Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

Joe Reilly said:
Yes, but how did the matter of 'capacity to consent' become an issue when there was no actual allegation of rape?
Click to expand...

The allegation came from the police. The same way it might if they found me with a bloody knife, kneeling over a dead body. There is absolutely no requirement for a victim to make an allegation for there to be a prosecution.
 
Athos said:
The allegation came from the police. The same way it might if they found me with a bloody knife, kneeling over a dead body. There is absolutely no requirement for a victim to make an allegation for there to be a prosecution.
Click to expand...
yeh. but i suppose while the investigation might come from the police, the decision to prosecute would come from the cps. just for clarification like.
 
Spymaster said:
The first jury didn't acquit him.
Click to expand...
The first jury reached a decidedly odd decision, given the evidence, convicting Evans and acquitting McDonald. Their decision appeared to have been based on an outdated, and frankly dangerous, notion that agreeing to go to McDonald's hotel room indicated consent. At the same time, going on the judge's sentencing remarks, she was considered too drunk to give consent by the time she reached the hotel.

Juries sometimes reach weird contradictory decisions not supported by the evidence - see the Mark Duggan inquest - and this seems such a case to me. I think a new trial on exactly the same evidence would very probably have reached a different verdict.

The way the woman's sexual history was brought in for the second trial was vile, and again, something I thought had been consigned to history. She was put on trial, which is despicable - she is the only wholly blameless person in this entire mess. But imo the first conviction was a strange decision based just on the evidence presented at it. The men's story fits the provable facts, is not contradicted by anybody or any physical evidence, and is plausible, which is all that is needed for them to go free. Which is why I think it was a fuck-up to bring the case in the first place, and if this was done against the will of woman X, or if she was in any way coerced into going along with it, then the authorities have done her an enormous wrong. They seem to have been blinded by the despicable nature of Evans' and McDonald's actions to the fact that there is no, and never was any, evidence that there was a rape.
 
Joe Reilly said:
Yes, but in this case there was no bloody knife and no dead body...yet the decided to proceed anyway.
Click to expand...
You keep moving the goalposts. First you were concerned about the absence of an allegation, and, when that was shown to be commonplace, you complained about the lack of evidence. But, by the time of the prosecution, there was lots of evidence, including their accounts, the accounts of others, and cctv evidence.
 
Athos said:
There was lots of other evidence e.g. cctv and witness testimony, before the decision to prosecute.
Click to expand...

But the CCTV helped acquit his co-accused a) in proving that she approached him, and b) that she walked unaided to his room with him. There was no separate evidence to convict Evans was there?
 
littlebabyjesus said:
The first jury reached a decidedly odd decision, given the evidence, convicting Evans and acquitting McDonald. Their decision appeared to have been based on an outdated, and frankly dangerous, notion that agreeing to go to McDonald's hotel room indicated consent. At the same time, going on the judge's sentencing remarks, she was considered too drunk to give consent by the time she reached the hotel.

Juries sometimes reach weird contradictory decisions not supported by the evidence - see the Mark Duggan inquest - and this seems such a case to me. I think a new trial on exactly the same evidence would very probably have reached a different verdict.

The way the woman's sexual history was brought in for the second trial was vile, and again, something I thought had been consigned to history. She was put on trial, which is despicable - she is the only wholly blameless person in this entire mess. But imo the first conviction was a strange decision based just on the evidence presented at it. The men's story fits the provable facts, is not contradicted by anybody or any physical evidence, and is plausible, which is all that is needed for them to go free. Which is why I think it was a fuck-up to bring the case in the first place, and if this was done against the will of woman X, or if she was in any way coerced into going along with it, then the authorities have done her an enormous wrong. They seem to have been blinded by the despicable nature of Evans' and McDonald's actions to the fact that there is no, and never was any, evidence that there was a rape.
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
Joe Reilly said:
But the CCTV helped acquit his co-accused a) in proving that she approached him, and b) that she walked unaided to his room with him. There was no separate evidence to convict Evans was there?
Click to expand...

