Charlie Webster

[Arson fire]

 

Both McDonald & Evans were accused of rape.

 

The girl went willingly to McDonalds hotel room with him through the front door. That was deemed to be consensual even though she said it was not, and I can see why. As someone said, 'What did she think they were going to do there, play Scrabble ?'.

 

She did not go to that room with Evans. He was phoned, turned up later, sneaked in and then sneaked out.

 

The difference to me is absolutely clear.

yes i totally understand, im not defending him im puzzled how he could be PROVEN guilty in a court of law given the evidence( we are innocent until PROVEN guilty arnt we?)... sneaking out of a hotel dont make you a rapist, its the issue of consent.... How do you know she in that room she didnt?? Its word v word, infact its 1v2.... You're basing your opinion on the jurys verdict.

 

The young lady didnt cry rape either, it was the police.... She said she couldnt remember... Which is bollox in the opinion of one of the countrys leading brain injury lawyers, ( who deals with alcohol and its effects for a living) the amount she claims to have drunk wouldnt make her fall into an unconcious state with total amnesia.

 

A jurys verdict is 12 peoples opinion based on the known facts, the deciding and most mitigating factor was the issue and ability to consent.... this young lady was that drunk and shortly unconcious just after bending down in high heels and picking a pizza off the floor, and walking to the room...

 

He may have raped her and if he did he deserves everything he got... But...he may have not .. This cannot be proven at all...Either way his behavior wasnt right....but the verdict stinks imo because he has been convicted on probilaritys and the victims lack of memory to agree.

 

 

What are the differences between the speedway case and this?? One guilty and one not with more or less the same scenario..... What were the differences between bill roache, DLT and max clifford?? The evidence was more or less the same.... 2 cleared one guilty.

 

If ever there was a unsafe coviction it this imo, yes the appeal failed, but an appeal is generally based on weather the law wasnt carried out correctly, not what actual circumstances individual aspects of the case are.

This thread has stopped discussing Charlie and changed to Ched Evans. His thread is in General Discussions.

aye sorry.

[Bagpuss]

Don't be sorry, threads often develop into something slightly different, just one of those things. People can still discuss Charlie on here if they wish.

[orion]

 

Both McDonald & Evans were accused of rape.

 

The girl went willingly to McDonalds hotel room with him through the front door. That was deemed to be consensual even though she said it was not, and I can see why. As someone said, 'What did she think they were going to do there, play Scrabble ?'.

 

She did not go to that room with Evans. He was phoned, turned up later, sneaked in and then sneaked out.

 

The difference to me is absolutely clear.

Nothing like that ..she was judge to have been out of head after 2 and half pints of lager ...as I said many times before the case was base on being of her head as you clearly point out she never was .. the difference is quite clear the verdict was a joke .

 

At no time has she ever said she went willingly with McDonald her case has been she was she was out of her head to have sex with both of them .

Edited December 25, 2014 by orion

[Halifaxtiger]

yes i totally understand, im not defending him im puzzled how he could be PROVEN guilty in a court of law given the evidence( we are innocent until PROVEN guilty arnt we?)... sneaking out of a hotel dont make you a rapist, its the issue of consent.... How do you know she in that room she didnt?? Its word v word, infact its 1v2.... You're basing your opinion on the jurys verdict.

 

The young lady didnt cry rape either, it was the police.... She said she couldnt remember... Which is bollox in the opinion of one of the countrys leading brain injury lawyers, ( who deals with alcohol and its effects for a living) the amount she claims to have drunk wouldnt make her fall into an unconcious state with total amnesia.

 

A jurys verdict is 12 peoples opinion based on the known facts, the deciding and most mitigating factor was the issue and ability to consent.... this young lady was that drunk and shortly unconcious just after bending down in high heels and picking a pizza off the floor, and walking to the room...

 

He may have raped her and if he did he deserves everything he got... But...he may have not .. This cannot be proven at all...Either way his behavior wasnt right....but the verdict stinks imo because he has been convicted on probilaritys and the victims lack of memory to agree.

 

 

What are the differences between the speedway case and this?? One guilty and one not with more or less the same scenario..... What were the differences between bill roache, DLT and max clifford?? The evidence was more or less the same.... 2 cleared one guilty.

