Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Athos]

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.

No it doesn't. There's also the question of what probative value a jury could properly attach to something that we have no reason to think it's anything more than a coincidence i.e. the proper application of s.41.

 

[Pickman's model]

No it doesn't. There's also the question of what probative value a jury could properly attach to something that we have no reason to think it's anything more than a coincidence i.e. the property application of s.41.

property application?

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Within the current - institutionally sexist - criminal justice system, it'd be unlikely to happen, anyway. Any shift of the burden of proof would be taken as "positive discrimination" by most of the right-wing media, and by most tinpot MRA activists around the net, and the whining would be so loud as to deafen us all.

 

[Athos]

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.

It was inadmissible. It only became admissible after the witnesses changed their accounts, much, much later.

But we're going round and round, now. I can see you're determined to defend what happened, to the exetent that your position remains the same even as specific elements are shown to be wrong. So I can't see much value in its continuing this.

 

[Athos]

property application?

Proper. Corrected now.

 

[Spymaster]

No, it wasn't "in the mix." It was inadmissible. It only became admissible after the witnesses changed their accounts, much, much later.

But we're going round and round, now. I can see you're determined to defend what happened, to the exetent that your position remains the same even as specific elements are shown to be wrong. So I can't see much value in its continuing this.

You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying, so yes, perhaps best to end this.

The only thing I was wrong about was the timing of the statements, and that doesn't really matter.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Within the current - institutionally sexist - criminal justice system, it'd be unlikely to happen, anyway. Any shift of the burden of proof would be taken as "positive discrimination" by most of the right-wing media, and by most tinpot MRA activists around the net, and the whining would be so loud as to deafen us all.

I can think of about 20 different reasons why reducing the burden of proof in any criminal trial is a terrible idea. It wouldn't just be 'tinpot MRA activists' whining.

 

[Athos]

You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying so yes, perhaps best to end this.

The only thing I was wrong about was the timing of the statements, and that doesn't really matter.

Those later statements are what the case turned on (in terms of the additional evidence iyself, and in getting around the inadmissibility of earlier evidence). The circumstances in which they were made (including the timing) are absolutely crucial. Either you genuinely don't understand that, or you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Either way, we've probably gone as far as we can.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I know I'm really emotional about this.This is hugely personal to me I've said that I'm a rape victim - at least once - on this thread. It hasn't even fucking been acknowledged. Just ignored, glossed over.

Do you know why I mention it all the time rape comes up? Because I'm trying desperately to tell myself it's not my fault. But really I still think it is, 20 years later. My own stupid fault. And I expect most of you would think that too. If it came up in court - you'd absolutely believe him, not me. You don't even give me the courtesy of acknowledging me, why on earth would you want to hear me?

Every single post on this thread and on every single other rape thread picks over victims' testimony like carrion. It's painful to me and to a lot of the other women on urban who have been raped and sexually assaulted (there's loads of us - what a surprise). This is a place of community, where we should feel safe and cared for, where we have shared histories, and shared futures. A lot of us have met friends, lovers, life partners here. But this thread exposes that feeling of safety for the lie that it is. Men hold us in disdain. We are disbelieved, our testimonies mean nothing, we are sluts and whores.

I'm sick of the echo chamber.

It's NEVER the fault of the victim. Even if the victim is naked and aroused, a rapist has no right to carry out their crime. Consent - and the absence of it - are all that matters. We unfortunately have a criminal justice system - and a set of normative societal codes - that have been developed over 300 years of modern law, that have manipulated the term consent, and loaded it with many loopholes that lawyers can use to get scumbag rapists off the hook. Add to that the massive weight of social attitudes towards violence against women in general - remember the social media avalanche of females excusing Chris Brown beating the shit out of Rihanna? - and rape in particular, and every woman (or man, for that matter) who is raped, is playing against a set of loaded legal and social dice. The powers-that-be know this, but they don't give a shit. The status quo is fine by them.

 

[Treacle Toes]

The only thing I was wrong about was the timing of the statements, and that doesn't really matter.

