Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Athos]

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 know I said I'd leave it, but...

Please would you direct me to which statement by which witness contains evidence that she had forgotton that she had consented to sex?

Because it appears from the transcript of the second appeal that the second witness didn't refer to her forgetting anything, and the first to her forgetting what had happened in occasions that intercourse hadn't taken place.

 

[Athos]

Precisely the same charge could be laid against the police and prosecution.

No, it couldn't. None of their decisions require them to have proof of guilt.

 

[Joe Reilly]

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.

Evans had actually paid for the room some time in advance of his co-accused 'getting the girl'. Or she getting him.

 

[Casually Red]

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.

He was plainly on CCTV entering the hotel , and indeed spoke to the bloke on the desk to get the key. Used his own name. Can't see how that was subterfuge . He never denied being there at any point . And openly admitted " having sex " with the girl. I can't really derive any guilt from that bit .

Also iirc his mates were out the back trying to record his antics on a mobile through the window . He could plausibly have been going down to them . Also he had a long term partner , was well known, and maybe didn't want to be seen leaving a hotel in the early hours .

Again doesn't mean he's innocent . But not evidence of guilt that would stand up.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Evans had actually paid for the room some time in advance of his co-accused 'getting the girl'.

What does that suggest to you then? Given he got a text saying 'I've got a girl' from his mate and then legged it over there.

Or she getting him.

That's actually pretty sick given you know how intoxicated she was and that she consented to go there with his mate not him. Perhaps you think his mate lured her there with the promise that she'd get a go with Ched?

 

[Spymaster]

I know I said I'd leave it, but...

Please would you direct me to which statement by which witness contains evidence that she had forgotton that she had consented to sex?

Because it appears from the transcript of the second appeal that the second witness didn't refer to her forgetting anything, and the first to her forgetting what had happened in occasions that intercourse hadn't taken place.

3 when they'd spent the night together and no sex, a fourth where intercourse took place.

 

[Joe Reilly]

No, it couldn't. None of their decisions require them to have proof of guilt.

Yes, proof of guilt is the jury's job. At the same time CPS need to believe that they have good reason tp believe it will end in a guilty verdict.

 

[Athos]

3 when they'd spent the night together and no sex, a fourth where intercourse took place.

In respect of the fourth, he didn't say that she asked what had happened the night before, though.

So, what were you referring to when you said:

'... there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible.'

 

[Athos]

Yes, proof of guilt is the jury's job. At the same time CPS need to believe that they have good reason tp believe it will end in a guilty verdict.

And, and they did. Particularly in the first trial, which did result in a conviction.

 

[Spymaster]

'... there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible.'

Ok, hair splitting but I'm happy to change that to; there was already evidence that she frequently forgot what had happened the previous night when pissed ....

 

[Joe Reilly]

What does that suggest to you then? Given he got a text saying 'I've got a girl' from his mate and then legged it over there.

That's actually pretty sick given you know how intoxicated she was and that she consented to go there with his mate not him. Perhaps you think his mate lured her there with the promise that she'd get a go with Ched?

As i remember it, his mate didn't actually do any 'luring'. She approached him.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Little point of interest regarding the bribes rewards for information; The 'rewards' were for information leading to the acquittal of Evans. So could not be paid prior to the jury returning a not guilty verdict.

As said previously, the Pros was a fucking dick to ask if money had been paid, he should have asked if any money is expected to be paid.

 

[Casually Red]

Just anecdotally, I've never left a hotel via the fire escape. And I've been in a hotel when there was an actual fire.

You're not a well known footballer with a steady partner though. Local gossip and paparazzi skulking about mightn't be too high on your list of concerns . Especially when Evans was already fairly sure there'd be media and local interest in his whereabouts after his mate Rivas despicable behaviour earlier that night . Honestly can't see how exiting by that route after all that went before ..and indeed after with his admissions..contributes to any evidence of guilt . Entering by it would be a different story though .

 

[Casually Red]

Little point of interest regarding the bribes rewards for information; The 'rewards' were for information leading to the acquittal of Evans. So could not be paid prior to the jury returning a not guilty verdict.

As said previously, the Pros was a fucking dick to ask if money had been paid, he should have asked if any money is expected to be paid.

