In any event, the applicant called expert evidence at trial and it appears that the applicant now wishes to adduce some further and better expert evidence. I am not persuaded, especially where the specific aspects of a long report on which reliance is placed have not been identified with clarity, that the fresh evidence, even if admissible on appeal, is such as to render the verdict of the jury unsafe." The court agreed with those observations; this fresh evidence does not, taken at its highest from the applicant's point of view, serve to undermine the safety of the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the court declined to admit it."

So unless you want it both ways you have to accept that the appeal court considered the evidence put forward by Evans as insufficient to undermine the safety of the Jury's verdict with regard to memory loss.

Also appeals don't generally get this far because most people don't have the means to buy justice like Evans has.

Again you refer to the appeal judges and somehow come up with the conclusion the Jury got it wrong or where not qualified enough to make a decision All I can say to that is the Jury system has been around since the Magna Carter and if it was that bad it would have been abolished long ago

Finally who are we to decide if he is guilty or innocent? We are citizen's of the UK where we have freedom of speech and can voice an opinion. I have based my opinion on what I have read. Unlike you I'm not willing to sweep the circumstantial evidence of Evans' behaviour under the carpet. When viewed in full with the evidence at hand then my conclusion is he is guilty. If he wins his appeal I will reconsider my opinion on the grounds of this 'fresh' evidence. But based on what I know now he's guilty.

Tony for some one who has such an interest In law and have over seen case in court I'm shocked by some of your posts.

Ched has won his appeal. It is now sent to retrial. Why do you think he hasn't yet won his appeal??

Also reading past posts by you, you full of contridictions.
In an early post you said the girl had been herded in to the hotel for sex. Where as now you say she was t as she gave consent to macdonald. ??
So you now contradicting the very case you stood behind all this time as be 100% correct.

I agree juries work well but can make mistakes which is why there's an appeal process there. I assuming you think there should be no appeal process as all conviction are correct. Come on tony that's very naive.
Please don't over see any ones court case, you doing them no favours what so ever. You don't understand the difference between an appeal and a retrial. You want things both way and you inconsistent in you arguements.
Anyone you represented would do well to appeal as they wouldn't have got the defence they needed. Maybe a bit of fun for you but peoples lives you playing with.

An expert gave evidence that in his belief that given the alcohol consumed she would have not suffered memory loss.

Also in paper by expert that memory loss does not mean there wasn't the ability to be in control of ones actions.

There was no alcohol found in her system as it probably already passed which would indicate a lower level of alcohol. Also this girl tested positive for multiple drugs in her system.

That expert evidence was rejected by the Appeal Judges BTW

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

12 Jurors and the Judge heard all the evidence and that was their conclusion. The problem here is too many of you are looking to pick holes in the victim but are completely ignoring the behaviour of Ched Evans which at best was despicable.

As you say we ignoring certain aspects such as you are also. Like I said before you can't have it both way tony. You ignore that it is fact you can have memory loss which does not mean you weren't in control of you actions. You ignore the facts that 3 judges have overturned quashed a lay jury's conviction. Lay jury that got confused and emotional that felt they had to convict someone. So easier to convict ched than McDonald as she met him in the street.
This girl is clearly a party girl drinking that night as soon as finished work getting drunk within hours booking up with a stranger in the street. Traces of multiple drugs found in her system from previous days. So probably out of it every given opportunity.
Does she deserved to get raped for behaving like this? No she doesn't,
Did she get raped I very much doubt it.

Tony when you said you read court papers I thought you meant you read the transcripts of the actual trial. Not appeal papers which are brief at best on evidence.little more than what's been reported in the press. So like the rest of us you have only read edited details like the rest of us. And not been privileged to full case transcripts so are unable to make a fair and true decision. That said we are entitled to a limited informed opinion. Which we differ on.

There's lots of appeLs that don't get this far as they presided over by expert legal people. This case is so shakey they effectively saying that they would have found him not guilty.

Who would you take legal advice off 12 random lay members of public or 3 highly qualified legal experts? Juries make wrong verdicts which is why the appeal system is in place and verdicts given by legal experts. To assure when these mis carriages of justice happen they can rightly over rule.
They will not over rule on a willy nilly bit of evidence or confusion. There is some serious hard evidence to prove ched was wrongly found guilty.

But tony I think ched behaved immorally that I agree with you. Buts it not illegall. Why he did who know he has an amazing partner who clearly loves him and belives him, ( plus she is stunning ) I can't understand why he want to cheat.

Who are you and me to decide on his guilt or innocence based on very limited court case details??

What is online is the court papers I can't be held responsible if you miss interpret that Good Greif.

