Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[likesfish]

He had enough money and enough time to chuck enough dirt to get off

 

[Dowie]

I remember a phrase from the first trial, Evans friend ringing him from a taxi saying 'I've got a girl'. Evans then arrived at the hotel 15 minutes later - he stopped whatever he was doing and dived in a cab. Whilst rape clearly doesn't have to follow from that exchange, it's a clear statement to me of exactly what that night was about. Even in Evans own account, there was no discussion at that point (phone call in the taxi) with the victim about whether he could 'join in'. Who the fuck would turn up at the hotel room of a couple having sex on the off chance the woman would then have sex with you?

apparently the other two who tried to film through a window would turn up just to watch

the whole thing is very strange and very dodgy, then again maybe these footballers do develop some arrogant entitlement attitudes regarding women

 

[bimble]

I personally would not want to see a change in the way the law works making it so that basically "If a woman has no memory of the night before, then any sex that she had was beyond reasonable doubt nonconsensual sex and so the person who had sex with her is guilty of rape."
I think that would probably cause more problems than it would solve.
(This is not a comment on this particular case but on what might have been the result of a guilty verdict.)

 

[trashpony]

Tbh being as one party to the case is anonymous it is not beyond the bounds of possibility they only realised their evidence might be germane later on. You're making it sound like everyone knew everything at the time, which isn't always how things happen.

I suggest you read the document that 1%er linked to. Both witnesses were contacted by the defence and 'remembered' details they thought weren't relevant previous.

 

[Raheem]

Bit late to this. So he's been acquitted and the woman never actually accused him of rape. Who did then? How can someone be tried if there's no accusation from the victim?

It's quite common in murder cases.

 

[hegley]

Both witnesses were contacted by the defence and 'remembered' details they thought weren't relevant previous.

Not to mention that a mate of Ched Evans, and then his sister, both acted as the go-between for one of the witnesses and solicitors because the witness "didn't have an email address". FFS.

 

[Pickman's model]

I suggest you read the document that 1%er linked to. Both witnesses were contacted by the defence and 'remembered' details they thought weren't relevant previous.

Pray make a complaint of perjury to the police

 

[trashpony]

Pray make a complaint of perjury to the police

I don't know why you're defending this so hard unless it's for shits and giggles. I thought better of you tbh

 

[bimble]

The principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt is kind of important. It's a good one.
If he had been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the jury it would have been significant way beyond this particular case and this particular scumbag being locked up.

 

[killer b]

he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, first time round.

 

[Spymaster]

he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, first time round.

For which he served his sentence. Doubts emerged since then.

 

[trashpony]

For which he served his sentence. Doubts emerged since then.

No. Money emerged since then.

 

[killer b]

yeah. I'm not sure if it would have been any more significant 'way beyond this particular case' this time round though - he'd already been found guilty once, what would it have changed?

 

[bimble]

he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, first time round.

That's true. It's a horrible case. The money offered for information does screw the whole thing up and changes the conversation rightly.

 

[killer b]

this result is significant way beyond the case mind. rapists know it's open season on pissed girls they can paint as slags.

 

[starfish]

I remember a phrase from the first trial, Evans friend ringing him from a taxi saying 'I've got a girl'. Evans then arrived at the hotel 15 minutes later - he stopped whatever he was doing and dived in a cab. Whilst rape clearly doesn't have to follow from that exchange, it's a clear statement to me of exactly what that night was about. Even in Evans own account, there was no discussion at that point (phone call in the taxi) with the victim about whether he could 'join in'. Who the fuck would turn up at the hotel room of a couple having sex on the off chance the woman would then have sex with you?

I'm not even getting into the rest of it, him hiding his face, blagging a key, leaving through the firedoor, changed statements. Just turning up on the assumption he was going to get sex from someone he had never met... what, he just managed to find someone who was so pissed, but not comatose, that she 'consented'? Don't think so.

Me & ms starfish have just been going over that bit ourselves just now. It was a text "got a girl". Evans claimed he was on his way to the police station to report a "racially motivated attack" on one of his half brothers friends outside the same kebab shop MacDonald picked up the girl. So instead of going to the police Evans, his half brother & a friend went to the hotel, where Evans had already booked a room. It just sounds predatory. But to them its acceptable. Im sure theres been times when situations like this have passed off with no complaints from all parties but it just doesnt sit right.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am i no way defending Evans or what the judge allowed in this trial, but i just read the book Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi, who was Charles Manson's prosecutor. One thing i find interesting, is that he likes to interview witnesses many times. He contends that he has been given new vital information about a case on the 8th interview with a witness.