Good point.

 

[Spymaster]

As said previously, the Pros was a fucking dick to ask if money had been paid, he should have asked if any money is expected to be paid.

If they're prepared to perjure themselves to the extent you believe they did anyway, saying no to that wouldn't make much difference.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

If they're prepared to perjure themselves to the extent you believe they did anyway, saying no to that wouldn't make much difference.

It would be a direct yes or no question with a provable lie should any cash subsequently change hands.

5 years ago she uttered, "Fuck me harder", less hard to prove either way.

 

[Joe Reilly]

He was plainly on CCTV entering the hotel , and indeed spoke to the bloke on the desk to get the key. Used his own name. Can't see how that was subterfuge . He never denied being there at any point . And openly admitted " having sex " with the girl. I can't really derive any guilt from that bit .

Also iirc his mates were out the back trying to record his antics on a mobile through the window . He could plausibly have been going down to them . Also he had a long term partner , was well known, and maybe didn't want to be seen leaving a hotel in the early hours .

Again doesn't mean he's innocent . But not evidence of guilt that would stand up.

I totally agree. I was simply responding to the allegation that he "skulked" out afterwards was crushing evidence. Now if he had skulked in as well if might have strengthened that particular line of argument, such as it is.

 

[Treacle Toes]

If they're prepared to perjure themselves to the extent you believe they did anyway, saying no to that wouldn't make much difference.

Being able to prove you've lied about the contents of a past conversation and being able to prove you received money after the outcome of a trial are different things though. The second can be investigated and evidence found. The first can't be so your word is all they have.

 

[Athos]

Ok, hair splitting but I'm happy to change that to; there was already evidence that she frequently forgot what had happened the previous when pissed ....

Hair splitting lol! Your new formulation is entirely different from saying that there is evidence that, in the past, she had been capabable of consenting to sex but incapable of remembering it. And you know it, but you've painted yourself into a corner.

You've now conceded that you were wrong about both the timing and the content of the new evidence, the two things you previously suggested were good reason for it to be admitted. But you're sticking with the idea that it should have been admitted as possible evidence of his innocence, right? Hmmm....

 

[Spymaster]

Being able to prove you've lied about the contents of a past conversation and being able to prove you received money after the outcome of a trial are different things though. The second can be investigated and evidence found. The first can't be so your word is all they have.

Yes. Fair point.

 

[Joe Reilly]

And, and they did. Particularly in the first trial, which did result in a conviction.

It resulted in one (wrongful) conviction and one acquittal.

 

[Athos]

I totally agree. I was simply responding to the allegation that he "skulked" out afterwards was crushing evidence. Now if he had skulked in as well if might have strengthened that particular line of argument, such as it is.

You've added the word "crushing." Dishonest.

 

[Athos]

It resulted in one (wrongful) conviction and one acquittal.

And? You've no reason to assume there was no reasonable prospect of success.

 

[Casually Red]

You've added the word "crushing." Dishonest.

Hair splitting

 

[Spymaster]

Hair splitting lol! Your new formulation is entirely different from saying that she could be capabable of consenting to sex but incapable of remembering it.

Nonsense. She didn't know on 4 occasions, on 3 they didn't shag and on 1 they did. That absolutely implies that she can be capable of consenting to sex and forgetting.

 

[Athos]

Hair splitting

Not really. It goes the his confusion between evidence and proof.

 

[Joe Reilly]

You've added the word "crushing." Dishonest.

Well you did cite it yourself. And if it was the difference between guilt and acquittal then 'crushing' cannot honestly be deemed too strong a term can it?

 

[Athos]

Nonsense. She didn't know on 4 occasions, on 3 they didn't shag and on 1 they did. That absolutely implies that she can be capable of consenting to sex and forgetting.

This is not true. The witness does not say that she didn't know what happened on all four occasions. Only on the three that they didn't have sex. So your assertion was completely wrong, wasn't it?

 

[Athos]

Well you did cite it yourself. And if it was the difference between guilt and acquittal then 'crushing' cannot honestly be deemed too strong a term can it?

Alone, it wasn't the difference.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Alone, it wasn't the difference.

So what was the other 'crushing' evidence that led one of the two defendants walking free and the other going to the slammer?