Footballer jailed for 5 years for Rape!

I'm surprised that others footballers haven't been jailed for such stuff long before now - I get the feeling that it isn't the first time this as happened but the girls are probably well paid off rather than go to court - but that's just be speculating.

Anyway -

Footballer Ched Evans has been jailed for five years for raping a 19-year-old woman, while another player, Clayton McDonald, has been cleared.

Wales and Sheffield United striker Evans, 23, was convicted by a jury at Caernarfon Crown Court.

Both he and Port Vale defender Mr McDonald, also 23, had denied rape at a Premier Inn near Rhyl, Denbighshire.

The men admitted having sex with the woman on 30 May 2011, but said it was consensual.

Court proceedings were disrupted after Mr McDonald was acquitted, prompting a brief adjournment.

Mr McDonald, of Crewe, Cheshire, looked elated when his not guilty verdict was delivered, and family and friends shouted: "Yes, yes".

One man left the public gallery and could be heard screaming outside the court.

Judge Merfyn Hughes QC rose and the public gallery was cleared

Mr McDonald remained in the dock while Evans, 23, of Penistone, South Yorkshire, put his head in his hands and cried.

After the judge returned to court, the guilty verdict was delivered against Evans.

During the trial, the jury saw video interviews in which the woman, now 20, said she could not remember what happened and feared her drinks were spiked.

She could not remember travelling to the hotel, but woke up in a double bed.

"My clothes were scattered around on the floor," she said.

'Confused and dazed'

"I just didn't know how I got there, if I had gone there with anyone. I was confused and dazed."

The court heard that Evans, whose mother lives in Rhyl, had invited Mr McDonald and others for a bank holiday night out in the seaside town on 29 May.

Because there was not enough space at Evans' mother's house, he booked Mr McDonald in to the hotel.

The court heard that Mr McDonald met the woman and took her back to the hotel room, sending a text to Evans stating he had "got a bird".

During Evans' evidence, he told the jury he had gone to the hotel, let himself in to Mr McDonald's room and watched his friend and the woman having sex.

It was claimed Mr McDonald asked if his friend could "get involved", to which the woman said yes.

The prosecution claimed that while the attack happened, Jack Higgins, an "associate" of the footballers, and Ryan Roberts, Evans' brother, watched through a window.

The court heard the defendants had known each other since they were aged 10 and shared accommodation when they played for Manchester City's youth academy.

Evans, a striker, has scored 35 goals for Championship club Sheffield United this season and has 13 caps for Wales.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842

What a prick, deserves everything he gets, hell of a blow to Sheff Utd though, he has been on fire this season in League one not the championship as the bbc would have you believe.

These Overpaid Ponces™ deserve to pay for their crimes, just like anybody else would. I think McDonald should have done some time as well, based on the information presented.

Seems a bit weird that one gets off scott free, and the other gets 5 years.

It also pisses me off that this fool gets 5 years for a sexual encounter that got out of hand, and the scumbag who killed that bloke in the riots only gets 8 years.

I also want to know more about these blokes who were watching through the window!

A lot of footballers have sprung to his defence on twitter! What a surprise.

They think they can shag who they want, when they want, with or without permission.

... clearly.

HTF did McDonald get off with it ? It was he who initiated the whole thing in the first place. She is pissed out of her brains in the club where he first comes onto her. ( Not physically, at that point.) Then he takes her to a Pizza take-away where CCTV captures her falling on her arse. He then takes her to a Premier Inn where he slips her an alleged consensual length and then after he has had his way with her he texts Evans to come and take over. Then while Evans is having sex with the comatose victim two other players are filming it all from outside the hotel window on their mobile phones!

The whole thing is a terrible indictment of how some footballers view young women. Granted, Evans is only twenty three and the victim was nineteen but what sort of animal gets involved in sticky seconds ?

Evans and McDonald are equally culpable and the pair should both be in prison.

Exactly, RT. Sending a text saying "I've got a bird" clearly indicates intent. The fact that the "bird" in question was too drunk to give consent to intercourse, anybody who has intercourse with her rapes her. To say the fact that she went with McDonald means he didn't rape her is ludicrous. They went for the bigger name.

I think we have to be very careful if I am honest.

