The mancityfans.net football forum

Im_Spartacus wrote:It was a very very strange case, all the moreso given Clayton's outcome. In reality, there is a considerable doubt on just how drunk she actually was (including CCTV evidence that refutes the suggestion she could hardly stand up)

It's not unusual at all to have rape trials where several men (or women for that matter) are accused and even have had sex with the woman but only one gets convicted. It can be related to a lot of things. In Sweden at least there has to be the intent of rape for a person to be sentenced for rape (with certain exceptions of course, under age girls one of them) and if it cannot be proven that the others were aware of taking part of a rape, it's not rape. Etc. Not uncommon and does not say anything about whether they were guilty as well or not, just that it cannot be proven. I'm guessing it's the same in the UK but if I'm wrong I'd very much like to be enlightened.

Secondly, I don't think she's claimed that she was that drunk and that was actually part of her argument. I.E. something like "I didn't drink that much so I must've been drugged. Found this, it says so here at least linking to a daily mail article though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Evans.

And I'm not posting this to claim that Evans is guilty or that he's not guilty. I haven't read the verdict and it's clearly been overturned. Just trying to clear out a couple of things. I Have a sore spot for this type of stuff.

Fuck me, or maybe not in this case, but that is a huge admission towards the case, if proven. Isnt there a new law that if a person gives false evidence that could lead to a conviction, they could go to jail?

Mase wrote:
Not really an 'excellent' analogy is it when that isn't what was claimed.

A far as I'm aware the 'victim' never claimed she'd passed out, rather she 'couldn't remember consenting to sex'. Slightly different to have sex with someone whilst they're passed out than have sex with someone that is 'too drunk to remember'.

The hotel porter provided an account where he heard them having sex. So she definitely wasn't passed out. Read the facts of the case before we go on please.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/woman-gives-evidence-rape-trial-2047672

“I felt tipsy but not out of control,” she told police.

“I usually drink more than that. I haven’t blacked out before, not being able to remember anything.”

She claimed to be not remember anything at least. Doesn't matter though if she's publically confessed to lying. If that's what she's done.

Mase wrote:

kinsey wrote:Mase - i would hazard a guess that I am more familiar with the facts of the case than you are.

An analogy is not the same as a blow by blow account.

But in an effort to keep you appeased, who did the porter hear have sex?

You tell me pal. You are more familiar with the facts of the case than I am.

But being familiar with the case does not mean that I know what happened!

Only a couple of people really know, but for me, even their submissions are unreliable because of various circumstances. Consequently, I am not as quick to condemn any of them as others seem to be - apart from the accusation of stupidity and poor judgement.

Cocacolajojo wrote:

Mase wrote:
Not really an 'excellent' analogy is it when that isn't what was claimed.

A far as I'm aware the 'victim' never claimed she'd passed out, rather she 'couldn't remember consenting to sex'. Slightly different to have sex with someone whilst they're passed out than have sex with someone that is 'too drunk to remember'.

The hotel porter provided an account where he heard them having sex. So she definitely wasn't passed out. Read the facts of the case before we go on please.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/woman-gives-evidence-rape-trial-2047672

“I felt tipsy but not out of control,” she told police.

“I usually drink more than that. I haven’t blacked out before, not being able to remember anything.”

She claimed to be not remember anything at least. Doesn't matter though if she's publically confessed to lying. If that's what she's done.

Yeh mate, blacking out and not remembering anything is different to passing out.

I remember after a works do a couple of years ago (still adamant I got my drink spiked) I just left the venue feeling like I had too much, and the next I remember I was in the middle of the road near a mates house probably a good 3 miles away. Now I definitely didn't pass out or I'd still be lying in a farmers field now - but I definitely blacked out and have no recollection of how I got near to my friends at all.

Edit: if two lads came over and asked me if I fancied a bum during that blackout I'd fully expect both to get done for rape if they both went through with the bumming.

Mase wrote:

Cocacolajojo wrote:

Mase wrote:
Not really an 'excellent' analogy is it when that isn't what was claimed.

A far as I'm aware the 'victim' never claimed she'd passed out, rather she 'couldn't remember consenting to sex'. Slightly different to have sex with someone whilst they're passed out than have sex with someone that is 'too drunk to remember'.

The hotel porter provided an account where he heard them having sex. So she definitely wasn't passed out. Read the facts of the case before we go on please.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/woman-gives-evidence-rape-trial-2047672

“I felt tipsy but not out of control,” she told police.

“I usually drink more than that. I haven’t blacked out before, not being able to remember anything.”

She claimed to be not remember anything at least. Doesn't matter though if she's publically confessed to lying. If that's what she's done.

Yeh mate, blacking out and not remembering anything is different to passing out.

