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

His whole opinion relates some court papers that are 3.5 years old. A lot has changed that he doesn't know of. And unwilling to accept how damming the evidence is.

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.

To answer your questions.
Because she was comatosed (your claim) then what if Evans claimed to be comatosed as well? Could he then claim not to be responsible for his actions and deny his responsibility for those actions? Just as she is.

My question was "when did she become comatosed" (she wasn't on arrival at the hotel, or when having sex with MacDonald, but claims to have been 30 seconds later, when having sex with Evans). As you say she did not drink in the hotel, so when did this comatosed state actually start? Alcohol wears off over time, so if she was clearly not very drunk on arriving at the hotel, how did she get so drunk later on (without consuming more alcohol)? She walked into the hotel unaided, then some time later was in a state of unconsciousness(allegedly), without consuming any more alcohol.
By her own admission she had not drunk as much as she normally would on a night out. She did not finish work until after 10pm (on a Sunday?) so most pubs would be closed very soon after. The very drunk issue is one invented to defend her actions.
She did not report rape, from what I remember, but a lost handbag. It was only when the receptionist said the room was booked in the name of a footballer (Ched Evans) that she suddenly came up with the rape story. Loss of memory is a good excuse for not having to give factual coherent evidence (a cover story). I think she only went to the police later that evening (about 6pm) possibly after researching who Ched Evans was.
To say she is is suffering a painful impact is not backed up by the evidence. She clearly saw it as a money making opportunity (not a terrible life changing incident). Her Facebook/Twitter accounts are evidence of that - new car and a holiday with her friend. Strangely the Police could not find this evidence, but a journalist very quickly did.
Do you agree that if Evans is now proven to be innocent then she should be charged with false rape claims? What about the damage she has done to genuine rape victims chances of justice in the future?
What if Evans (or his girlfriends family) was not wealthy enough to defend himself through the legal system? Then he would be branded a rapist for his life, and beyond.

This post has clearly struck a nerve with many and opinions differ dramatically (not surprisingly).

For my part, I think the biggest shame here is that while there is a retrial in the offing, the victim (whoever that is) has. I closure.

If Ched is found innocent, the amount of his promising career missed will have been huge. If the girl is proven right, she will have been put through another reliving of her experiences.

Either way, a tragic set of circumstances.

I won't be making any more predictions. Once bitten, twice shy.

Bloody hell old BEEP AHM must of been hiding in the cupboard on the night in question,the amount of 'info' he has on the subject

A very interesting and lively topic. I've enjoyed it. Didn't expect tony to throw the towel in so easily though.

Bloody hell old BEEP AHM must of been hiding in the cupboard on the night in question,the amount of 'info' he has on the subject

yep I was the one with the camera

Bloody hell old BEEP AHM must of been hiding in the cupboard on the night in question,the amount of 'info' he has on the subject

yep I was the one with the camera

you sounds the type f*cking oddball

hope all the ones who slagged the lad will be man enough to say they were wrong - the case is a fooking joke, I hope he gets a career back too, I would have him up front at Cardiff no worries

Any apology will wait until after the retrial. Evans hasn't been proven 'innocent' all that has happened is he has found some evidence which wasn't presented to the jury at the original trial. What this evidence is won't be known until it is presented to a new jury but I suspect it is something which is aimed at blackening the victim's name and making her appear to be an unreliable witness.

Where's the apology Tony???

yeah Tony you have had long enough, and Stevendavid ???