As for ignoring facts no I haven't. I have already conceded that the conviction has been quashed but that doesn't mean Ched Evans has been found not guilty in the eyes of the Appeal Court. It means the verdict has been put aside until this 'fresh evidence' is heard by a new jury. The Appeal Court Judges are prohibited from passing any opinion on whether the appeal will be successful so you have no grounds to start sounding smug that Evans will get away with it.

Evans at his trial and appeal introduced an expert witness (which he paid for) who gave his opinion on alcohol intake and memory loss. At Evans appeal this is what the Appeal Judge said

"I have perused the 29 page report but have found difficulty in identifying those 'specific areas' on which reliance is placed. In any event, the applicant called expert evidence at trial and it appears that the applicant now wishes to adduce some further and better expert evidence. I am not persuaded, especially where the specific aspects of a long report on which reliance is placed have not been identified with clarity, that the fresh evidence, even if admissible on appeal, is such as to render the verdict of the jury unsafe." The court agreed with those observations; this fresh evidence does not, taken at its highest from the applicant's point of view, serve to undermine the safety of the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the court declined to admit it."

So unless you want it both ways you have to accept that the appeal court considered the evidence put forward by Evans as insufficient to undermine the safety of the Jury's verdict with regard to memory loss.

Also appeals don't generally get this far because most people don't have the means to buy justice like Evans has.

Again you refer to the appeal judges and somehow come up with the conclusion the Jury got it wrong or where not qualified enough to make a decision All I can say to that is the Jury system has been around since the Magna Carter and if it was that bad it would have been abolished long ago

Finally who are we to decide if he is guilty or innocent? We are citizen's of the UK where we have freedom of speech and can voice an opinion. I have based my opinion on what I have read. Unlike you I'm not willing to sweep the circumstantial evidence of Evans' behaviour under the carpet. When viewed in full with the evidence at hand then my conclusion is he is guilty. If he wins his appeal I will reconsider my opinion on the grounds of this 'fresh' evidence. But based on what I know now he's guilty.

Tony for some one who has such an interest In law and have over seen case in court I'm shocked by some of your posts.

Ched has won his appeal. It is now sent to retrial. Why do you think he hasn't yet won his appeal??

Also reading past posts by you, you full of contridictions.
In an early post you said the girl had been herded in to the hotel for sex. Where as now you say she was t as she gave consent to macdonald. ??
So you now contradicting the very case you stood behind all this time as be 100% correct.

I agree juries work well but can make mistakes which is why there's an appeal process there. I assuming you think there should be no appeal process as all conviction are correct. Come on tony that's very naive.
Please don't over see any ones court case, you doing them no favours what so ever. You don't understand the difference between an appeal and a retrial. You want things both way and you inconsistent in you arguements.
Anyone you represented would do well to appeal as they wouldn't have got the defence they needed. Maybe a bit of fun for you but peoples lives you playing with.

yeah Tone don't give up your day job

Tony for some one who has such an interest In law and have over seen case in court I'm shocked by some of your posts.

Ched has won his appeal. It is now sent to retrial. Why do you think he hasn't yet won his appeal??

Also reading past posts by you, you full of contridictions.
In an early post you said the girl had been herded in to the hotel for sex. Where as now you say she was t as she gave consent to macdonald. ??
So you now contradicting the very case you stood behind all this time as be 100% correct.

I agree juries work well but can make mistakes which is why there's an appeal process there. I assuming you think there should be no appeal process as all conviction are correct. Come on tony that's very naive.
Please don't over see any ones court case, you doing them no favours what so ever. You don't understand the difference between an appeal and a retrial. You want things both way and you inconsistent in you arguements.
Anyone you represented would do well to appeal as they wouldn't have got the defence they needed. Maybe a bit of fun for you but peoples lives you playing with.

Here we go I answer all your questions and you decide to dig up a post from months ago in a pathetic attempt to undermine me by taking what I said out of context and rebranding it as a contradiction. Christ Sake!

I have explained my position a million times consistently and I stick with it until someone shows me different. What your asking is that I second guess the outcome of any retrial. I will state it again the Appeal Court have sent this back for a retrial, they have not come to the conclusion Evans is innocent of the charges, if they had they could have quashed the conviction outright without a retrial, like they did with the Guilford 4 although years ago.

I never said I was against Appeal Courts, what I said was I took the decision of the original trial until its proven different. Now please stop misquoting and misrepresenting what I posted and stop the personal jibes.

An expert gave evidence that in his belief that given the alcohol consumed she would have not suffered memory loss.

Also in paper by expert that memory loss does not mean there wasn't the ability to be in control of ones actions.

