Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[hegley]

As I posted last night, the first came forward to the police on the day of Evan's conviction and his statement was taken a month later. That was before the reward was offered.

And yet he initially only came forward because he couldn't understand "why she would sleep with someone so soon after a rape". It wasn't until he was approached by a friend, who also happened to be a mate of Ched Evans, that suddenly his statement is about her memory loss - convenient, considering that had become the focus of the defence.

Then, a year later - after Ched Evans' sister has also got involved with the witness, his statement becomes about sexual positions and phrases used.

 

[Looby]

The Stanford uni rapist Brock Turner has decided that he's going to devote his life to educating students on promiscuity and booze. Fucking unbelievable.

 

[hegley]

Evans wants to set himself up as some sort of sex advice guru to young footballers .

I seem to recall Brock Turner said something similar when he got out of jail about talking to young people about alcohol and consent.
Edit: Looby beat me to it.

 

[Spymaster]

I said made public. It had been. See para 38.

Check p66.

 

[bimble]

Does anyone understand why McDonald, the other bloke (the one who called Evans over) was aquitted in the first trial but Evans found guilty?
That's always confused me because she had no recollection of anything after leaving the nightclub that night.

 

[equationgirl]

The Stanford uni rapist Brock Turner has decided that he's going to devote his life to educating students on promiscuity and booze. Fucking unbelievable.

Which is what, I wonder? 'don't drink too much because a predator like me will try to get their 20 minutes of action*?'

*the phrase used by his father to describe the rape committed by his son, for those less familiar with the case.

 

[Looby]

Does anyone understand why McDonald, the other bloke (the one who called Evans over) was aquitted in the first trial but Evans found guilty?
That's always confused me because she had no recollection of anything after leaving the nightclub that night.

I think it was argued that because she willingly went back to the hotel with him so he could have reasonably believed that she'd consented to sex with him.

 

[Looby]

Does anyone understand why McDonald, the other bloke (the one who called Evans over) was aquitted in the first trial but Evans found guilty?
That's always confused me because she had no recollection of anything after leaving the nightclub that night.

Oops

 

[Spymaster]

And yet he initially only came forward because he couldn't understand "why she would sleep with someone so soon after a rape". It wasn't until he was approached by a friend, who also happened to be a mate of Ched Evans, that suddenly his statement is about her memory loss - convenient, considering that had become the focus of the defence.

Because he wasn't asked about it and had no reason then to believe it relevant.

 

[equationgirl]

Does anyone understand why McDonald, the other bloke (the one who called Evans over) was aquitted in the first trial but Evans found guilty?
That's always confused me because she had no recollection of anything after leaving the nightclub that night.

I 'd need to look at the court transcript to be sure, but suspect there was evidence to support consent with McDonald earlier in the evening, such as conversations. Remember, Evans didn't even speak to the woman, he just appeared in the room and joined in.

 

[Athos]

Check p66.

That just means that it was only after the appeal hearing that the Court of Appeal became aware (from the CCRC) that the detail of Evans' account had been made public before the witnesses made their later statements, and that, because it hadn't been tested in that appeal hearing, it had to be disregarded for the purposes of the appeal decision. It doesn't suggest that the details of Evans' account weren't in the public domain by the time both witnesses made their later statements.

I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong about this.

The appeal was allowed because of two witnesses' new evidence concerning sexual positions and vocal encouragement.

A significant difference between the first and second trial was that the new evidence was heard. It may have been the decisive factor.

The witnesses failed to provide that evidence when they made their first statements. By the time they did so (years later), Evans' version of events had been made public, it was clear that what they would go on to say could become the new focus of the defence case, and there had been public offers of rewards for evidence leading to acquittal. And that's not to mention their connections to those involved with the Evans campaign.

 

[Casually Red]

I seem to recall Brock Turner said something similar when he got out of jail about talking to young people about alcohol and consent.
Edit: Looby beat me to it.

I doubt in either case it will be free of charge . Employment opportunities limited so pay cheque plus an opportunity to paint themselves as caring sorts . And victims of circumstance and strange laws they weren't acquainted with . Rather than predatory little shits .

 

[bimble]

I 'd need to look at the court transcript to be sure, but suspect there was evidence to support consent with McDonald earlier in the evening, such as conversations. Remember, Evans didn't even speak to the woman, he just appeared in the room and joined in.

Yes, that makes sense. But still, this is from the judge's statement back then at the end of that 1st trial, when Evans was charged & McDonald acquitted.

'Judge Merfyn Hughes QC stated in his sentencing remarks that: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."[1]

It looks like he's saying that the CCTV proves she was not in a fit state to give meaningful consent, so I'd have thought that would go for 'i've got a girl' McDonald, too.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I 'd need to look at the court transcript to be sure, but suspect there was evidence to support consent with McDonald earlier in the evening, such as conversations. Remember, Evans didn't even speak to the woman, he just appeared in the room and joined in.

I think given that she went to the hotel with him willingly, however intoxicated, plus being heard to say don't leave me or words to that effect the assumption is that she consented to being there with him.

Such a shame there isn't a law against taking a vulnerable/intoxicated person back to a hotel room and then offering her up to your scumbag mate.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong about this.

The appeal was allowed because of two witnesses' new evidence concerning sexual positions and vocal encouragement.

A significant difference between the first and second trial was that the new evidence was heard. It may have been the decisive factor.

The witnesses failed to provide that evidence when they made their first statements. By the time they did so (years later), Evans' version of events had been made public, it was clear that what they would go on to say could become the new focus of the defence case, and there had been public offers of rewards for evidence leading to acquittal.

