Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Wilf]

The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". She's on CCTV staggering, and at one point falling over. An expert witness said she would have had enough alcohol in her system to be slurring her words and unsteady on her feet. McDonald, co-defendant in the original trial even told the night porter when he left to look out for her because she was sick. I don't think either McDonald or Evans particularly cared - it goes back to Evans saying that he could have had any girl he wanted that night because he was a rich footballer. Which has echoes of Trump saying when you're a star you can do anything to women.

At one level we are discussing the case in terms of legality and the issue of being too drunk to give consent. Fair enough, that discussion is proper, for us and for the court (even if I think the 'new evidence' shouldn't have been admitted - by a country mile). I happen to think he's got off with it because of his and father in law's wealth.

But there's absolutely another level to think about the case, just about the behaviour one human being (and his supporting cast of friends/entourage) towards another. Every bit of the case, every fucking detail of Evans behaviour and that of his cronies screams that it was an exploitative use of power - to manipulate a situation in order to get sex. Every detail from the text through to him avoiding the cameras and creeping out through the fire door. All agreed details afaik. That's rape for me, fwiw, but even if it doesn't meet that legal test - and again I think it does because I don't believe a fucking word he said - it's something just as bad. And without getting into the 'some' vs 'all' men thing again, it really signifies a society that is truly fucked up in its attitudes towards women.

 

[Spymaster]

... the CPSs claim (IMO completely valid) is that the woman was not in a state to give consent.

Which was inherently dodgy, given that SHE WASN'T initially accusing them of rape and had no recollection of the events.

The jury did not have to decide on whether she knowingly gave consent. Their decision was based on whether or not Evans could reasonably have believed she was consenting.

 

[Casually Red]

Sure. But the alternative is to reduce the standard of proof to something less than beyond a reasonable doubt, and that opens a fucking massive can of worms.

Big time .

 

[Athos]

No, what I meant was that RubyBlue's testimony was irrelevant inasmuch as her not remembering anything has never been in doubt. I think that's a given. So much of this is diversion - it's like a sleight of hand magician.
It was Evans and McDonald's testimony that meant he was convicted. She could have been lucid except that witnesses and the CCTV says she appeared to be very very drunk. All except for the defendant and his mate.

Indeed Mcdonald thought her so drunk that he felt the need to warn the night porter just minutes after they'd both had sex with her.

 

[belboid]

Which was inherently dodgy, given that SHE WASN'T initially accusing them of rape and had no recollection of the events.

So fucking what? That makes no difference at all.

You think they were wrong to prosecute, don't you?

 

[Wilf]

Was cctv ever looked into in terms of where they were before going to the hotel? Spiking someone's drink can also cause blackouts, certain date rape substances are known for it in fact...

The I've got a girl' phone call is sinister as fuck Imo... They were certainly up to no good from that moment on.

It struck me as pretty grim and also suggested this was a routine, something they'd done before. Otherwise, why the actual fuck would someone divert from where they were going and go to where two people were having sex? Something along the lines of 'I've met a girl and she's up for a threesome' perhaps, but not that. All adds to a sequence of events where it just screams out to me that Evans didn't give a flying fuck whether she was even conscious.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Ed Beltrami, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Wales said:

Huh, Joe's boy Edwin landed on his feet, I see.

 

[belboid]

Sure. But the alternative is to reduce the standard of proof to something less than beyond a reasonable doubt, and that opens a fucking massive can of worms.

Sounds like you're confusing reasonable doubt with absolute certainty too.

 

[Casually Red]

Which was inherently dodgy, given that SHE WASN'T accusing them of rape and had no recollection of the events.

The jury did not have to decide on whether she knowingly gave consent. Their decision was based on whether or not Evans could reasonably have believed she was consenting.

Yup . And she was in bed when he met her . Wasn't walking /staggering about . No conversation between them . Not much grounds on which to question his apparent belief . I'd have thought there were more grounds to convict his scummy mate who had seen that and indicated he was aware she was very drunk .