There was no alcohol found in her system as it probably already passed which would indicate a lower level of alcohol. Also this girl tested positive for multiple drugs in her system.

That expert evidence was rejected by the Appeal Judges BTW

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

12 Jurors and the Judge heard all the evidence and that was their conclusion. The problem here is too many of you are looking to pick holes in the victim but are completely ignoring the behaviour of Ched Evans which at best was despicable.

As you say we ignoring certain aspects such as you are also. Like I said before you can't have it both way tony. You ignore that it is fact you can have memory loss which does not mean you weren't in control of you actions. You ignore the facts that 3 judges have overturned quashed a lay jury's conviction. Lay jury that got confused and emotional that felt they had to convict someone. So easier to convict ched than McDonald as she met him in the street.
This girl is clearly a party girl drinking that night as soon as finished work getting drunk within hours booking up with a stranger in the street. Traces of multiple drugs found in her system from previous days. So probably out of it every given opportunity.
Does she deserved to get raped for behaving like this? No she doesn't,
Did she get raped I very much doubt it.

Tony when you said you read court papers I thought you meant you read the transcripts of the actual trial. Not appeal papers which are brief at best on evidence.little more than what's been reported in the press. So like the rest of us you have only read edited details like the rest of us. And not been privileged to full case transcripts so are unable to make a fair and true decision. That said we are entitled to a limited informed opinion. Which we differ on.

There's lots of appeLs that don't get this far as they presided over by expert legal people. This case is so shakey they effectively saying that they would have found him not guilty.

Who would you take legal advice off 12 random lay members of public or 3 highly qualified legal experts? Juries make wrong verdicts which is why the appeal system is in place and verdicts given by legal experts. To assure when these mis carriages of justice happen they can rightly over rule.
They will not over rule on a willy nilly bit of evidence or confusion. There is some serious hard evidence to prove ched was wrongly found guilty.

But tony I think ched behaved immorally that I agree with you. Buts it not illegall. Why he did who know he has an amazing partner who clearly loves him and belives him, ( plus she is stunning ) I can't understand why he want to cheat.

Who are you and me to decide on his guilt or innocence based on very limited court case details??

What is online is the court papers I can't be held responsible if you miss interpret that Good Greif.

As for ignoring facts no I haven't. I have already conceded that the conviction has been quashed but that doesn't mean Ched Evans has been found not guilty in the eyes of the Appeal Court. It means the verdict has been put aside until this 'fresh evidence' is heard by a new jury. The Appeal Court Judges are prohibited from passing any opinion on whether the appeal will be successful so you have no grounds to start sounding smug that Evans will get away with it.

Evans at his trial and appeal introduced an expert witness (which he paid for) who gave his opinion on alcohol intake and memory loss. At Evans appeal this is what the Appeal Judge said

"I have perused the 29 page report but have found difficulty in identifying those 'specific areas' on which reliance is placed. In any event, the applicant called expert evidence at trial and it appears that the applicant now wishes to adduce some further and better expert evidence. I am not persuaded, especially where the specific aspects of a long report on which reliance is placed have not been identified with clarity, that the fresh evidence, even if admissible on appeal, is such as to render the verdict of the jury unsafe." The court agreed with those observations; this fresh evidence does not, taken at its highest from the applicant's point of view, serve to undermine the safety of the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the court declined to admit it."

So unless you want it both ways you have to accept that the appeal court considered the evidence put forward by Evans as insufficient to undermine the safety of the Jury's verdict with regard to memory loss.

Also appeals don't generally get this far because most people don't have the means to buy justice like Evans has.

Again you refer to the appeal judges and somehow come up with the conclusion the Jury got it wrong or where not qualified enough to make a decision All I can say to that is the Jury system has been around since the Magna Carter and if it was that bad it would have been abolished long ago

Finally who are we to decide if he is guilty or innocent? We are citizen's of the UK where we have freedom of speech and can voice an opinion. I have based my opinion on what I have read. Unlike you I'm not willing to sweep the circumstantial evidence of Evans' behaviour under the carpet. When viewed in full with the evidence at hand then my conclusion is he is guilty. If he wins his appeal I will reconsider my opinion on the grounds of this 'fresh' evidence. But based on what I know now he's guilty.

Tony for some one who has such an interest In law and have over seen case in court I'm shocked by some of your posts.

Ched has won his appeal. It is now sent to retrial. Why do you think he hasn't yet won his appeal??

Also reading past posts by you, you full of contridictions.
In an early post you said the girl had been herded in to the hotel for sex. Where as now you say she was t as she gave consent to macdonald. ??
So you now contradicting the very case you stood behind all this time as be 100% correct.