I remember after a works do a couple of years ago (still adamant I got my drink spiked) I just left the venue feeling like I had too much, and the next I remember I was in the middle of the road near a mates house probably a good 3 miles away. Now I definitely didn't pass out or I'd still be lying in a farmers field now - but I definitely blacked out and have no recollection of how I got near to my friends at all.

Edit: if two lads came over and asked me if I fancied a bum during that blackout I'd fully expect both to get done for rape if they both went through with the bumming.

Jesus. A friend of mine woke up in the middle of a intersection because of cars honking at him. Sounds similar to your story.. He's a drunk though, no mystery there :/.

Beefymcfc wrote:Fuck me, or maybe not in this case, but that is a huge admission towards the case, if proven. Isnt there a new law that if a person gives false evidence that could lead to a conviction, they could go to jail?

I'd imagine that the new evidence is something along the lines that Mase has heard about.
And if that's the case, she could certainly be prosecuted.
Working in supported housing, I had the misfortune, along with some of my colleagues, to end up as a prosecution witness against a woman who had alleged rape.
She was found guilty, the police threw the book at her, and she was jailed for something like two years.

I think he's gulity as sin and he's only getting this mistrial because he's thrown money at it.

Mase wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:Surely the point though is that whilst Evans who did something we've all (and many women too) have done, it seems that few who have read around the circumstances around the case actually believes she was incapable of giving consent. It's perhaps too early to judge given there's a retrial on the way, but if he's found not guilty, then does she not deserve the price she has paid for crying wolf?

I get where you're both coming from, it's ruined two lives as it turns out - but from what I understand, stupidity isn't a crime as yet, whilst lying under oath is.

I think that's what really hits home - it could literally happen to anyone that goes home with a girl/lad after a night out and then cries wolf. Anyone's life can be ruined.

Happened to a mate of mine last year, girl said he dragged her into a taxi, went to his house then he dragged her by her hair into his house and raped her. He spent over a year on bail whilst the police fucked and fannied about 'investigating' it. Despite the landlord of the pub stating they left together happily and werent pissed, taxi drivers witness statement said she was fine when in/she left the taxi, and a glass of wine in the living room with her lipstick on it, The presumption was of guilt from day 1, and all evidence my mate provided, including text messages after the event and leads to her friends who she admitted making it up to, yet it still dragged on for over a year before his brief got the police to drop the case due to abuse of process or something (for taking too long to charge him)

Lost his job, access to his kids and basically totally ruined him and his life turned into a car crash. Not just the girl at fault but the police for taking so long to drop the charges when they had all the evidence they needed to dismiss the case from day 1. Turns out the girl admitted to a friend that she got nervous as she realised her boyfriends dad lived on the same street, so decided to make the story up to her boyfriend just in case she had been seen leaving the house.

Not a fucking thing happened to the girl.

Now there are many differences in the two cases (not least that my mate didn't even have sex), but it really seems that in these types of cases the police are very quick to presume guilt despite the many warning signs that the lady isn't being entirely honest.

In fairness Sparty, in the case I mentioned earlier where I ended up as a witness, the police moved heaven and earth to prosecute the girl once they knew she was lying. And it didn't take them that long to drop the rape case, only about a month or so.
A lot of the problem is that they name the accused, while giving anonymity to the alleged victim. As you say, the accused's life is totally fucked before anything else happens. They should both have anonymity until conviction, and if found not guilty they should stay anonymous.

Makes a mockery of innocent until proved guilty.

patrickblue wrote:In fairness Sparty, in the case I mentioned earlier where I ended up as a witness, the police moved heaven and earth to prosecute the girl once they knew she was lying. And it didn't take them that long to drop the rape case, only about a month or so.
A lot of the problem is that they name the accused, while giving anonymity to the alleged victim. As you say, the accused's life is totally fucked before anything else happens. They should both have anonymity until conviction, and if found not guilty they should stay anonymous.

Makes a mockery of innocent until proved guilty.

I always thought the same - but after all of the Yew Tree style cases over the last few years, there was a debate on Newsnight about this issue and whilst I wouldn't say that it totally converted me, I am no longer as certain as I once was.

The crux of it is that most sex offenders are recidivist and as such, if they have done something once, they are likely to have done it other times too. As such, the publicity surrounding the cases of celebrity offenders was crucial in encouraging other victims to come forward. The exposure that the accusations received meant that the power that the crime had on others was diminished and enabled them to come forward too.

Is that more important than the good name of an innocent party being ruined? I don't know! On balance, I would say that I have more sympathy with a rape victim. And I have loads of sympathy for those who are falsely accused of anything.

On any other forum, thia would feel like a totally - rather than mildly - inappropriate thing to say but thank God Evans was not a City player when this happened.

Interesting debate, there was a teenage lad in my area going back about ten years now that hung himself after being falsely accused of rape. He had slept with his mate's girlfriend, she accused him of rape, as a result most of his mates blanked him and the pressure of the whole situation got too much for him and he took his own life a couple of weeks before the court case.