 

[Treacle Toes]

It struck me as pretty grim and also suggested this was a routine, something they'd done before. Otherwise, why the actual fuck would someone divert from where they were going and go to where two people were having sex? Something along the lines of 'I've met a girl and she's up for a threesome' perhaps, but not that. All adds to a sequence of events where it just screams out to me that Evans didn't give a flying fuck whether she was even conscious.

Indeed. He was offering her up to Evans Imo. He knew she was in a vulnerable state.

 

[Athos]

Which was inherently dodgy, given that SHE WASN'T initially accusing them of rape and had no recollection of the events.

The jury did not have to decide on whether she knowingly gave consent. Their decision was based on whether or not Evans could reasonably have believed she was consenting.

Acctually, first, the jury would have to consider whether or not she did consent; only if they were sure that she did not, would they have had to consider whether or not he did (note: not "could have") reasonably believe that she had consented. They could only convict if they were sure he did not believe she had consented.

 

[1%er]

Acctually, first, the jury would have to consider whether or not she did consent; only if they were sure that she did not, would they have had to consider whether or not he did (note: not "could have") reasonably believe that she had consented. They could only convict if they were sure he did not believe she had consented.

Indeed or had the capacity to consent

 

[redsquirrel]

So fucking what? That makes no difference at all.

You think they were wrong to prosecute, don't you?

Peculiar that the posters who screamed about "the Left" defending sexual assaulters on the Cologne thread are all so worried about the supposed ramifications of finding scumbag like Evans guilty. Almost as if they didn't give a shit about the women assaulted and where just using it as a some political tool.

 

[Spymaster]

How? By them prosecuting Evans? What else have they done to her?

By persuading her to go support a complaint of a crime that she had absolutely no memory of being committed and the only witnesses to which were her alleged assailants, you pork-brained windbag.

You think they were wrong to prosecute, don't you?

In retrospect, yes.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

 

[Raheem]

Which was inherently dodgy, given that SHE WASN'T initially accusing them of rape and had no recollection of the events.

So do you think that rape charges should never be brought if the victim has no recollection of it happening?

 

[Athos]

So, the further evidence (which came to light after the original conviction, and when Evans' supporters were offering rewards for evidence that would support an appeal) is simply that X liked doggy style sex, and told partners to fuck her harder. That was ruled admissible because of the similarities to Evans' account of what happened that night. Perhaps notable that his version of events saw widely known before the new witness have accounts of similar conduct.

 

[Athos]

Indeed or had the capacity to consent

That would be part of the first limb i.e. whether she did consent.

 

[belboid]

By persuading her to go support a complaint of a crime that she had absolutely no memory of being committed and the only witnesses to which were her alleged assailants, you pork-brained windbag.

In retrospect, yes.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

It's scum like you to blame for rapists knowing they can get away with it. You don't understand the law, but are so fucking sure that you do. You're fucking dangerous.

 

[Casually Red]

It struck me as pretty grim and also suggested this was a routine, something they'd done before. Otherwise, why the actual fuck would someone divert from where they were going and go to where two people were having sex? Something along the lines of 'I've met a girl and she's up for a threesome' perhaps, but not that. All adds to a sequence of events where it just screams out to me that Evans didn't give a flying fuck whether she was even conscious.

I agree ..totally..with all that . Ive posted earlier in the thread that it's a certainty they must have pulled this routine before . Except his mates message made no inference at all the girl was incapable . So Evans can get around that one .

The case isn't whether or not though Evans has a despicable mentality or cared one way or another. Ultimately it boils down to whether he had a belief she was capable of giving consent . Proving...beyond reasonable doubt... he didn't believe her capable of consent strikes me as pretty impossible under the circumstances. And that's we're the issue of her claim she would never consent to sex with a stranger comes in . If it can be proven that's not true , that's were the case of her incapability at the time starts to unravel . the CPS case seems to have foundered on that point more than anything . From what I can see. Reasonable doubt..under law..gets introduced when it's proven otherwise .

Cold comfort but even if he was definitely guilty..something I certainly don't discount...at least he served the sentence and he's exposed as the scumbag he is . Even The Scum is taking that line . So that's something .