I agree juries work well but can make mistakes which is why there's an appeal process there. I assuming you think there should be no appeal process as all conviction are correct. Come on tony that's very naive.
Please don't over see any ones court case, you doing them no favours what so ever. You don't understand the difference between an appeal and a retrial. You want things both way and you inconsistent in you arguements.
Anyone you represented would do well to appeal as they wouldn't have got the defence they needed. Maybe a bit of fun for you but peoples lives you playing with.

yeah Tone don't give up your day job

Oh you are so funny Pathetic

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

That's because he passing sentence on a verdict whether he liked it or not. he's hardly going to say I sentence you to 5 years but to be honest think you've be stitched up here as in my opinion she was able although drunk to make decisions.

Lol. Think you clutches at straws now tony.

You are really scraping the barrel. The Judge was giving his opinion after hearing all the evidence and the Jury returned a guilty verdict.

let it go Tone!! new evidence has been submitted and for now the verdict is quashed. That decision was obviously not taken lightly so it must be quite damning (like the video that has become admissible I suspect) we should have a 'justice for Ched' smilie

I'll let it go when the retrial has taken place and we find out exactly what this new evidence is and what the verdict is. BTW if it was so damming then why didn't the Appeal Court quash the conviction outright? There still must be doubt if the ordered a retrial.

So why wasn't the othe footballer found guilty of rape as if like you say she was to drunk to consent?? You can't have it both ways tony.

And to the other point in one word answer yes or no.
At this current time ched Evans is an innocent man?

If you read the court papers and understand the law it makes perfect sense why McDonald was found not guilty and Evans was convicted.

McDonald met the girl in the street and agreed to go to his hotel room. This gave McDonald the 'reasonable doubt' defence even if the victim couldn't remember giving consent to sex.

Evans however only became party to this arrangement after receiving a text from McDonald informing him he had a 'girl' in his hotel room. Evans then made his way to the hotel independently and admitted lying to security to gain access to the room. When he entered the room the victim was comatose with drink and McDonald had already finished having sexual intercourse with her.

The law would dictate that at this point the victim was vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed. It wasn't Evans' place to decide whether she wanted sexual intercourse or not as she simply couldn't give a reasoned answer and Evans should have walked away. He didn't he had sex with her.

There cannot be a 'reasonable doubt' defence for Evans because his behaviour before (& after absconding down a fire escape) exhibited intent to have sexual intercourse which he admitted to.

The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual. It is perverse reasoning that because the victim was drunk, in a hotel room and performed sexual intercourse with another person this constituted consent to have sex with anyone else who entered that hotel room whilst she was drunk.

Personally I think McDonald is a lucky man. OK he was rightly found not guilty of rape but he was definitely involved with a conspiracy to the Evans rape and could even he an accomplice because he failed to intervene.

When did the girl get so drunk that she became comatosed? She picked up a man (she had never met before) on a street corner and went back to his hotel room. She was not comatosed when she walked unaided into the hotel. She was not comatosed when she had sex with MacDonald, so how did she suddenly become comatosed while she had sex with Ched Evans?
The hotel does not serve alcohol so she did not drink in the hotel.
Her memory loss is a convenient way of avoiding answering damning questions of her behaviour and taking responsibility for her part in what happened. She did not claim rape until she found out Evans was a professional footballer. Then it was ££££££££££££££.
The judge claims Ched Evans should know she was too drunk to consent. But Evans is not a doctor so how would he know? Should we carry alcohol/breathalysers with us everywhere? Who breathalyses women before having sex? How long do you have to keep the printout of her alcohol level before you can discard it?
The Judge was not there so how does he/she know the state of the woman, or Ched Evans professional skill level in assessing the state of drunkenness in a total stranger?
You say "The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual"
Why would Ched Evans have responsibility for a total stranger? Surely people have their own reponsibility to be responsible for themselves?
This is not about rape or condoning rape, or justifying rape, by saying the girl asked for it, but about the facts of this case. A man has had his whole career destroyed by a woman who saw the £ signs when she heard who she had been with, in his hotel room. Evans booked that room so he could argue he was entitled to see who was in there.

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

That's because he passing sentence on a verdict whether he liked it or not. he's hardly going to say I sentence you to 5 years but to be honest think you've be stitched up here as in my opinion she was able although drunk to make decisions.

Lol. Think you clutches at straws now tony.