I agree with Natasha when comparing the sentence Evans received with that murdering son of a bitch from the riots, it doesn't make sense.

As for the other footballer, he's been found not guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers who have heard all the evidence. I think everyone needs to bear that in mind before pulling bits out of news reports and condemning the guy. I'm sorry but texting someone to say "I've got a bird" is not very strong evidence of intent to commit rape.

I feel quite strongly on this subject, men who are wrongly accused of rape can have their lives ruined, whereas women who make false allegations can hide behind anonymity. Obviously not in this case as someone has been found guilty, but ultimately this footballer has been found not guilty and yet here are all the amateur pundits saying he should have been sent down. It's not right.

There is a moral issue here. If I was on a night out with my mates and I pulled a lady I certainly wouldn't want my mate or mates watching me on the job in my hotel room. McDonald was clearly boasting about his prowess as a Lothario and as such I consider him to be a low life.

If he had done what he did to my daughter by taking advantage of her drunken state I would be very angry at the verdict.

P.S. Let's not forget that the CPS gave the police the go ahead to charge McDonald with rape. They must have thought they had a strong case against McDonald otherwise they wouldn't have charged him.

The CPS can appeal against the verdict and I hope they do.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:A lot of footballers have sprung to his defence on twitter! What a surprise.

Which players?

I'm not disagreeing that it looks like shabby and demeaning conduct RT. I'm with you there 100%. I take issue with the two posts immediately before mine from yourself and Keegan only insofar as you're subjugating the verdict of a jury who have heard and evaluated all the evidence.

You're factually wrong to say they are equally culpable, in fact it's a libellous statement. Keegan is wrong to say that text message proves intent to rape, if that was the case he would have been convicted because he admits having sex with the woman.

I realise that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is such that the relationship between committing an act and being found guilty of it beyond reasonable doubt is a technical relationship, but at the same time the guy is square with the house and not only has a legal, but also a moral right to be considered not guilty of rape.

Its been long overdue serves him right,cried like a baby the papers said .

largehat wrote:I'm not disagreeing that it looks like shabby and demeaning conduct RT. I'm with you there 100%. I take issue with the two posts immediately before mine from yourself and Keegan only insofar as you're subjugating the verdict of a jury who have heard and evaluated all the evidence.

You're factually wrong to say they are equally culpable, in fact it's a libellous statement. Keegan is wrong to say that text message proves intent to rape, if that was the case he would have been convicted because he admits having sex with the woman.

I realise that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is such that the relationship between committing an act and being found guilty of it beyond reasonable doubt is a technical relationship, but at the same time the guy is square with the house and not only has a legal, but also a moral right to be considered not guilty of rape.

In my limited experience of court cases I have found that the jury don't always get the verdict right. In this case the issue in relation to McDonald is one of consent. Now, correct me if I am wrong but how can someone who is totally pissed out of their brains give consent. She was in no fit and proper state to give her consent. As far as I am concerned McDonald and Evans treated her like a piece of meat and McDonald is very lucky that he is not eating porridge this morning.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

largehat wrote:I'm not disagreeing that it looks like shabby and demeaning conduct RT. I'm with you there 100%. I take issue with the two posts immediately before mine from yourself and Keegan only insofar as you're subjugating the verdict of a jury who have heard and evaluated all the evidence.

You're factually wrong to say they are equally culpable, in fact it's a libellous statement. Keegan is wrong to say that text message proves intent to rape, if that was the case he would have been convicted because he admits having sex with the woman.

I realise that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is such that the relationship between committing an act and being found guilty of it beyond reasonable doubt is a technical relationship, but at the same time the guy is square with the house and not only has a legal, but also a moral right to be considered not guilty of rape.

In my limited experience of court cases I have found that the jury don't always get the verdict right. In this case the issue in relation to McDonald is one of consent. Now, correct me if I am wrong but how can someone who is totally pissed out of their brains give consent. She was in no fit and proper state to give her consent. As far as I am concerned McDonald and Evans treated her like a piece of meat and McDonald is very lucky that he is not eating porridge this morning.

