I've tried to get you to explain in simple terms what you mean but you keep refusing or sidestepping.
If the difference between the first trial and the retrial was proof of consent based on the words used by the girl in previous and subsequent sexual encounters, then the evidence for consent must have been flimsy at best. The CPS acted with a duty of care to the girl after she reported being unable to remember events (red flag) and after the police spoke to the hotel receptionist (multiple red flags).
At that point there is no evidence of consent and everything points towards a predatory individual taking an opportunity and being caught bang to rights. The CPS were correct to pursue it. I don't know the full process on the adult side but with children's care, after Victoria Climbie, the flag system was always used as an early indicator because it's very straightforward.
McDonald had the time he spent with the girl leading up to the hotel as evidence that she may have given or implied consent. Ched Evans didn't. That's why the verdicts were different.
Which piece of evidence (or lack thereof) in the first trial do you think exonerates Evans (and you can't just say "he didn't rape her so he didn't rape her"). Where was the proof? And again you can't just say "there was no proof so you can't convict" because then it comes down to the balance of probability given the rest of the evidence. He turned up unannounced and then left her alone - not the actions of someone showing compassion or care for another human, in my opinion.
The jury weighed all that up and decided that it was unlikely to the point that probablity ≈ 1 that consent was given, or that Evans could reasonably assume consent.
Had they thought the probability was closer to 0.9 then they would have found not guilty.
You keep saying there's a load of reasons the jury shouldn't have come to that conclusion but when pressed you just revert to the circular logic argument that because you don't think he did it he didn't do it and therefore he shouldn't have been convicted. It's nonsense.
He was allowed the appeal and then a retrial specifically because the consent issue was brought into doubt.
Jesus you really know nothing about the law and the burden of proof, do you.
Evans does not have to prove a thing, not a thing. It's the way our legal system works.
Evans does not have to prove there was consent. The prosecution have to prove there was no consent. They couldn't and did not do this. Nor were they ever going to be able to do that to any degree of certainty.
That's why I stopped debating with you.
The jury were left with a fairly despicable man in the dock and had to decide with, no victim testimony around consent, using only cctv footage and third hand reports of the condition of the woman, whether he deserved punishing or not. They decided on balance that it was better to punish an innocent, but bad man, than let an innocent, but bad man, walk free.
The prosecution proved nothing, the evidence was flimsy and extremely circumstantial and Evans should never have been sent to jail.
You can have an opinion, that's fine, it doesn't align with my opinion, that's fine too. But to debate your opinion with me, you really need to understand a bit more about the law, burden of proof, what beyond reasonable doubt actually means, not what you think it means. Then we can debate. I clearly overestimated your undertsanding.
Firstly, I would go and read what reasonable doubt means. In simple terms it means that if you have 2 pieces of conflicting evidence that have roughly equal weight, you must ALWAYS assume the evidence that exonnerates the defendent is assuemd to be true. whilst judges have been encouraged not to use the phrase, the burden remains the same. This is exactly the reason that rape convictions are so difficult to prove, he said she said, without corroborating evidence, should always lead to an acquital. It's not fair but it is how thelegal system is supposed to work
This interpretation comes directly from the presumption of innocence, which isn't innocent until proven otherwise. A common mistake.
Now if you believe that the circumstantial evidence provided to the jurors, not in it's totality, but weighed one piece at a time, with the bar set as above, should have convicted Ched Evans, then fine, that's your opinion.
My opinion is that the CPS would have looked at that evidence and known that the only way they get a conviction is if the jury make an emotional decision to punish a fairly despicable man. It worked for them. They have to be better than that in my opinion, being a proffessional footballer with an inflated sense of self worth isn't a crime in itself. Leaving your morality at home doesn't make you a criminal. The CPS are supposed to represent you and I and are supposed to do it without prejudice or favour.
The CPS got what they wanted, it later turned out they were wrong. Should they have prosecuted? Absoloutely not, in my eyes. They played a game, put a potential victim through a court case and tarred a potentially innocent man with evidence they knew didn't pass the most basic of legal tests.