You are really scraping the barrel. The Judge was giving his opinion after hearing all the evidence and the Jury returned a guilty verdict.

let it go Tone!! new evidence has been submitted and for now the verdict is quashed. That decision was obviously not taken lightly so it must be quite damning (like the video that has become admissible I suspect) we should have a 'justice for Ched' smilie

I'll let it go when the retrial has taken place and we find out exactly what this new evidence is and what the verdict is. BTW if it was so damming then why didn't the Appeal Court quash the conviction outright? There still must be doubt if the ordered a retrial.

damning enough for him to be declared INNOCENT yesterday though wasn't it - Justice for Ched

So why wasn't the othe footballer found guilty of rape as if like you say she was to drunk to consent?? You can't have it both ways tony.

And to the other point in one word answer yes or no.
At this current time ched Evans is an innocent man?

If you read the court papers and understand the law it makes perfect sense why McDonald was found not guilty and Evans was convicted.

McDonald met the girl in the street and agreed to go to his hotel room. This gave McDonald the 'reasonable doubt' defence even if the victim couldn't remember giving consent to sex.

Evans however only became party to this arrangement after receiving a text from McDonald informing him he had a 'girl' in his hotel room. Evans then made his way to the hotel independently and admitted lying to security to gain access to the room. When he entered the room the victim was comatose with drink and McDonald had already finished having sexual intercourse with her.

The law would dictate that at this point the victim was vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed. It wasn't Evans' place to decide whether she wanted sexual intercourse or not as she simply couldn't give a reasoned answer and Evans should have walked away. He didn't he had sex with her.

There cannot be a 'reasonable doubt' defence for Evans because his behaviour before (& after absconding down a fire escape) exhibited intent to have sexual intercourse which he admitted to.

The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual. It is perverse reasoning that because the victim was drunk, in a hotel room and performed sexual intercourse with another person this constituted consent to have sex with anyone else who entered that hotel room whilst she was drunk.

Personally I think McDonald is a lucky man. OK he was rightly found not guilty of rape but he was definitely involved with a conspiracy to the Evans rape and could even he an accomplice because he failed to intervene.

When did the girl get so drunk that she became comatosed? She picked up a man (she had never met before) on a street corner and went back to his hotel room. She was not comatosed when she walked unaided into the hotel. She was not comatosed when she had sex with MacDonald, so how did she suddenly become comatosed while she had sex with Ched Evans?
The hotel does not serve alcohol so she did not drink in the hotel.
Her memory loss is a convenient way of avoiding answering damning questions of her behaviour and taking responsibility for her part in what happened. She did not claim rape until she found out Evans was a professional footballer. Then it was ££££££££££££££.
The judge claims Ched Evans should know she was too drunk to consent. But Evans is not a doctor so how would he know? Should we carry alcohol/breathalysers with us everywhere? Who breathalyses women before having sex? How long do you have to keep the printout of her alcohol level before you can discard it?
The Judge was not there so how does he/she know the state of the woman, or Ched Evans professional skill level in assessing the state of drunkenness in a total stranger?
You say "The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual"
Why would Ched Evans have responsibility for a total stranger? Surely people have their own reponsibility to be responsible for themselves?
This is not about rape or condoning rape, or justifying rape, by saying the girl asked for it, but about the facts of this case. A man has had his whole career destroyed by a woman who saw the £ signs when she heard who she had been with, in his hotel room. Evans booked that room so he could argue he was entitled to see who was in there.

Great post aber totally agree.
But tony won't let some facts and evidence get in the way of his belief. He thinks an appeal court application paper is a full and accurate account of the whole court case. Unbelievable. Seems to respect court decisions when it suits.

So why wasn't the othe footballer found guilty of rape as if like you say she was to drunk to consent?? You can't have it both ways tony.

And to the other point in one word answer yes or no.
At this current time ched Evans is an innocent man?

If you read the court papers and understand the law it makes perfect sense why McDonald was found not guilty and Evans was convicted.

McDonald met the girl in the street and agreed to go to his hotel room. This gave McDonald the 'reasonable doubt' defence even if the victim couldn't remember giving consent to sex.

Evans however only became party to this arrangement after receiving a text from McDonald informing him he had a 'girl' in his hotel room. Evans then made his way to the hotel independently and admitted lying to security to gain access to the room. When he entered the room the victim was comatose with drink and McDonald had already finished having sexual intercourse with her.

The law would dictate that at this point the victim was vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed. It wasn't Evans' place to decide whether she wanted sexual intercourse or not as she simply couldn't give a reasoned answer and Evans should have walked away. He didn't he had sex with her.

There cannot be a 'reasonable doubt' defence for Evans because his behaviour before (& after absconding down a fire escape) exhibited intent to have sexual intercourse which he admitted to.