The timing is important though. It means they could be lying by embellishing their statements to fit CE's narrative of events and to establish behaviour patterns for X to make him look innocent. Oh and the little case of the 50k reward being offered and them not being complete strangers to CE either.

 

[Spymaster]

Those later statements are what the case turned on (in terms of the additional evidence iyself, and in getting around the inadmissibility of earlier evidence). The circumstances in which they were made (including the timing) are absolutely crucial. Either you genuinely don't understand that, or you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Either way, we've probably gone as far as we can.

You're not usually this fucking stupid so I'll give it another go.

I realise the later statements turned the case. The circumstances in which they were made may or may not have been corrupt. You and others on here are determined to believe that they were purchased for a share in a bribe, which they denied in court and has not yet been paid.

As well as the evidence that these guys gave to her wording whilst fucking, there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible. I'll ask you again, why was that?

 

[Treacle Toes]

which they denied in court and has not yet been paid.

How do we know that?

 

[Spymaster]

How do we know that?

Just repeating what Athos and others have said on here.

 

[bluescreen]

And you know that people on here have criticised the prosecution brief for asking witness only if payment had been made, and not asking whether there was any understanding that payment may be made in the future.

 

[Pickman's model]

And you know that people on here have criticised the prosecution brief for asking witness only if payment had been made, and not asking whether there was any understanding that payment may be made in the future.

please to refresh my memory - has the question of the ccrc and court of appeal knowing about this offer of £50k been examined?

 

[bluescreen]

please to refresh my memory - has the question of the ccrc and court of appeal knowing about this offer of £50k been examined?

Without checking back I can't be 100% sure but fairly sure not - ISTR it only arose in the last trial.

 

[Athos]

You're not usually this fucking stupid so I'll give it another go.

I realise the later statements turned the case. The circumstances in which they were made may or may not have been corrupt. You and others on here are determined to believe that they were purchased for a share in a bribe, which they denied in court and has not yet been paid.

As well as the evidence that these guys gave to her wording whilst fucking, there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible. I'll ask you again, why was that?

Please don't continue to misrepresent my position. It's not solely dependent on the possibility of perjury. There's also a massive question mark around the probative value of that evidence, and the correct application of s.41.

If the witnesses added to their statements so that earlier material would become admissible, does it matter why it was inadmissible in the first place?

 

[Joe Reilly]

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').

Your totally missing the point. I'm not claiming the fact that because they volunteered to speak under caution was evidence of innocence.

My point is that when they were interviewed there wasn't any evidence of an actual victim of anything - not even theft - much less rape.

So there could not have been any admission of guilt - even inadvertently - from them.

Without any allegation of wrongdoing of any sort, from anyone, much less evidence, police put questions to them about the events on the evening. And based entirely on their answers decided they had enough to charge them both with rape. No allegations or evidence of abduction. No allegation or evidence of violence. No allegation of evidence of threats or coercion. Not a scintilla of evidence to support the charge of rape. Yet the CPS which is meant to only pursue cases with 51% chance of a guilty verdict signed off on it. In similar circumstances Kafka might have felt he got off lightly.

ps 'And let's not forget the first jury' also acquitted.

 

[bluescreen]

Without checking back I can't be 100% sure but fairly sure not - ISTR it only arose in the last trial.

Just looked again through the Appeal Court judgement and there's no reference to the offer of a reward.
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2016/chedevansappealx.pdf
This is where I first heard of it but no doubt it was aired on twitter long before:
Second Ched Evans defence witness denies £50,000 reward motive

 

[Spymaster]

There's also a massive question mark around the probative value of that evidence, and the correct application of s.41.

Which are?

If the witnesses added to their statements so that earlier material would become admissible, does it matter why it was inadmissible in the first place?

You're wriggling, so I'll ask another way; do you think it would've affected the outcome of the first trial if the jury had heard that X had a history of forgetting about consensual sex when she was pissed?