I think the much bigger issue here is as regards what precedent, if any, this case has for the future .

 

[1%er]

That would be part of the first limb i.e. whether she did consent.

I'm quoting from para 15 of this rather informative document linked to about 5 hours ago

 

[Wilf]

So, the further evidence (which came to light after the original conviction, and when Evans' supporters were offering rewards for evidence that would support an appeal) is simply that X liked doggy style sex, and told partners to fuck her harder. That was ruled admissible because of the similarities to Evans' account of what happened that night. Perhaps notable that his version of events saw widely known before the new witness have accounts of similar conduct.

'Is there anyone out there who might decide to have the same recollections as me - for money?'

 

[Gromit]

TBH i feel for the woman in this case. Since operation YewTree i think that there is a slight culture of police and CP staff wanted to make a big splash by nabbing a celeb.

This poor woman has been caught in the middle of it. They interviewed her numerous times digging for dirt and asking her questions like Do you sleep around with strangers?
Even if you did (and i'm not saying its wrong, a more sexually liberated and less repressed society is a good thing imo) how are most people going to answer that? Embarrassed denial and then you find yourself trapped in a web of what originally seemed like white lies but slowly become serious. So serious you dare not change your story. Trapped due to police and cps pressure.

Quite rightly her Id was covered up. But they released his. He's famous. Loads of fans. They track her down and make her life a misery. I'll be honest, I myself suspected she was after a payout, which does not seem to be the case so my apologies to her. I don't care enough to give a shit about it though. Dunno why these stupid fans did. Nutters.

That would have been avoided if they'd kept his ID a secret too. However that then denies the prosecution a chance of unknown witnesses coming forward and saying actually he's done this that and the other to us. Which to some see as more important than protecting any innocent men that get accused of similar crimes or worse. I can see their point but i can also sympathize with the innocently accused. Its a tough call imo.

 

[Spymaster]

Acctually, first, the jury would have to consider whether or not she did consent; only if they were sure that she did not, would they have had to consider whether or not he did (note: not "could have") reasonably believe that she had consented. They could only convict if they were sure he did not believe she had consented.

Yes, fair point

 

[Casually Red]

Peculiar that the posters who screamed about "the Left" defending sexual assaulters on the Cologne thread are all so worried about the supposed ramifications of finding scumbag like Evans guilty. Almost as if they didn't give a shit about the women assaulted and where just using it as a some political tool.

Who would that be ?

I don't believe anyone here gives a flying fuck about Evans . What has been raised ..very breifly..is a general legal principle that applies to everyone. The removal of a requirement for reasonable doubt as regards convictions in criminal cases . And if you can't see the dangerous ramifications for everyone in that scenario then you're a complete fucking idiot . Unlikely you could introduce a reasonable defence were that , being a fucking idiot, an actual crime .

 

[DotCommunist]

with reluctant eyes I took a gander at the mail headline in the shop- knock me down with a feather 'why was this womans sexual history brought as evidence?'

even a stopped clock I suppose...

 

[Spymaster]

It's scum like you to blame for rapists knowing they can get away with it.

Yeah .... cos I wrote the law

You don't understand the law, but are so fucking sure that you do.

Which bit am I misunderstanding then, you ridiculous turd?

 

[Athos]

I'm quoting from para 15 of this rather informative document linked to about 5 hours ago

Yes. It says what I just did i.e. that capacity goes to the first limb - whether or not she did in fact consent.

 

[belboid]

Yeah .... cos I wrote the law

Which bit am I misunderstanding then, you ridiculous turd?

Consent, reasonable person, reasonable doubt, dispute. For starters

 

[Spymaster]

So do you think that rape charges should never be brought if the victim has no recollection of it happening?

Unfortunately, when the alleged victim has no recollection and there are no other witnesses, I think it makes it extraordinarily difficult to secure a safe conviction. As we've seen here.

 

[Spymaster]

Consent, reasonable person, reasonable doubt, dispute. For starters

Read the transcript that's been posted.

Or just fuck off. Moron.