Ok, but how could that evidence not be allowed to be heard? If it had been in the first trial chances are he wouldn't have been convicted. What if those guys are NOT lying?

It's not just a technicality, it's massively compelling. If Evans heard her say "fuck me harder" he had good reason to believe she was consenting and wasn't raping her.

The judges at least have to allow a jury to hear it and make up their own minds. The prosecution can tell the jury their concerns about it, but it has to be heard.

 

[Treacle Toes]

It's not just a technicality, it's massively compelling. If Evans heard her say "fuck me harder" he had good reason to believe she was consenting and wasn't raping her.

Too many what ifs! What if CE came into the room once X and M were already at it, what if she was saying that to M, what if CE simply joined in without her knowing he was there? She could have thought it was M all along or been unable to stop it. What if, what if!

It's compelling alright and no doubt compelled the jury to let the fucking scumbag off. Convenient though, far too fucking convenient.

 

[likesfish]

One thing having an enuthastic shag with someone you picked up.

Another having twos up with his mate

 

[Athos]

Ok, but how could that evidence not be allowed to be heard? If it had been in the first trial chances are he wouldn't have been convicted. What if those guys are NOT lying?

It's not just a technicality, it's massively compelling. If Evans heard her say "fuck me harder" he had good reason to believe she was consenting and wasn't raping her.

The judges at least have to allow a jury to hear it and make up their own minds. The prosecution can tell the jury their concerns about it, but it has to be heard.

OK, so you now concede the point about the timing, but continue to argue that it should have been admissible?

Why exclude it? Because of all the problems with the background of that evidence, to which I've already pointed.

And the more fundamental point about its probative value. I doubt you could find a sexually active woman who hadn't had doggie and asked to be fucked harder. Such that, even if their account was true, it tells us so little about what happened with Evans as to be outweighed by other factors which weigh against admissibility.

 

[Spymaster]

Too many what ifs!.

It's just one; what they're telling the truth?

If he heard her say that it means he probably didn't rape her.

Can you say they're lying beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[Treacle Toes]

If he heard her say that it means he probably didn't rape her.

I think i illustrated in my post that this doesn't necessarily follow at all.

 

[equationgirl]

My particular favourite is the way Evans describes his behaviour as 'unacceptable'. 'reprehensible', 'predatory' and 'revolting' are closer to the mark.

 

[Treacle Toes]

My particular favourite is the way Evans describes his behaviour as 'unacceptable'. 'reprehensible', 'predatory' and 'revolting' are closer to the mark.

All words I would use to describe a rapist.

 

[bimble]

OK, so you now concede the point about the timing, but continue to argue that it should have been admissible?

Why exclude it? Because of all the problems with the background of that evidence, to which I've already pointed.

And the more fundamental point about its probative value. I doubt you could find a sexually active woman who hadn't had doggie and asked to be fucked harder. Such that, even if their account was true, it tells us so little about what happened with Evans as to be outweighed by other factors which weigh against admissibility.

This is a really good point. I think the criteria for admitting any evidence about x's sexual encounters is that it has to be so strikingly similar as to be no way just a coincidence. If she'd said something really unusual or liked some arcane position or whatever then maybe that 'exceptional' criteria could be legitimately argued.

 

[Casually Red]

My particular favourite is the way Evans describes his behaviour as 'unacceptable'. 'reprehensible', 'predatory' and 'revolting' are closer to the mark.

For all we know the unacceptable bit just means he shouldn't have been unfaithful to his partner . Means fuck all .

Scum .

And all this happens just minutes after another one of his scummy mates was putting the boot into another woman he'd punched to the ground outside a kebab shop .

Really depressing .

 

[Athos]

It's just one; what they're telling the truth?

If he heard her say that it means he probably didn't rape her.

Can you say they're lying beyond a reasonable doubt?

You don't have to. That's not the test. They could be telling the truth, and he could still have raped her.

 

[equationgirl]

I have been wondering if there was any history of Evans doing this with other women, whether on his own, with McDonald or other teammates/friends. After all, if her sexual history was deemed admissible why not his?

 

[Treacle Toes]

I have been wondering if there was any history of Evans doing this with other women, whether on his own, with McDonald or other teammates/friends. After all, if her sexual history was deemed admissible why not his?

Uff, good question.

The 'i've got a girl' comment is what builds this for me, as Wilf pointed out...it suggests there was an understanding of some kind between them. Who and how she was were irrelevant, she was 'his' to do with what he pleased, including giving her up to his mate...

 

[Diamond]

My flatmate knows his partner reasonably well from his days managing restaurants and bars which were part of the Manchester "football scene".

He doesn't paint a very flattering picture - very driven young woman who was utterly focused on becoming a WAG.

I think that's part of the whole picture here - the fact that she has defiantly stood by him throughout is illustrative of the dynamic that underlies the social lives of all of those involved here.

 

[Athos]

My flatmate knows his partner reasonably well from his days managing restaurants and bars which were part of the Manchester "football scene".

He doesn't paint a very flattering picture - very driven young woman who was utterly focused on becoming a WAG.

I think that's part of the whole picture here - the fact that she has defiantly stood by him throughout is illustrative of the dynamic that underlies the social lives of all of those involved here.

Yeah, it's got to be a woman's fault, somehow.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I think that's part of the whole picture here - the fact that she has defiantly stood by him throughout is illustrative of the dynamic that underlies the social lives of all of those involved here.

Please spell this out for me. What does it illustrate?