 

If ever there was a unsafe coviction it this imo, yes the appeal failed, but an appeal is generally based on weather the law wasnt carried out correctly, not what actual circumstances individual aspects of the case are.

aye sorry.

 

I think you need to read the court case:

 

The complainant said that her next memory was waking up in the hotel room at about 11.30am. She realised that she was alone. She was naked and had urinated in the bed. She had a headache and was confused. She reported the matter to the police.

 

McDonald, who was also on trial, gave evidence that the complainant approached him in Queen Street. He asked her where she was going. She replied by asking where he was going. He said that he was going to his hotel and she said that she would go with him. He then sent the text message in case the applicant was worried about where he had gone. According to McDonald's evidence, in the hotel room sexual activity was initiated by the complainant. She gave every indication that she was enthusiastic and enjoying herself. He did not force her to do anything she did not wish.

 

In grounds of appeal the first issue was the suggestion that the verdicts reached by the jury were inconsistent. Counsel for the applicant submitted that if the jury acquitted McDonald, there could be no sensible basis on which they could convict the applicant. (The Court of Appeal stated)‘’But however it is examined, and assuming that he was wrong about the basis on which the jury reached its conclusion, we find nothing illogical or inconsistent about the verdicts”.

 

That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency.

 

The final ground of appeal was whether, looking at the facts overall, in the light of the concerns drawn to it’s attention, the court should consider whether this was a case in which to apply the "lurking doubt" principle identified in R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267, 53 Cr App R 82. (The court commented that this was not an appropriate time at which to examine why it is inappropriate to describe the Cooper principle as a "lurking doubt" principle). The court saw no possible basis which would justify their interference with the verdict of the jury which heard all the evidence and reflected on it following a careful summing up by the judge.

 

Court cases that appear to be almost identical are often given different verdicts - and I'd certainly accept that that can be due to the inconsistent approach of judges and the quality of juries - on the basis that the precise circumstances are not the same. The devil, very frequently, is in the detail.

 

Lying to get in and using the fire escape is not conclusive proof of rape. What it suggests, though, is that the person doing it did not want his actions to be discovered. It points towards wrong doing.

 

According to the evidence presented at the trial, there was every reason to believe that she did not know what she was doing:

 

CCTV footage, which was recovered, showed her outside the bar, inside and outside a kebab shop, and eventually her arrival at the hotel where the offence with which the court is concerned took place. The CCTV footage showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet, at one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very drunk.

The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". That reinforced the Crown's case based on the evidence of witnesses and the CCTV footage before she had arrived at the hotel.

 

If that was the case, no consent was given and there was no reason to believe that consent had been given, the verdict was correct - or, at the very least, sound.

 

 

 

Nothing like that ..she was judge to have been out of head after 2 and half pints of lager ...as I said many times before the case was base on being of her head as you clearly point out she never was .. the difference is quite clear the verdict was a joke .

 

At no time has she ever said she went willingly with McDonald her case has been she was she was out of her head to have sex with both of them .

 

Actually the court judgement - and the difference in the verdicts - was based upon the fact that the girl went to the hotel room willingly with McDonald and knew what was going to happen - or, more accurately, that he had every right to believe that she did even if she did not actually consent. There is certainly no evidence of force.

 

I repeat (and quote) : 'What did she think they were going to do, play Scrabble ?'.

 

She did not go to the room with Evans. He lied to gain entry and left by the fire escape. None of that applies to McDonald.

 

The difference is clear : one had grounds to believe that whatever her state she had consented to sex with him. The other did not.

Edited December 25, 2014 by Halifaxtiger

[orion]

 

I think you need to read the court case:

 

The complainant said that her next memory was waking up in the hotel room at about 11.30am. She realised that she was alone. She was naked and had urinated in the bed. She had a headache and was confused. She reported the matter to the police.

 

McDonald, who was also on trial, gave evidence that the complainant approached him in Queen Street. He asked her where she was going. She replied by asking where he was going. He said that he was going to his hotel and she said that she would go with him. He then sent the text message in case the applicant was worried about where he had gone. According to McDonald's evidence, in the hotel room sexual activity was initiated by the complainant. She gave every indication that she was enthusiastic and enjoying herself. He did not force her to do anything she did not wish.

