Can anyone explain in simple terms why his mate was not guilty but he was? Both admitted having sex with her. The court ruled that she was too drunk to consent so how exactly can one of them get away with it? If they BOTH admit to having sex with her when the court judges her unable to consent then how can they not both be guilty of rape?
My only thought is that because she had been 'with' the other fella, she had obviously gone back to the hotel with him and spent some time with him in the evening, that the Court felt that the consent may have already been given. Other than that I am as perplexed as you are.
I'm more intrigued by the girlfriend who says "she'll stand by him", "he's innocent" etc. Classy, and a match made in heaven. I can just imagine the lengths he's gone to to convince her that the other lass consented. Probably using one of his "we're footballers, we can have anyone we like" lines. Yes all perfectly normal and acceptable.
As I understand it the issue is with the mens rea. In order for it to have been rape she has to have been unable to consent and the perpetrator has to not have reasonably believed that she was consenting. Therefore when Evans' mate met her over the course of the night, chatted her up etc. and she agreed to go back to a hotel with him it could be argued that although she was drunk he could reasonably have expected that she was consenting to sex. Evans on the other hand, just turned up at the hotel and had no reason to believe that she was consenting.
I wondered that but there is a flaw in that argument in that the girl accused them both of rape - if she gave consent in the bar before she got legless surely she would have remembered that and only accused Evans. Unless getting pissed up with a footballer going to his room and taking your knickers off is considered consent anyway - which would seem fair to me. It really must all hinge on the fact that Evans just turned up and joined in. I must admit to being a bit curious as to what evidence the Jury used to convict him and let the other guy off - I find it hard to believe the idea someone posted on blunts mad that it was because he was a blunt they held that against him
She doesnt have to have explicitly given consent if it was reasonable for him to believe that she was consenting. Like you say the fact that she had been with him prior to that and gone to the hotel with him is what differentiates him from Evans. Evans just turned up and joined in and if she was in a state could not have reasonably believed that she was consenting.
Coz he's a Blunt.. and they couldn't blame West ham and Tevez . Serves him right for going for sloppy seconds, invited or otherwise. Seriously, he deserves everything he gets.
I think she agreed to go back to the hotel with the Vale lad whereas Evans was invited back by his mate and not her.
her statement was that she'd woken up in hotel and didn't know how she got there or who with.curiouser and curiouser as to howthe other got away with it imo
Wasn't their mates videoing from the window. If this was shown and Evans was seen to be forcing his way on a lass who was unconceous (out of it) then Evans could not claim it was concentual. Where CCTV in hotel reception may have shown lass walking by choice to hotel room. All the facts ain't been made public, but the jury heard enough to find Evans guilty and the other not.
Yes and the CCTV footage from the hotel lobby showed her to be so drunk she could hardly walk and had to be held up. Evans has got everything he deserves and I hope rots inside.