The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual. It is perverse reasoning that because the victim was drunk, in a hotel room and performed sexual intercourse with another person this constituted consent to have sex with anyone else who entered that hotel room whilst she was drunk.

Personally I think McDonald is a lucky man. OK he was rightly found not guilty of rape but he was definitely involved with a conspiracy to the Evans rape and could even he an accomplice because he failed to intervene.

When did the girl get so drunk that she became comatosed? She picked up a man (she had never met before) on a street corner and went back to his hotel room. She was not comatosed when she walked unaided into the hotel. She was not comatosed when she had sex with MacDonald, so how did she suddenly become comatosed while she had sex with Ched Evans?
The hotel does not serve alcohol so she did not drink in the hotel.
Her memory loss is a convenient way of avoiding answering damning questions of her behaviour and taking responsibility for her part in what happened. She did not claim rape until she found out Evans was a professional footballer. Then it was ££££££££££££££.
The judge claims Ched Evans should know she was too drunk to consent. But Evans is not a doctor so how would he know? Should we carry alcohol/breathalysers with us everywhere? Who breathalyses women before having sex? How long do you have to keep the printout of her alcohol level before you can discard it?
The Judge was not there so how does he/she know the state of the woman, or Ched Evans professional skill level in assessing the state of drunkenness in a total stranger?
You say "The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual"
Why would Ched Evans have responsibility for a total stranger? Surely people have their own reponsibility to be responsible for themselves?
This is not about rape or condoning rape, or justifying rape, by saying the girl asked for it, but about the facts of this case. A man has had his whole career destroyed by a woman who saw the £ signs when she heard who she had been with, in his hotel room. Evans booked that room so he could argue he was entitled to see who was in there.

From the victims prospective she was comatose because she had no memory of the incidents and that is a fair conclusion to come to considering the evidence given to the court. In any case the Judge directed (and the Appeal Court agreed) that the loss of memory was not the significant point.

I never said she drunk in the hotel and nor has anyone else for that matter???

There might be a dispute over how much the victim drank but for sure she had consumed a considerable amount. Evans had a responsibility because he was an uninvited guest to the hotel room and the victim was heavily drunk and should have been regarded as vulnerable by any decent individual. You don’t need to be a Doctor to be able to work out when someone is heavily drunk and may not know what they are doing and thus can be taken advantage of.

The victim reported the incident the next morning, well before she had any knowledge of who Evans was.

You have this sympathy for Evans who acted without any concern for anyone else, yet you ignore the painful impact to woman how knows she has been raped. Shame on you.

So why wasn't the othe footballer found guilty of rape as if like you say she was to drunk to consent?? You can't have it both ways tony.

And to the other point in one word answer yes or no.
At this current time ched Evans is an innocent man?

If you read the court papers and understand the law it makes perfect sense why McDonald was found not guilty and Evans was convicted.

McDonald met the girl in the street and agreed to go to his hotel room. This gave McDonald the 'reasonable doubt' defence even if the victim couldn't remember giving consent to sex.

Evans however only became party to this arrangement after receiving a text from McDonald informing him he had a 'girl' in his hotel room. Evans then made his way to the hotel independently and admitted lying to security to gain access to the room. When he entered the room the victim was comatose with drink and McDonald had already finished having sexual intercourse with her.

The law would dictate that at this point the victim was vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed. It wasn't Evans' place to decide whether she wanted sexual intercourse or not as she simply couldn't give a reasoned answer and Evans should have walked away. He didn't he had sex with her.

There cannot be a 'reasonable doubt' defence for Evans because his behaviour before (& after absconding down a fire escape) exhibited intent to have sexual intercourse which he admitted to.

The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual. It is perverse reasoning that because the victim was drunk, in a hotel room and performed sexual intercourse with another person this constituted consent to have sex with anyone else who entered that hotel room whilst she was drunk.

Personally I think McDonald is a lucky man. OK he was rightly found not guilty of rape but he was definitely involved with a conspiracy to the Evans rape and could even he an accomplice because he failed to intervene.