 

[crossthebreeze]

Your totally missing the point. I'm not claiming the fact that because they volunteered to speak under caution was evidence of innocence.

My point is that when they were interviewed there wasn't any evidence of an actual victim of anything - not even theft - much less rape.

So there could not have been any admission of guilt - even inadvertently - from them.

Without any allegation of wrongdoing of any sort, from anyone, much less evidence, police put questions to them about the events on the evening. And based entirely on their answers decided they had enough to charge them both with rape. No allegations or evidence of abduction. No allegation or evidence of violence. No allegation of evidence of threats or coercion. Not a scintilla of evidence to support the charge of rape. Yet the CPS which is meant to only pursue cases with 51% chance of a guilty verdict signed off on it. In similar circumstances Kafka might have felt he got off lightly.

ps 'And let's not forget the first jury' also acquitted.

erm, no they didn't
and the case was about the victim's capacity to consent at the time, and whether consent was sought by Evans. The definition of rape is lack of consent, it doesn't depend on violence or coercion.

 

[Raheem]

As well as the evidence that these guys gave to her wording whilst fucking, there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible. I'll ask you again, why was that?

I don't think that's quite what the evidence was. Her former short-term partner said that she had previously blacked out and the next day asked if they had had sex, when in fact they hadn't. It seems like he initially said this had happened once, then changed his statement to say it had happened four times.

In any event, it's not really evidence that tells us very much about the case. It's a given that she blacked out on the night in question and didn't remember anything, including whether or not she consented to sex with Evans. Her past history of blacking out doesn't really affect things. Unless the jury were to take the view that, since she had previously consented to sex with a man, she probably also consented to sex with Evans. Which is a good example of why allowing that type of evidence doesn't necessarily advance the interests of justice.

 

[Athos]

Which are?

You're wriggling, so I'll ask another way; do you think it would've affected the outcome of the first trial if the jury had heard that X had a history of forgetting about consensual sex when she was pissed?

I really can't tell whether you're being dense or disingenuous. But I think we've gone over this already.

 

[Spymaster]

But I think we've gone over this already.

I think you may think we have. It's not the same thing.

 

[Joe Reilly]

erm, no they didn't
and the case was about the victim's capacity to consent at the time, and whether consent was sought by Evans. The definition of rape is lack of consent, it doesn't depend on violence or coercion.

'erm no they didn't' -

what didn't they do?

 

[Pickman's model]

erm, no they didn't
The definition of rape is lack of consent, it doesn't depend on violence or coercion.

 

[Spymaster]

'erm no they didn't' -

what didn't they do?

The first jury didn't acquit him.

 

[Joe Reilly]

and the case was about the victim's capacity to consent at the time, and whether consent was sought by Evans. The definition of rape is lack of consent, it doesn't depend on violence or coercion.

Yes, but how did the matter of 'capacity to consent' become an issue when there was no actual allegation of rape?

 

[Joe Reilly]

The first jury didn't acquit him.

They acquitted his co-accused.

 

[Athos]

Your totally missing the point. I'm not claiming the fact that because they volunteered to speak under caution was evidence of innocence.

My point is that when they were interviewed there wasn't any evidence of an actual victim of anything - not even theft - much less rape.

So there could not have been any admission of guilt - even inadvertently - from them.

Without any allegation of wrongdoing of any sort, from anyone, much less evidence, police put questions to them about the events on the evening. And based entirely on their answers decided they had enough to charge them both with rape. No allegations or evidence of abduction. No allegation or evidence of violence. No allegation of evidence of threats or coercion. Not a scintilla of evidence to support the charge of rape. Yet the CPS which is meant to only pursue cases with 51% chance of a guilty verdict signed off on it. In similar circumstances Kafka might have felt he got off lightly.

ps 'And let's not forget the first jury' also acquitted.

People have been convicted of unreported crimes on the basis of their own account, before. There's no issue with that.

And, since the crown's case didn't turn on abduction, threats or violence, the absence of any evidence of those things is completely irrelevant.