 

In grounds of appeal the first issue was the suggestion that the verdicts reached by the jury were inconsistent. Counsel for the applicant submitted that if the jury acquitted McDonald, there could be no sensible basis on which they could convict the applicant. (The Court of Appeal stated)‘’But however it is examined, and assuming that he was wrong about the basis on which the jury reached its conclusion, we find nothing illogical or inconsistent about the verdicts”.

 

That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency.

 

The final ground of appeal was whether, looking at the facts overall, in the light of the concerns drawn to it’s attention, the court should consider whether this was a case in which to apply the "lurking doubt" principle identified in R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267, 53 Cr App R 82. (The court commented that this was not an appropriate time at which to examine why it is inappropriate to describe the Cooper principle as a "lurking doubt" principle). The court saw no possible basis which would justify their interference with the verdict of the jury which heard all the evidence and reflected on it following a careful summing up by the judge.

 

Court cases that appear to be almost identical are often given different verdicts - and I'd certainly accept that that can be due to the inconsistent approach of judges and the quality of juries - on the basis that the precise circumstances are not the same. The devil, very frequently, is in the detail.

 

Lying to get in and using the fire escape is not conclusive proof of rape. What it suggests, though, is that the person doing it did not want his actions to be discovered. It points towards wrong doing.

 

According to the evidence presented at the trial, there was every reason to believe that she did not know what she was doing:

 

CCTV footage, which was recovered, showed her outside the bar, inside and outside a kebab shop, and eventually her arrival at the hotel where the offence with which the court is concerned took place. The CCTV footage showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet, at one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very drunk.

The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". That reinforced the Crown's case based on the evidence of witnesses and the CCTV footage before she had arrived at the hotel.

 

If that was the case, no consent was given and there was no reason to believe that consent had been given, the verdict was correct - or, at the very least, sound.

 

 

 

 

Actually the court judgement - and the difference in the verdicts - was based upon the fact that the girl went to the hotel room willingly with McDonald and knew what was going to happen - or, more accurately, that he had every right to believe that she did even if she did not actually consent. There is certainly no evidence of force.

 

I repeat (and quote) : 'What did she think they were going to do, play Scrabble ?'.

 

She did not go to the room with Evans. He lied to gain entry and left by the fire escape. None of that applies to McDonald.

 

The difference is clear : one had grounds to believe that whatever her state she had consented to sex with him. The other did not.

Yet again the crowns case was quite clear that she could not defend herself v the two man not just Evans as she was out her mind even thou the amount she drank made that nearly impossible a point put forward by a expert in the case .. Either she was out of head or not the fact that she went back with Mcdonald or Evans went down the fire escape has no bearing on that .

Edited December 25, 2014 by orion

[TonyE]

The reason the jury came to the verdicts they did is quite clearly outlined by Halifax Tiger - implied consent vis-a-vis the first man and a total absence of same re Evans. The CCTV would appear to show she was extremely drunk (confirmed by the Night Porter) and, given that people have differing levels of tolerance to alcohol, the 'expert witness' testimony can be viewed accordingly.

[orion]

The reason the jury came to the verdicts they did is quite clearly outlined by Halifax Tiger - implied consent vis-a-vis the first man and a total absence of same re Evans. The CCTV would appear to show she was extremely drunk (confirmed by the Night Porter) and, given that people have differing levels of tolerance to alcohol, the 'expert witness' testimony can be viewed accordingly.

Did they ? I never knew that the jury gave out the statements on why they came to there verdicts . The women admits she drinks a lot more than that on a normal night so you can't really go with low the Torerance to Alcohol Stuf also I rather go with an expect on the effects of alcohol rather than a night poter but each to there own I guess .. The last cctv pictues and the most important can be see on the Ched Evans website and the women even with big platform shoes on never falls over and picks up a pizza box of the floor with no trouble at all .

[TonyE]

Of course they don't (juries) but given that they decided one party was innocent and the other guilty, consent (implied) and no consent accordingly, is the only logical reasoning they could have used.

[orion]

Of course they don't (juries) but given that they decided one party was innocent and the other guilty, consent (implied) and no consent accordingly, is the only logical reasoning they could have used.

 

Of course they don't (juries) but given that they decided one party was innocent and the other guilty, consent (implied) and no consent accordingly, is the only logical reasoning they could have used.