Her guilt following his death forced her to admit that she had made it all up.

kinsey wrote:

patrickblue wrote:In fairness Sparty, in the case I mentioned earlier where I ended up as a witness, the police moved heaven and earth to prosecute the girl once they knew she was lying. And it didn't take them that long to drop the rape case, only about a month or so.
A lot of the problem is that they name the accused, while giving anonymity to the alleged victim. As you say, the accused's life is totally fucked before anything else happens. They should both have anonymity until conviction, and if found not guilty they should stay anonymous.

Makes a mockery of innocent until proved guilty.

I always thought the same - but after all of the Yew Tree style cases over the last few years, there was a debate on Newsnight about this issue and whilst I wouldn't say that it totally converted me, I am no longer as certain as I once was.

The crux of it is that most sex offenders are recidivist and as such, if they have done something once, they are likely to have done it other times too. As such, the publicity surrounding the cases of celebrity offenders was crucial in encouraging other victims to come forward. The exposure that the accusations received meant that the power that the crime had on others was diminished and enabled them to come forward too.

Is that more important than the good name of an innocent party being ruined? I don't know! On balance, I would say that I have more sympathy with a rape victim. And I have loads of sympathy for those who are falsely accused of anything.

On any other forum, thia would feel like a totally - rather than mildly - inappropriate thing to say but thank God Evans was not a City player when this happened.

While appreciating where you're coming from, I would say that the principle of innocent until proven guilty is the overriding factor. If you are going to name the accused while giving anonymity to the alleged victim, that to me says that you are presuming guilt.

The celebrity offenders thing has been somewhat unique, as it has been a huge kneejerk reaction to the establishment protecting itself for years. If the police had done(or more likely had been allowed to do) their jobs in the past it wouldn't have needed to happen.

Human nature being what it is, if the scales are tipped in favour of one side over the other, people are going to take advantage, ultimately leading back to the situation we're trying to get away from, namely allegations not being taken seriously. In my view, by making it appear that there are no consequences to making false allegations totally trivialises real rape victims, as well as destroying the lives of the falsely accused.

Mase wrote:

kinsey wrote:

Gringo Twatburger wrote:

Mase wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:Surely the point though is that whilst Evans who did something we've all (and many women too) have done, it seems that few who have read around the circumstances around the case actually believes she was incapable of giving consent. It's perhaps too early to judge given there's a retrial on the way, but if he's found not guilty, then does she not deserve the price she has paid for crying wolf?

I get where you're both coming from, it's ruined two lives as it turns out - but from what I understand, stupidity isn't a crime as yet, whilst lying under oath is.

I think that's what really hits home - it could literally happen to anyone that goes home with a girl/lad after a night out and then cries wolf. Anyone's life can be ruined.

So if you're hanging out with a girl who takes you back to her hotel room when you're completely wankered and she gets on top of you and starts fucking you and you drift in and out of consciousness while that's happening and unbeknownst to you she's called me over and I pop in and decide I can join in and slide my cock in your ass for a bit just cuz yknow we're all having fun --and it seems like me asking you if I could dip my wick in you was met with a soggy affirmation, does that change your feelings at all about her situation?

How would you feel when you piece that together the next morning? Gay? Or raped?

A little more complex than a normal night out for most decent fuckers of any gender believe dude.

Cheers

Excellent analogy!

This is such a difficult case in so many ways and why rape is so so frequently such a difficult crime to prosecute.

The truth is, the only person who knows the truth of this is her. It is my belief that in those circumstances, even Evans was taking a guess - and he deserves condemnation for that recklessness, regardless of the truth of her intentions.

Not really an 'excellent' analogy is it when that isn't what was claimed.

A far as I'm aware the 'victim' never claimed she'd passed out, rather she 'couldn't remember consenting to sex'. Slightly different to have sex with someone whilst they're passed out than have sex with someone that is 'too drunk to remember'.

The hotel porter provided an account where he heard them having sex. So she definitely wasn't passed out. Read the facts of the case before we go on please.

you could look up the definition of analogy once your'e finished rubbing one out, squishmuffin.

cheers

Cleared of Rape

Hope he can get his life back on track now

Delighted was never guilty in the first place shame hes even had a day of his life wasted on this nonsense

I hope he has a massive law suit waiting with his lawyers to hammer the daily mail with. they have constantly called him a rapist and even and paedo. I have he shuts them down and Jessica Ennis offers to get her stand name changed to his name.

What about the ”victim”?

Any charges towards that?

PeterParker wrote:What about the ”victim”?

Any charges towards that?

If I'm understanding everything correctly they got evans off from two witnesses claiming that she had slept with men and not remembered it afterwards. It does not seem there's any proof besides these statements that she had lied which was the rumour on here.

Other men