Yes, there was e.g. the cctv showing him skulk away down the fire escape and the account of the hotel bloke. All the evidence the prosecution relied upon.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that my point has soared over your head like a Stratoliner over the surface of the Earth. :)
My point is that specifically altering the burden of proof for rape would elicit outrage that other alterations - for non-sexual crimes - wouldn't. In terms of "white collar" crime, for example the "burden of proof" has had to be amended to keep in touch with technological development. Sure, we're talking about subtle alterations to accommodate new knowledge and new investigative techniques that shift the balance of what can be said to constitute "beyond reasonable doubt", but they're nonetheless alterations that don't elicit a massive outcry - maybe a muted whine from lawyers having to amend the bases of their cases, though!
 
Spymaster said:
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?
Click to expand...

Regarding the bribe, it's not beyond the wit of Massey, his daughter or Evans to find £50,000 in cash, and pay that. NO banking records, NO "evidence" of payment whatsoever.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
The first jury reached a decidedly odd decision, given the evidence, convicting Evans and acquitting McDonald. Their decision appeared to have been based on an outdated, and frankly dangerous, notion that agreeing to go to McDonald's hotel room indicated consent.
Click to expand...


Not quite. They might have concluded that she lacked the capacity to consent to sex with McDonald, but that, in light of her decision to go to the hotel with him, they couldn't be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't have a reasonable belief in consent.
 
ViolentPanda said:
I think that my point has soared over your head like a Stratoliner over the surface of the Earth. :)
My point is that specifically altering the burden of proof for rape would elicit outrage that other alterations - for non-sexual crimes - wouldn't. In terms of "white collar" crime, for example the "burden of proof" has had to be amended to keep in touch with technological development. Sure, we're talking about subtle alterations to accommodate new knowledge and new investigative techniques that shift the balance of what can be said to constitute "beyond reasonable doubt", but they're nonetheless alterations that don't elicit a massive outcry - maybe a muted whine from lawyers having to amend the bases of their cases, though!
Click to expand...

I think you might be confusing the burden of proof with the standard of proof.
 
Raheem said:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought earlier - before I knew what the evidence was - that there might be a point to evidence of what she behaved like if she was known to have blacked out before, but
a) the evidence given about her state on the previous occasions was hardly detailed "I did not think she was that drunk"
b) no details were given to suggest that she suffered as bad effects those nights as on the night of the case, when she pissed herself at some point during the night, had been seen falling over, etc - so her capacity to consent was probably not the same
c) there's a massive difference between spending the night fooling around with someone you've known since primary school and what happened in the hotel room, its comparing apples to oranges.
d) the witness directly bought up the myth that rape victims are never sexually active in the day/weeks/months after being raped, and its not clear how strongly if at all this was dispelled in court.
e) using evidence of x's sex life encourages any members of the jury who have sexist or conservative views about sexually active women to draw negative conclusions about the prosecution
f) x was forced to answer questions about her sex life in court, which must have been a horrible experience
I can't see how the legal contribution of the evidence to Evans' case outweighed the prejudicial effect against the prosecution.
 
Joe Reilly said:
If he had also arranged to enter the hotel via the fire escape you might be able to draw a stronger conclusion from the act.
Click to expand...

Well if we are talking in these terms one could say that when he arrived at the hotel he hadn't actually done anything wrong yet more than being a scumbag who would go there on the promise of a 'girl' so no need to skulk in. Blagging a key though...he certainly wanted in to that room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HeAthen
BBC accused of antisemitism
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
4K
ska invita
ska invita
hitmouse
Rotten behaviour from Hello Fresh
Replies
2
Views
353
elbows
elbows
Pickman's model
Members of Britain's richest family get prison sentences
Replies
12
Views
755
stavros
S
NoXion
Porridge and crumpets included on extensive list of foods banned from TV ads before 9pm
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
2K
Happy Tree
Happy Tree
Buddy Bradley
How long before we get a proper Tory-style sleaze gaffe from Labour?
Replies
0
Views
224
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
Back
Top Bottom