Not at all .could be plenty of the reasons . The jury no doubt could have not enjoyed the way he acted and taught him a lesson . As I said Jury never gave a statement why they find him guilty so I said it's not fact it's a pure guess .

 

As I said a number of times if was out of head and unable to control her self and that is the crowns case then it would be impossible to find one guilty and not the other .

[Arson fire]

Its totally illogical to be found able to give consent to one man and totally unable to give consent to the other having had the same amount to drink... And this was the crux of the case, not did she go back willingly etc etc...it can never be proven that she agreed to sex with mcdonald or Evans... As she cant recall. If she was found to be medically unable to consent to Evans, there is no way on this earth she was able to medically give consent to McDonald... Regardless of her actions in the pizza shop etc.... They jury have made a decision hypothetically imo and how it has stood up and passed the appeal process is staggering.... then again its not the first time it happened, with the appeal courts siding with the crown.

[Grachan]

From Halifaxtiger's post it's pretty obvious how one committed rape and one didn't. I'm surprised people are having problems seeing it.

[TonyE]

From Halifaxtiger's post it's pretty obvious how one committed rape and one didn't. I'm surprised people are having problems seeing it.

Nothing surprises me on this forum.

[orion]

From Halifaxtiger's post it's pretty obvious how one committed rape and one didn't. I'm surprised people are having problems seeing it.

It's not a surprise at all ....Are you saying she was to drunk or not ? . The crown case that she was out of head she had no control it's black and white .

 

As Arson Fire points out the women had the same amount of drink inside her no matter who had sex with her . Seeing that case it's all based on her being to drunk then the fact she went back with Mcdonald to the hotel room means nothing if that is there case

Edited December 26, 2014 by orion

[Grachan]

The case isn't about her being drunk. The case is that in the first instance she willingly went to a hotel with the guy, hence a degree of consent was assumed. Not guilty.

 

In the second instance the guy snuck in the room, gave her one without her knowledge, and snuck out again. Sounds like rape to me.

Edited December 26, 2014 by grachan

[Arson fire]

The case isn't about her being drunk. The case is that in the first instance she willingly went to a hotel with the guy, hence a degree of consent was assumed. Not guilty.

 

In the second instance the guy snuck in the room, gave her one without her knowledge, and snuck out again. Sounds like rape to me.

a degree of consent?? How do you know she wasnt going back to take drugs? How do you know she wasnt going back because she had no taxi fare home??.... You dont, especially because she cant remember... She cant remember anything, total anmesia so how do you or the jury know??.... Quick answer is you dont.

The case centred around consent, going to a room with someone is not consent, no matter how you dress it up. So they both Raped her, because she had no knowlege of mcdonald having sex with her.

 

It wasnt that did she consent or not, its was she medically capable of consenting.... If she deeped not capable with one then she isnt medically cabable with either....

Edited December 26, 2014 by Arson fire

[Grachan]

a degree of consent?? How do you know she wasnt going back to take drugs? How do you know she wasnt going back because she had no taxi fare home??.... You dont, especially because she cant remember... She cant remember anything, total anmesia so how do you or the jury know??.... Quick answer is you dont.

The case centred around consent, going to a room with someone is not consent, no matter how you dress it up. So they both Raped her, because she had no knowlege of mcdonald having sex with her.

It wasnt that did she consent or not, its was she medically capable of consenting.... If she deeped not capable with one then she isnt medically cabable with either....

You don't know for sure, maybe, but it is enough to cast reasonable doubt. I only know from what is on here. I don't know the full details of the case. But that's how it seems to me.

 

There is a clear difference between the two though.

 

It does seem to me that the first guy is guilty of some form of aiding and abetting, however, with regard to the second case.

Edited December 26, 2014 by grachan

[orion]

The case isn't about her being drunk. The case is that in the first instance she willingly went to a hotel with the guy, hence a degree of consent was assumed. Not guilty.

 

In the second instance the guy snuck in the room, gave her one without her knowledge, and snuck out again. Sounds like rape to me.

The whole case is about her being so drunk she could not defend her self without that there is no case as there was no sign of her being forced .

[Arson fire]

Police brought the case because she was deemed medically unable to consent to both men, meaning she cant make an informed decision... Whats wrong is how the jury and appeal court ruled she could and couldnt..... What happened before and after should have no bearing if she was unable to make informed decisions... So either they both did or they both didnt??