Frankly, that's merely an illustration of how memory works. It isn't, as people assume, a linear narrative imprinted on the brain via the senses, it's a confused mass of narratives from the senses that the brain tries to sort into a cohesive whole. Unfortunately the amount of data is such that the brain often edits out pieces of information that seem contrary to its own interpretation. Those pieces can be elicited though, if an interviewer takes it slow and uses "open" questions, rather than demanding specific individual facts.

 

[Spymaster]

No. Money emerged since then.

The first witness contacted the police on the day of Evans' conviction. They directed him to the defence lawyers.

A statement was taken by the defence solicitors a month later in which he said that he'd slept with X and she'd asked the next morning if they had shagged.

This was before any reward was offered, and would have been available to the defence at the first appeal but wasn't used because it related to X's memory loss and at the time was considered irrelevant.

 

[RubyBlue]

Case should never have come to court, and everybody loses as a result of it being brought. Absolutely everybody. From her original statements, the woman herself didn't understand the nature of alcoholic blackouts (this was her first one, it seems), and it appears the police and those deciding to prosecute didn't understand them either. I've experienced them more times than I'd care to admit, so the idea that you can lose hours of your life in which you find out later that you did all kinds of things is very normal to me. And reading of her night, it had all the hallmarks of a blackout. Talking to others outside of here and also reading posts on here, people who've never experienced one seem not quite to understand what it is. A fuck-up from start to end.

To me you've hit the nail on the head - like you I've had many a blackout and have done all kinds of shit with absolutely no memory.

Rape apologist.

Fuck that - absolutely no need - as well as wrong

 

[trashpony]

Her blackout is neither here nor there. She doesn't remember. It was Evans' evidence that convicted him.

So yes to keep banging on about that is making excuses for Evans.

 

[bimble]

It's sad that 'liking' RubyBlue's post, this time and the previous one, feels a bit scary, like any minute someone's gonna call me a rape apologist too.

 

[Spymaster]

It was Evans' evidence that convicted him.

Which part?

 

[bimble]

Her blackout is neither here nor there. She doesn't remember. It was Evans' evidence that convicted him.

So yes to keep banging on about that is making excuses for Evans.

Don't think that's fair at all.

The whole case was tried as a case about consent & alcohol.

This is the CPS's statement from yesterday:


Ched Evans retrial


If you think the CPS, who brought the case, is wrong in their assessment of what it was all about then maybe you should try to explain why.

 

[trashpony]

Which part?

All of it. Given she had never, and still hasn't, accused him of rape. The CPS made that decision.

 

[Orang Utan]

I think what we SHOULD be focussing on here is whether Evans knew or cared if his victim was beyond consent or not, not whether the victim blacked out or not. It's clear from his and his fellow beast that neither did.

 

[Raheem]

Which part?

His evidence seems to be that his friend persuaded a drunk woman into a hotel room. He then went into the room and fucked her without saying a word then left. It seems like he was specifically asked by the police if he had made any attempt to gain her consent and he said that he hadn't.

I'm not saying that's open-and-shut, but it was enough for the first jury.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't know why you're defending this so hard unless it's for shits and giggles. I thought better of you tbh

I'm not defending anything. I don't support Ched Evans. It's not like I've slagged off x. You want to make accusations of perjury, fine; but why not put your money where your mouth is?

 

[Spymaster]

All of it. Given she had never, and still hasn't, accused him of rape. The CPS made that decision.

But which part of his evidence do you believe convicted him?

He said that his mate asked if he could join in and she said "yes". He said that she had said "fuck me harder" during the act. That's not in dispute.

So what bits of his evidence convicted him?

 

[bimble]

I think what we SHOULD be focussing on here is whether Evans knew or cared if his victim was beyond consent or not, not whether the victim blacked out or not. It's clear from his and his fellow beast that neither did.

I agree that's where the interesting bit is. And that's what the case as presented to the jury was all about:
What does 'beyond consent' mean?

 

[belboid]

He said that his mate asked if he could join in and she said "yes". He said that she had said "fuck me harder" during the act. That's not in dispute.

It might not be in dispute that he said it. It has absolutely not been proven that she actually did say it tho.