wiggyrichard Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 So both Evans & McDonald both say the girl consented? So 2 against 1 and the girl wins!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted April 23, 2012 Yeah even with that story this is still an odd one. I don't doubt that even if you found him not guilty it's a pretty scummy thing to be getting up to. But still... I ain't sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I dont see how they can rule in favour of the girl when there is a witness there (McDonald) to say she consented to having sex with Evans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted April 23, 2012 There argument appears to hinge on her being in a state to be unable to give consent - basically she was too **** for her saying 'Yes' to actually mean anything. But all accounts she was **** wasted before McDonald had his way with her. They've got CCTV of her falling over pissed. In which case I'd be asking why McDonald is let off. She's also admitted she's no recollection of anything, and claims she might have had her drink spiked (which I must admit makes me a little suspicious, like she's trying to make her case more convincing. She doesn't appear to have claimed they spiked it, mind. But I'd be rather more sympathetic if she said she'd just drank so much she couldn't tell you what her name was as opposed to make out she was drugged). Theres a bit too much grey here for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Yep, if she was too drunk to consent, then surely McDonald has to be done for rape too!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I dont see how they can rule in favour of the girl when there is a witness there (McDonald) to say she consented to having sex with Evans? It calls into question the reliability of the witness: A friend to Evans since they were ten years old. Could he be lying to cover his friend? If this women was so drunk to wake up and not know anything about arriving at the hotel or the receptionist who said she was so drunk she couldn't respond to her questioning. These are the types of questions that a jury will ask themselves. Again, the law on consent is clear: Consent to one sort of sexual activity does not mean you are getting consent to everything. Permission is required for each activity. Consent may be withdrawn at any time. If your partner changes their mind, it's their right to do so. Even if you have had sex with someone before, you still need permission the next time. Giving oral sex to someone without permission is rape. If you do not get consent – it's rape. link We shouldn't accept the testimony of either man as gospel without seeing statements from other witnesses and the victim herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted April 23, 2012 Should add that I think the actions of both men after the fact have probably sealed their fate, however right that is. McDonald allegedly left the hotel and instructed the receptionist to look out for the girl. Evans left by the fire escape. That doesn;t make either of them guilty of anything, but looks suspicious on the part of Evans and so it plays against him. Regardless... I would to know why McDonald was alright and Evans not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Should add that I think the actions of both men after the fact have probably sealed their fate, however right that is. McDonald allegedly left the hotel and instructed the receptionist to look out for the girl. Evans left by the fire escape. That doesn;t make either of them guilty of anything, but looks suspicious on the part of Evans and so it plays against him. Regardless... I would to know why McDonald was alright and Evans not. The CCTV showed the woman chatting to McDonald and getting into a taxi with him. I suspect that was enough to put doubt into the jury's mind as to whether or not she consented. Remember that it's quite possible for the jury to think that McDonald is guilty on balance of probabilities but that the prosecution have not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted April 23, 2012 Indeed... I can't say I'm still sure about it. I'd suspect theres some reasonable doubt either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 Even if the jury couldn't come to a conclusion on McDonald regarding the rape charge, by convicting Evans doesn't this therefore mean that McDonald is an accessory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I fully expect Sheffield United to terminate his contract if his appeal fails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djamfisher Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Even if the jury couldn't come to a conclusion on McDonald regarding the rape charge, by convincting Evans doesn't this therefore mean that McDonald is an accessory? That's what I thought, isn't there something called Joint Enterprise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted April 23, 2012 Joint enterprise is complex, I'm not sure how it would be applicable in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Even if the jury couldn't come to a conclusion on McDonald regarding the rape charge, by convicting Evans doesn't this therefore mean that McDonald is an accessory? Only if he held her down and helped or watched and did nothing. If McDonald wasn't in the room then no he can't be seen as an accessory. If he knew what Evans was intending and new the girl hadn't consented he would also be an accessory. DISCLAIMER: But clearly the above is not the case as he was acquitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Even if the jury couldn't come to a conclusion on McDonald regarding the rape charge, by convicting Evans doesn't this therefore mean that McDonald is an accessory? Only if he held her down and helped or watched and did nothing. If McDonald wasn't in the room then no he can't be seen as an accessory. If he knew what Evans was intending and new the girl hadn't consented he would also be an accessory. DISCLAIMER: But clearly the above is not the case as he was acquitted. McDonald DID watch for a bit before leaving the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Even if the jury couldn't come to a conclusion on McDonald regarding the rape charge, by convicting Evans doesn't this therefore mean that McDonald is an accessory? Only if he held her down and helped or watched and did nothing. If McDonald wasn't in the room then no he can't be seen as an accessory. If he knew what Evans was intending and new the girl hadn't consented he would also be an accessory. DISCLAIMER: But clearly the above is not the case as he was acquitted. McDonald DID watch for a bit before leaving the room. Would have the see the full facts of the case then. Unless he has argued that he was under the impression that Evans had recieved consent? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 McDonald claimed that Evans asked if he could get involved, while Evans claimed it was McDonald who asked him if he wanted to have sex with the woman. This IMO is why McDonald got off. They jury saw the CCTV showing that the girl was safe/happy with him in the takeaway. Then his and Evans story didn't match. Evans **** off down the fire escape. McDonald showed at least some compassion by telling the receptionist to keep an eye out. Not saying I agree but it seems this is the key issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chappy Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 What do we think about Sheffield United potentially re-signing Evans now? Not sure where I stand on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 60000 signatures on a petition not to sign him. I think they shouldn't. Not only does he not deserve a 2nd chance but could be bad for club publicity wise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 14, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted August 14, 2014 I'm not opposed to him playing football again if he's served his time. But I wouldn't want him at my club. And if I were Sheff Utd, I wouldn't sign him given that huge petition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts