Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Treacle Toes]

No but it does, if believed, establish a pattern of behaviour of her consenting to sex and then forgetting, which is what Evans was asserting in his defence.

Yep, they managed, after years, and offering of a bribe, to seemingly establish a pattern of behaviour.

 

[Athos]

No but it does, if believed, establish a pattern of behaviour of her consenting to sex and then forgetting, which is what Evans was asserting in his defence.

No, that's not what the evidence was adduced to prove. It was relied upon to demonstrate that the way in which Evans claimed to have sex with her was habitual for her, as evidence that Evans' account was true. As if the type of sex described is so unusual that the similarity between accounts cannot be explained by coincidence.

The evidence that these two men (who had links to those close to Evans) added years after their first account, when his version of effects was public, and following the offer of a reward.

 

[bemused]

But the fact remains: it was not the alleged victim, but the police alone who determined she had been raped. When people talk of the case setting unfortunate legal precedents, surely that is another one to consider?

Surely they needed her support to bring the case?

 

[bluescreen]

The police didn't need her support at all. They believed the evidence they'd collected was sufficient. She was a compellable witness - in other words, the prosecution ordered her to give evidence at the trial.

 

[Athos]

I haven't been following this thread too closely so this may already have come up. Until today I wasn't aware of one rather pertinent fact: the woman in question has never claimed she was raped. Not then. Not subsequently. Never.
Police only got involved when she went to report a lost (or stolen) handbag. The rape charges came entirely from the contributions the two accused made when questioned about it.
Had they opted for a 'no comment' reply it would have been next to impossible to bring any charges whatsoever.
People can make up their own minds about what that says about what they accused might thought of their own conduct.
But the fact remains: it was not the alleged victim, but the police alone who determined she had been raped. When people talk of the case setting unfortunate legal precedents, surely that is another one to consider?

They were unlikely not to admit having had sex, knowing that there was a good chance that it could be proved forensically.

 

[Athos]

Surely they needed her support to bring the case?

No. He support wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Spymaster]

No, that's not what the evidence was adduced to prove. It was relied upon to demonstrate that the way in which Evans claimed to have sex with her was habitual for her, as evidence that Evans' account was true. As if the type of sex described is so unusual that the similarity between accounts cannot be explained by coincidence.

Don't be fucking ridiculous, it was both. You honestly think that one of those witnesses saying that he'd slept with her 4 or 5 times and each time she had asked in the morning if anything happened, was irrelevant?

 

[Spymaster]

Are you seriously asking me if consensual sex is rape?

The point is...do we believe him? I don't.

Well the point is that after hearing the new evidence a jury couldn't say they didn't.

 

[Athos]

Don't be fucking ridiculous, it was both. You honestly think that one of those witnesses saying that he'd slept with her 4 or 5 times and each time she had asked in the morning if anything happened, was irrelevant?

The first witness had said that from the outset. It was considered irrelevant and inadmissible for the purposes of the first appeal. See para 20 of the transcript to which you linked!

I'm afraid you can't get away from the fact that this turned on the new evidence, which came to light in the circumstances described.

 

[jcsd]

The tricky bit is that you have the CCRC taking lots of private representations from expensive lawyers and effectively imposing on the retrial court, in an unappealable decision, that it has to allow the defence to throw whatever mud it likes at the alleged victim.

The process is the CCRC (who are non-governmental, but publicly-funded organisation) receives an application form the defendant, they then decide whether to review the defendant's case, if they do review the case and if they feel there has been a possible miscarriage of justice the CoA is then obliged to consider the case. The CCRC is not behoven to the defendant or their legal team to review the case, nor are the behoven to refer the case to the CoA, and nor are the CoA behoven to the CCRC to quash the conviction. Many applications do not lead to a review, many reviews do not lead to a referral to the CoA and often the CoA do not quash convictions.

It certainly it helps to have someone who knows what is likely to be considered important new evidence or important new legal argument, but however expensive the lawyers, they can't manufacture new evidence or a new legal argument from thin air (unless they're crooked of course, but I don't think that's accusation here).

Also once evidence of sexual history is allowed to be admitted the scope is clearly pre-defined and pre-approved by the Judge who will only approve the admission of evidence that is directly relevant to the facts or the prosecution argument (i.e. it cannot be used as just a mud-slinging exercise)

Now honestly I do not know if the verdict was wrong or right: I wasn't there, I wasn't at the trials and don't know the people concerned. All I know about the case is that which was reported in the media and the media are often selective about what they report.

I am not claiming to be an expert, and people are more than entitle to disagree, but I know a little about these processes and I don't think the criticisms are necessarily well-aimed. I feel there has to be a process for miscarriages of justice to be detected and put right and there has to be a process for all potentially-relevant evidence to be considered and I wouldn't like to see the legal system hamstrung in these regards.