When did the girl get so drunk that she became comatosed? She picked up a man (she had never met before) on a street corner and went back to his hotel room. She was not comatosed when she walked unaided into the hotel. She was not comatosed when she had sex with MacDonald, so how did she suddenly become comatosed while she had sex with Ched Evans?
The hotel does not serve alcohol so she did not drink in the hotel.
Her memory loss is a convenient way of avoiding answering damning questions of her behaviour and taking responsibility for her part in what happened. She did not claim rape until she found out Evans was a professional footballer. Then it was ££££££££££££££.
The judge claims Ched Evans should know she was too drunk to consent. But Evans is not a doctor so how would he know? Should we carry alcohol/breathalysers with us everywhere? Who breathalyses women before having sex? How long do you have to keep the printout of her alcohol level before you can discard it?
The Judge was not there so how does he/she know the state of the woman, or Ched Evans professional skill level in assessing the state of drunkenness in a total stranger?
You say "The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual"
Why would Ched Evans have responsibility for a total stranger? Surely people have their own reponsibility to be responsible for themselves?
This is not about rape or condoning rape, or justifying rape, by saying the girl asked for it, but about the facts of this case. A man has had his whole career destroyed by a woman who saw the £ signs when she heard who she had been with, in his hotel room. Evans booked that room so he could argue he was entitled to see who was in there.

Great post aber totally agree.
But tony won't let some facts and evidence get in the way of his belief. He thinks an appeal court application paper is a full and accurate account of the whole court case. Unbelievable. Seems to respect court decisions when it suits.

What the hell are you on about? That website you posted a link to is a transcript of the Judges decision not a court application paper. Are you sure you studied law or didn't you get past the first 5 minutes

So why wasn't the othe footballer found guilty of rape as if like you say she was to drunk to consent?? You can't have it both ways tony.

And to the other point in one word answer yes or no.
At this current time ched Evans is an innocent man?

If you read the court papers and understand the law it makes perfect sense why McDonald was found not guilty and Evans was convicted.

McDonald met the girl in the street and agreed to go to his hotel room. This gave McDonald the 'reasonable doubt' defence even if the victim couldn't remember giving consent to sex.

Evans however only became party to this arrangement after receiving a text from McDonald informing him he had a 'girl' in his hotel room. Evans then made his way to the hotel independently and admitted lying to security to gain access to the room. When he entered the room the victim was comatose with drink and McDonald had already finished having sexual intercourse with her.

The law would dictate that at this point the victim was vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed. It wasn't Evans' place to decide whether she wanted sexual intercourse or not as she simply couldn't give a reasoned answer and Evans should have walked away. He didn't he had sex with her.

There cannot be a 'reasonable doubt' defence for Evans because his behaviour before (& after absconding down a fire escape) exhibited intent to have sexual intercourse which he admitted to.

The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual. It is perverse reasoning that because the victim was drunk, in a hotel room and performed sexual intercourse with another person this constituted consent to have sex with anyone else who entered that hotel room whilst she was drunk.

Personally I think McDonald is a lucky man. OK he was rightly found not guilty of rape but he was definitely involved with a conspiracy to the Evans rape and could even he an accomplice because he failed to intervene.

When did the girl get so drunk that she became comatosed? She picked up a man (she had never met before) on a street corner and went back to his hotel room. She was not comatosed when she walked unaided into the hotel. She was not comatosed when she had sex with MacDonald, so how did she suddenly become comatosed while she had sex with Ched Evans?
The hotel does not serve alcohol so she did not drink in the hotel.
Her memory loss is a convenient way of avoiding answering damning questions of her behaviour and taking responsibility for her part in what happened. She did not claim rape until she found out Evans was a professional footballer. Then it was ££££££££££££££.
The judge claims Ched Evans should know she was too drunk to consent. But Evans is not a doctor so how would he know? Should we carry alcohol/breathalysers with us everywhere? Who breathalyses women before having sex? How long do you have to keep the printout of her alcohol level before you can discard it?
The Judge was not there so how does he/she know the state of the woman, or Ched Evans professional skill level in assessing the state of drunkenness in a total stranger?
You say "The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual"
Why would Ched Evans have responsibility for a total stranger? Surely people have their own reponsibility to be responsible for themselves?
This is not about rape or condoning rape, or justifying rape, by saying the girl asked for it, but about the facts of this case. A man has had his whole career destroyed by a woman who saw the £ signs when she heard who she had been with, in his hotel room. Evans booked that room so he could argue he was entitled to see who was in there.

Great post aber totally agree.
But tony won't let some facts and evidence get in the way of his belief. He thinks an appeal court application paper is a full and accurate account of the whole court case. Unbelievable. Seems to respect court decisions when it suits.

What the hell are you on about? That website you posted a link to is a transcript of the Judges decision not a court application paper. Are you sure you studied law or didn't you get past the first 5 minutes

And yet again tony contridicts himself. What happened to you stance on personal jibes??
Like I said I didn't finish the course.

So now you nit picking about a few words yet a few posts back you accused me of bit picking and twisting things.
You full of hypocrisy every which way. To out line it all the decision of the courts that you have such high praise for and rightly so don't seem to stand true when you don't like it. You clearly have no respect for the judicial system of this country that you pretend you have.