Evans acted shadily, but his actions dont mean he raped her...

 

If i stood outside the bank on a cold day in a balyclava whilst it was been robbed, then ran for my bus it doesnt mean ive robbed the bank or played any part in it.... But my actions would suggest otherwise.

[E I Addio]

What happened before and after should have no bearing if she was unable to make informed decisions... So either they both did or they both didnt??

.

h

 

That is incorrect. What happened before and after has a lot to,do with it. There is a whole raft of case law on what constitutes consent. Stacks of it, but you are choosing to dismiss it in making that comment. If it was a simple case that both did or both didn't they would have been charged jointly but they faced separate charges even though they were tried together. The fact that they were separetely charged always allowed the possibility of separate verdicts. One of the reasons for separate charges was because in some area their evidence contradicted each other.

 

We can argue the merits of the case until the cows come home but your argument is based on the premise that the Jury, the trial judge and the four appeal judges that looked at it were all in some way corrupt or incompetent . There is a possibility that Evans own legal team were. Incompetent and possibly his new legal team may get somewhere on that point, but the fact remains that on the evidence before the court Evans has been found guilty, and the jury did hear the entirety of the evidence, not just what has been summarised in the press. I don 't think many forum members have absolute blind faith in the legal system but there is no particular evidence at this stage that the total of 5 judges involved in the case were corrupt, yet for your opinion to stand they must all have been corrupt or incompetent.

. I only know from what is on here. I don't know the full details of the case.

.

That surely is the point.

 

All of us only really know what is on here. The jury had the advantage of stitting through the entire evidence for several days, and their decision was unanimous. One must give 12 people some credit for being reasonably intelligent even if individually some are not as sharp as others. That is why we have a jury system.

Edited December 26, 2014 by E I Addio

[Arson fire]

h

 

That is incorrect. What happened before and after has a lot to,do with it. There is a whole raft of case law on what constitutes consent. Stacks of it, but you are choosing to dismiss it in making that comment. If it was a simple case that both did or both didn't they would have been charged jointly but they faced separate charges even though they were tried together. The fact that they were separetely charged always allowed the possibility of separate verdicts. One of the reasons for separate charges was because in some area their evidence contradicted each other.

 

We can argue the merits of the case until the cows come home but your argument is based on the premise that the Jury, the trial judge and the four appeal judges that looked at it were all in some way corrupt or incompetent . There is a possibility that Evans own legal team were. Incompetent and possibly his new legal team may get somewhere on that point, but the fact remains that on the evidence before the court Evans has been found guilty, and the jury did hear the entirety of the evidence, not just what has been summarised in the press. I don 't think many forum members have absolute blind faith in the legal system but there is no particular evidence at this stage that the total of 5 judges involved in the case were corrupt, yet for your opinion to stand they must all have been corrupt or incompetent.

That surely is the point.

 

All of us only really know what is on here. The jury had the advantage of stitting through the entire evidence for several days, and their decision was unanimous. One must give 12 people some credit for being reasonably intelligent even if individually some are not as sharp as others. That is why we have a jury system.

to my knowlege ive never said they were corrupt at all??so no need to put words in my mouth.

She was deemed in no fit state to make an informed decision, what does that tell you??

 

Do I think they were incompetent?? Yes probably i do.... The case was all about 2 blokes raping a woman who couldnt consent,,.. 2 blokes, not one, they ( the cps) could not charge them together and get one verdict?? So dont understand that bit... The consenting of sexual relations relates to the act and the abilty to consent to go to a room, pizza shop or taxi rank doesnt constitute having sex... It consents to going to a room, pizza shop or taxi rank.

 

To say that anyone consenting to go to a room is consenting to intimacy is both foolhardy and incorrect.

 

The judge jury and appeals are wrong now and again you know, ive had first hand experience of it with one of my staff.... Who after trial, sentence and 2 appeals was cleared of any wrong doing, they are not bomb proof whatsoever.

 

 

What is fact is that she was deemed not to have the capacity to make a decision, so what makes have capacity 15-20mins beforehand?? Thats what i cant get my head around, she had total amnesia according to the prosecution.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/

 

Getting like the Mccann thread this where you cant have a differing opinion than the norm, before being accused or called

Edited December 26, 2014 by Arson fire