Porridge is good for you.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

largehat wrote:I'm not disagreeing that it looks like shabby and demeaning conduct RT. I'm with you there 100%. I take issue with the two posts immediately before mine from yourself and Keegan only insofar as you're subjugating the verdict of a jury who have heard and evaluated all the evidence.

You're factually wrong to say they are equally culpable, in fact it's a libellous statement. Keegan is wrong to say that text message proves intent to rape, if that was the case he would have been convicted because he admits having sex with the woman.

I realise that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is such that the relationship between committing an act and being found guilty of it beyond reasonable doubt is a technical relationship, but at the same time the guy is square with the house and not only has a legal, but also a moral right to be considered not guilty of rape.

In my limited experience of court cases I have found that the jury don't always get the verdict right. In this case the issue in relation to McDonald is one of consent. Now, correct me if I am wrong but how can someone who is totally pissed out of their brains give consent. She was in no fit and proper state to give her consent. As far as I am concerned McDonald and Evans treated her like a piece of meat and McDonald is very lucky that he is not eating porridge this morning.

[strike]

Of course juries don't get every verdict right, as you put it. And you're asking questions I can't answer as I wasn't on the jury or present to hear all the evidence.

I'm sorry to labour the point but your position of this is a perfect example of the phrase 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. You're aware of certain material facts which were widely reported in the media and you've formulated your own opinion, which is fine. Where our agreement ends in this is that I tend to think that is a jury is trying two men for the same crime and only finds one of them guilty there is probably a compelling reason for that of which I am not necessarily aware. The jury reached a unanimous verdict that he was not guilty, by all means condemn him for picking up a drunken woman and knocking the back out of her but I maintain that it is factually and morally wrong to maintain that he is a rapist and should be in prison.

I'm sorry but the comments by yourself and Keegan remind me of those Facebook groups which are full of pitchfork wielding, bandwagon jumping numbskulls with their mock outrage, desperate outcries for vigilante justice and holier-than-thou economical application of the facts that spring up whenever an emotive crime takes place.

It is not that I have blind faith in our legal system. I just think a jury who have deliberated the facts of the case in the proper way should be given a little more credit.

I dont have any faith in our legal system and i would not want to be on a jury .

I have often thought that when a jury tries more than one person, whether deliberate or otherwise, they tend to work on a peer basis. During their deliberations, I'm feel that they will decide on the fate of one in conparison to the other, rather than as individuals. For example, whereas Evans was clearly guilty, and possibly Macdonald as well, Macdonalds actions were considered not to be as bad, and so could not be given the same penalty. Also, and I'm not saying it has happened here, how often have we seen/heard when some information isn't presented, or answers to very specific answers only, are allowed, plus the legally correct, but morally wrong, weasel words from the legal team Although we all have to follow the verdicts, it doesn't mean that we have to believe that justice has been done. Only a fool would accept everything without question.

largehat wrote:

I'm sorry but the comments by yourself and Keegan remind me of those Facebook groups which are full of pitchfork wielding, bandwagon jumping numbskulls with their mock outrage, desperate outcries for vigilante justice and holier-than-thou economical application of the facts that spring up whenever an emotive crime takes place.

McDonald took advantage of a drunken women who was incapable of forming a rational decision due to her inebriated condition. The CPS clearly thought there was a prima facie case against him hence the reason he was charged with rape. It will be interesting to see if if the victim launches a private prosecution agains McDonald through the civil courts where the burden of proof is less onerous.

I have never ever wielded a pitfork. I prefer to brandish a burning spear.

Some very interestIng points, gents.

I don't care what the CPS thought though. They only consider the prosecution's evidence when reaching a decision.

Rape is a terrible, shocking, awful crime and quite rightly it is severely punished. But something doesn't seem quite right here. Shouldn't McDonald be guilty of something for inviting Evans to come over and have sex with this girl he was with? Shouldn't he have stopped it from happening if it was rape?
What if Evans thought she was up for it as he was invited by McDonald to come along and she didn't say no and didn't resist?
So McDonald didn't rape her, she went back to his hotel for sex with him. Surely McDonald did something very wrong for inviting Evans to come along if she didn't want sex with his mate.
I hope no one thinks I am belittling rape or this crime, I just think something doesn't quite seem right for Evans to get 5 years and McDonald walk a way a free man.