Please don't take things personally I've enjoyed our debate on opposing views, as I took you as a sensible and well informed views. The fact that most of you post have unravelled in front of our eyes with made up evidence ( girl comatosed ) the fact Evans has already "won" his appeal and awaiting retrial (if there is one ) you now differnt view on something you posted before eveNs won his appeal. Just takes away from you otherwise well written posts. I don't know why you so against Evans but the fact he's a footballer is immaterial he someone a cused of a crime that as it stands he has not been convicted of. And this very type of case is what makes so much harder for "real" rape victims.

So why wasn't the othe footballer found guilty of rape as if like you say she was to drunk to consent?? You can't have it both ways tony.

And to the other point in one word answer yes or no.
At this current time ched Evans is an innocent man?

If you read the court papers and understand the law it makes perfect sense why McDonald was found not guilty and Evans was convicted.

McDonald met the girl in the street and agreed to go to his hotel room. This gave McDonald the 'reasonable doubt' defence even if the victim couldn't remember giving consent to sex.

Evans however only became party to this arrangement after receiving a text from McDonald informing him he had a 'girl' in his hotel room. Evans then made his way to the hotel independently and admitted lying to security to gain access to the room. When he entered the room the victim was comatose with drink and McDonald had already finished having sexual intercourse with her.

The law would dictate that at this point the victim was vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed. It wasn't Evans' place to decide whether she wanted sexual intercourse or not as she simply couldn't give a reasoned answer and Evans should have walked away. He didn't he had sex with her.

There cannot be a 'reasonable doubt' defence for Evans because his behaviour before (& after absconding down a fire escape) exhibited intent to have sexual intercourse which he admitted to.

The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual. It is perverse reasoning that because the victim was drunk, in a hotel room and performed sexual intercourse with another person this constituted consent to have sex with anyone else who entered that hotel room whilst she was drunk.

Personally I think McDonald is a lucky man. OK he was rightly found not guilty of rape but he was definitely involved with a conspiracy to the Evans rape and could even he an accomplice because he failed to intervene.

When did the girl get so drunk that she became comatosed? She picked up a man (she had never met before) on a street corner and went back to his hotel room. She was not comatosed when she walked unaided into the hotel. She was not comatosed when she had sex with MacDonald, so how did she suddenly become comatosed while she had sex with Ched Evans?
The hotel does not serve alcohol so she did not drink in the hotel.
Her memory loss is a convenient way of avoiding answering damning questions of her behaviour and taking responsibility for her part in what happened. She did not claim rape until she found out Evans was a professional footballer. Then it was ££££££££££££££.
The judge claims Ched Evans should know she was too drunk to consent. But Evans is not a doctor so how would he know? Should we carry alcohol/breathalysers with us everywhere? Who breathalyses women before having sex? How long do you have to keep the printout of her alcohol level before you can discard it?
The Judge was not there so how does he/she know the state of the woman, or Ched Evans professional skill level in assessing the state of drunkenness in a total stranger?
You say "The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual"
Why would Ched Evans have responsibility for a total stranger? Surely people have their own reponsibility to be responsible for themselves?
This is not about rape or condoning rape, or justifying rape, by saying the girl asked for it, but about the facts of this case. A man has had his whole career destroyed by a woman who saw the £ signs when she heard who she had been with, in his hotel room. Evans booked that room so he could argue he was entitled to see who was in there.

From the victims prospective she was comatose because she had no memory of the incidents and that is a fair conclusion to come to considering the evidence given to the court. In any case the Judge directed (and the Appeal Court agreed) that the loss of memory was not the significant point.

I never said she drunk in the hotel and nor has anyone else for that matter???

There might be a dispute over how much the victim drank but for sure she had consumed a considerable amount. Evans had a responsibility because he was an uninvited guest to the hotel room and the victim was heavily drunk and should have been regarded as vulnerable by any decent individual. You don’t need to be a Doctor to be able to work out when someone is heavily drunk and may not know what they are doing and thus can be taken advantage of.

The victim reported the incident the next morning, well before she had any knowledge of who Evans was.

You have this sympathy for Evans who acted without any concern for anyone else, yet you ignore the painful impact to woman how knows she has been raped. Shame on you.

that last paragraph, putting aside the poor grammar, shame on you for still berating a man cleared yesterday. If she was comatose how did she know she had been raped anyway? probably seen his Sheff Utd jersey on the end of the bed and thought kerching. What evidence do you believe has now been submitted? thus allowing the verdict to be quashed. That is a serious question by the way, I would like your thoughts on that