 

[Pickman's model]

The process is the CCRC (who are non-governmental, but publicly-funded organisation) receives an application form the defendant, they then decide whether to review the defendant's case, if they do review the case and if they feel there has been a possible miscarriage of justice the CoA is then obliged to consider the case. The CCRC is not behoven to the defendant or their legal team to review the case, nor are the behoven to refer the case to the CoA, and nor are the CoA behoven to the CCRC to quash the conviction. Many applications do not lead to a review, many reviews do not lead to a referral to the CoA and often the CoA do not quash convictions.

It certainly it helps to have someone who knows what is likely to be considered important new evidence or important new legal argument, but however expensive the lawyers, they can't manufacture new evidence or a new legal argument from thin air (unless they're crooked of course, but I don't think that's accusation here).

Also once evidence of sexual history is allowed to be admitted the scope is clearly pre-defined and pre-approved by the Judge who will only approve the admission of evidence that is directly relevant to the facts or the prosecution argument (i.e. it cannot be used as just a mud-slinging exercise)

Now honestly I do not know if the verdict was wrong or right: I wasn't there, I wasn't at the trials and don't know the people concerned. All I know about the case is that which was reported in the media and the media are often selective about what they report.

I am not claiming to be an expert, and people are more than entitle to disagree, but I know a little about these processes and I don't think the criticisms are necessarily well-aimed. I feel there has to be a process for miscarriages of justice to be detected and put right and there has to be a process for all potentially-relevant evidence to be considered and I wouldn't like to see the legal system hamstrung in these regards.

yes. but this is trial by urban and during these proceedings the conventions and rules so commonly found in courts of law go out the window as posters bring to bear their prejudices about the case and the principals.

 

[Joe Reilly]

They were unlikely not to admit having had sex, knowing that there was a good chance that it could be proved forensically.

Legally there was no obligation on them to say anything. They would have been made aware of this. Nonetheless they openly volunteered statements. Based on their statements the police decided to charge them on the basis she didn't remember what had happened. That is surely extremely dodgy no matter what angle you are coming at it from?

 

[Athos]

Legally there was no obligation on them to say anything. They would have been made aware of this. Nonetheless they openly volunteered statements. Based on their statements the police decided to charge them on the basis she didn't remember what had happened. That is surely extremely dodgy no matter what angle you are coming at it from?

They could have said nothing, but they'd have been running the risk of a jury being told by the judge that they could draw an adverse inference from their failure to answer questions (about something which, as far as they knew, could be easily proved).

Put simply, the fact that they spoke isn't reliable evidence of their own appreciation of their innocence or guilt.

Nothing in principle wrong with a victim not being able to give evidence. Else no murder conviction would succeed!

And let's not forget that the first jury convicted (before the new evidence 'came to light').

 

[Spymaster]

The first witness had said that from the outset. It was considered irrelevant and inadmissible for the purposes of the first appeal. See para 20 of the transcript to which you linked!

I know! I linked to that paragraph yesterday. It got accepted into evidence as a result of the subsequent stuff about him and was seen by the jury that acquitted.

I'm afraid you can't get away from the fact that this turned on the new evidence, which came to light in the circumstances described.

No shit Sherlock? I just disargee with you that it shouldn't have been heard.

 

[Athos]

I know! I linked to that paragraph yesterday. It got accepted into evidence as a result of the subsequent stuff about himand was seen by the jury that acquitted.

No shit Sherlock? I just disargee with you that it shouldn't have been heard.

So evidence that would otherwise have been inadmissible in and of itself was put before a jury as a consequence of the new evidence coming to light. And you see no problem with this?

 

[Raheem]

Also once evidence of sexual history is allowed to be admitted the scope is clearly pre-defined and pre-approved by the Judge who will only approve the admission of evidence that is directly relevant to the facts or the prosecution argument (i.e. it cannot be used as just a mud-slinging exercise).

But it's the CCRC that formulates the grounds for appeal. So, in this case, by the time it comes to the second trial, the judge doesn't have the option of narrowing the scope in terms of what sexual history evidence is admitted. That would make a mockery of the system and would be grounds for appeal by the defence.

In formal terms, I am not saying that the process is rigged or anything like that. But it isn't fully transparent, and I think you have to wonder whether part of the reason why Evans got off is that the CCRC were confronted with a small army of lawyers working very hard on behalf of people with a financial interest in ensuring that it will be as hard a possible in future to convict rapey footballers.

 

[Athos]

No shit Sherlock? I just disargee with you that it shouldn't have been heard.

Well, in fairness, that's because you've changed your position. Earlier, you were arguing about the timing of the new evidence (which you seem to have conceded, now).

 

[crossthebreeze]

Well that's just "what if he raped her?", and there's no testimony to any of it. There is testimony, albeit his and M's, that she urged him on.

