I've got a bad feeling about this

[Doggy Styles]

A victory for mob rule.

[saptastic]

and panic from sponsors who are scared of the mob.

[mudskipper]

I am abit confused by the whole case - watching QT yesterday so just picking up snippets. I might be missing something.
How can he be guilty of rape if the 'victim' can't remember whether or not she consented? And the second guy involved was not guilty.

I read the appeal notes.

Seems that -

girl was drunk
She woke up in a hotel room, on her own, naked, not remembering anything and called the police.
My understanding is that she never actually accused anyone of rape - she could not remember what had happened.


So what we have got pieced together -

She stumbled across the first footballer's path, got in a taxi with him and went back to his hotel room willingly. I think this is what persuaded the jury that it could be reasonable to assume she'd consented to sex in absence of any evidence to the contrary.

First footballer texts Evans to say "I've got a bird" and he appears in the hotel room and also has sex with her.

The bit I don't get is that all this was apparently filmed through the window by two of their mates, which should help avoid doubt - haven't seen the film, don't know whether the jury did.

The summary didn't say whether Evans was drunk or not. I guess it's thought that she was sufficiently inebriated not to be able to consent to sex with Evans - I can imagine a few possible scenarios - 1) she knew what was going on and consented, 2) she was too drunk to realise the bloke ****ing her wasn't the one she'd gone back with, 3) she was semi or unconscious. There was no evidence of force, so it seems unlikely that she'd actively refused sex. I guess the jury ruled out 1 for whatever reason.

I think the fact that they did find the first bloke innocent indicates that they did consider all the evidence available and come to a reasoned conclusion (beyond reasonable doubt) about Evans.

[d000hg]

He also had the right not to rape someone and employers have the right (Albeit curtailed by the Rehab of Offenders Act, which does NOT apply here because his sentence is ongoing) to factor in criminality. In addition, we the public have EVERY right to voice an opinion, concern and vote with our feet - as do the sponsors etc.

Employers can choose not to hire him but they WANTED to hire him, until they were effectively terrorised into changing their mind. A petition from fans saying they will not buy tickets if he's hired is quite acceptable. People who are nothing to do with the club sending threatening letters is bullying.

[saptastic]

Thanks for this mudskipper. As I said I dont know the full facts. On face value - It doesn't seem like the strongest conviction.

[TykeMerc]

This case has had so much publicity that it's irrelevant what the basis for his conviction is, odds are if on appeal he was cleared there would still be protests.

Chances that he can ever play for a UK club without people baying for blood and threatening reprisals are essentially nil. Unless people who make those anonymous threats are publicly stamped on by the authorities that will never stop and publicity concious organisations like a football club can't afford to take the risk.

[d000hg]

Agreed. I don't know why he doesn't just go abroad.

[stek]

Agreed. I don't know why he doesn't just go abroad.

He's not allowed under the terms of his release I believe.

[Doggy Styles]

He's not allowed under the terms of his release I believe.

This. He is effectively on parole.

[mudskipper]

Thanks for this mudskipper. As I said I dont know the full facts. On face value - It doesn't seem like the strongest conviction.

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-...-chedwyn-evans

This is the stuff I read - but it relates to the appeal rather than the original case.