Footballer rape trial: Ched Evans cleared, Clayton McDonald cleared

[nomadking]

The BBC website has various reports during the course of the trial and looking at different newspapers(Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Independent) there are no extra pieces of info. All you have is the Judge and the CPS referring to the victim as being too drunk to give consent, and that the evidence for that was when she was with MacDonald.

[Osem]

No doubt more will become apparent in due course.

[NIco V]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

And how does this makes a difference?

McDonald got the benefit of doubt, she went with him to the hotel drunk (she couldn't legally consent to sex but....). The implication is Evans took advantage of her drunkenness but McDonald .....

There must have been other circumstances that allowed them to have different verdicts, if the evidence was the same then wouldn't the judge have directed the jury to return the same verdict for both defendants?

[nomadking]

The evidence was different. MacDonald would have seen her fall over, stagger etc, whereas Evans wouldn't have.

[Derek]

Strange but juries often come out with baffling decisions.

Originally Posted by Derek

Strange but juries often come out with baffling decisions.

Again. If it was the exact same situation wouldn't the Judge have prevented the Jury from reaching differing verdicts?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The evidence was different. MacDonald would have seen her fall over, stagger etc, whereas Evans wouldn't have.

You don't happen to hate women do you?

The way i see it is that the jury came to the conclusion that she gave consent for MacDonald but not for Evans .In other reports i have read it mentions some other men in the room recorded the attack on their phones so maybe that evidence was crucial in showing that she was incapable of giving consent to Evans and so he was found guilty of rape

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by danielf

You don't happen to hate women do you?

I'm criticising the strange differences in the verdicts of the two MEN. If Evans is decided to be guilty then automatically MacDonald also should be. They BOTH took advantage of her. MacDonald planned to, by taking her to the hotel, Evans acted on the spur of the moment after seeing MacDonald. Whatever Evans did or didn't do to her, MacDonald agreed/went along with it.

---------- Post added at 23:50 ---------- Previous post was at 23:43 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

The way i see it is that the jury came to the conclusion that she gave consent for MacDonald but not for Evans .In other reports i have read it mentions some other men in the room recorded the attack on their phones so maybe that evidence was crucial in showing that she was incapable of giving consent to Evans and so he was found guilty of rape

The two other men weren't in the room.

The court was told the receptionist saw the two men who were waiting outside watching what was happening in the room through the window.

The ability for her to give consent was based mainly on:-

A hotel receptionist described the woman, who was 19 at the time and worked in a restaurant, as "extremely drunk" and said she was stumbling and slurring and occasionally grabbing hold of Mr McDonald to steady herself.

How does that exclude MacDonald from culpability?

[devilincarnate]

Well at least he will now find a new way to kick balls about whilst inside

Originally Posted by nomadking

I'm criticising the strange differences in the verdicts of the two MEN. If Evans is decided to be guilty then automatically MacDonald also should be. They BOTH took advantage of her. MacDonald planned to, by taking her to the hotel, Evans acted on the spur of the moment after seeing MacDonald. Whatever Evans did or didn't do to her, MacDonald agreed/went along with it.

---------- Post added at 23:50 ---------- Previous post was at 23:43 ----------

The two other men weren't in the room.
The ability for her to give consent was based mainly on:-
How does that exclude MacDonald from culpability?

At the end of the day we aren't privvy to all the information and the verdicts are down to what can be proven .If it can't be proven that MacDonald raped her then he must be found innocent regardless of how immoral his acts where

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by martyh

At the end of the day we aren't privvy to all the information and the verdicts are down to what can be proven .If it can't be proven that MacDonald raped her then he must be found innocent regardless of how immoral his acts where

Evans was convicted purely on how drunk she was. MacDonald was more aware of how drunk she was than Evans could have been, unless MacDonald told him. Perhaps the jury were judging it on how they thought she might behave if sober. IE sex with one person, yes, sex with a 2nd person at the same time, no. But the conviction was on the basis of her being drunk, which equally applied with both men.

Sad as I am for the young girl's ordeal and not to minimise it I am glad to see I'm not the only person confused by the result.

What surprises me is the lack of comment from the press, court and police about the two differing results.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Sad as I am for the young girl's ordeal and not to minimise it I am glad to see I'm not the only person confused by the result.

What surprises me is the lack of comment from the press, court and police about the two differing results.

I think there will be ,especially when Evans starts his appeal next week .