Do you deny that if Evans heard her say "fuck me harder" to him , it probably wasn't rape?

McDonald didn't testify at the second trial: the jury asked the judge if they could see transcripts of his police interviews (so they could compare Evan's account of event to McDonalds, but that was not allowed. So its Evan's word only.

 

[Spymaster]

So evidence that would otherwise have been inadmissible in and of itself was put before a jury as a consequence of the new evidence coming to light.

Why was it considered inadmissible in the first place? It meant bringing up her sexual history.

I seem to remember you yourself holding the position when the conviction was quashed, that the only new evidence that would be relevant would be evidence suggesting that she frequently forgot about consenting. And there it was. Before any rewards had ever been offered.

(I apologise if I'm mistakenly attributing this view to you, btw)

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

Frankly, it's not necessarily about perjury - lying to the court - as about the effects of outside narratives on memory, and the effects of your own preconceptions on your own memory. Memory is very easy to warp, as barristers well know. The problem is proving that it has been.

 

[Pickman's model]

Frankly, it's not necessarily about perjury - lying to the court - as about the effects of outside narratives on memory, and the effects of your own preconceptions on your own memory. Memory is very easy to warp, as barristers well know. The problem is proving that it has been.

yes. but trashpony seemed to me to be saying that this evidence was mendacious, incredible and had been manufactured to order.

 

[ViolentPanda]

which is tainted as fuck and should have been thrown out imo.

I'm surprised as fuck that the defence didn't make hay about the inexactness of memory, and that the period of time between A and B makes it highly likely that the memory was tainted in conformity to what the later witnesses wanted to believe.

 

[Spymaster]

Earlier, you were arguing about the timing of the new evidence (which you seem to have conceded, now).

I have. But it doesn't change the fact that the evidence was there, it just makes it possible that it was fed to them. It doesn't prove it. This hinges on whether you believe that they were corrupt and have perjured themselves for a share in this elusive 50 grand or believe that they may not have.

 

[Spymaster]

yes. but trashpony seemed to me to be saying that this evidence was mendacious, incredible and had been manufactured to order.

Most of the posters on here are saying exactly that.

 

[Athos]

Why was it considered inadmissible in the first place? It meant bringing up her sexual history.

I seem to remember you yourself holding the position when the conviction was quashed, that the only new evidence that would be relevant would be evidence suggesting that she frequently forgot about consenting. And there it was. Before any rewards had ever been offered.

(I apologise if I'm mistakenly attributing this view to you, btw)

The crucial factor was the material added to their account. Whether that's because of the content of the additional material, or insofar as it was a mechanism to allow other evidence (previously inadmissible) to be heard. That material only was added after his account was made public, and following the offer of a reward. And, let's remember that the initial account was prompted by the witness' understanding of how a rape victim should behave, and because he thought she was a gold digger.

 

[ViolentPanda]

yes. but trashpony seemed to me to be saying that this evidence was mendacious, incredible and had been manufactured to order.

That is possible, too. Although I'm no expert in psycho-sexual dynamics, I am surprised at someone apparently having said the same thing on three occasions when assuming the same position. Most people don't fall into repetitive behaviour when drunk, even if actually getting drunk is a repetitive behaviour for them.

 

[Pickman's model]

That is possible, too. Although I'm no expert in psycho-sexual dynamics, I am surprised at someone apparently having said the same thing on three occasions when assuming the same position. Most people don't fall into repetitive behaviour when drunk, even if actually getting drunk is a repetitive behaviour for them.

back in the day when i was a gentleman of the afternoon and spent much of the day in the pub, i met this man who told me in great and indeed fascinating detail of how he was building a scale model of a stradivarius. apparently the secret of the sound is in the varnish. i left the pub quite interested by this. i bumped into him again some weeks later when he told me exactly the same thing in exactly the same words. this time it was less interesting. when i was told precisely the same thing a couple of months later i gave the acquaintanceship up as a bad job.

another acquaintance of the afternoon was someone who no matter what the original topic of conversation was, within five minutes you were talking about german weapons of the second world war.

 

[Spymaster]

The crucial factor was the material added to their account. Whether that's because of the content of the additional material, or insofar as it was a mechanism to allow other evidence (previously inadmissible) to be heard. That material only was added after his account was made public, and following the offer of a reward. And, let's remember that the initial account was prompted by the witness' understanding of how a rape victim should behave, and because he thought she was a gold digger.

None of which changes the fact that there had been a statement that X frequently had no memory of the previous nights activities, that wasn't heard. And as you stated, this was before the reward was in the mix.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No one has called Ruby Blue anything for pointing that out. Bimble misunderstood what I was saying

It's amazing how often she does that "misunderstanding" thing.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's amazing how often she does that "misunderstanding" thing.

and how rarely its converse.