Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

Athos said:
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?
Click to expand...
Bollocks.

"There is no mention in the statement of the fourth occasion when Owens and X did have intercourse but it is common ground that Owens told Ripley of it".

So you are wrong aren't you?
 
Joe Reilly said:
So what was the other 'crushing' evidence that led one of the two defendants walking free and the other going to the slammer?
Click to expand...

Are your asking me to rehearse the evidence relied upon by the prosecution? Because you can find that yourself.
 
Athos said:
Hair splitting lol! Your new formulation is entirely different from saying that is evidence that she could be capabable of consenting to sex but incapable of remembering it. And you know it, but you've painted yourself into a corner.

..
Click to expand...

If she had to ask that question of a bed partner 3 times in a row it is evidence in my opinion . It demonstrates she was likely capable of doing so but the witness simply wasn't a lowlife like the other 2 and didn't initiate anything on those occasions . If she had to ask she wouldn't have known any different . Unfortunately the girl in question obviously has / had an alcohol abuse problem were black outs while in bed with other people seem to be a recurring thing . That badly undermines the case and introduces doubt .

At the same time I don't believe for a second consent was anywhere on Evans list of priorities .
 
Athos said:
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?
Click to expand...

So on one occasion they were in bed together she didn't have to ask whether they had intercourse or not . It only means she never blacked out on that particular occasion, unlike all the others . She still had a habit of taking alcohol induced black outs while in bed with someone were she had no idea whether she'd had sex or not . Just as she had no idea whether or not shed had sex with the other 2 .
 
Joe Reilly why are you JAQing off on this thread? What are you trying to elicit? That the prosecution was wrong - that if the prosecution had succeeded, any innocent man could be caught out just for doing this? (Whatever "this" is.) :hmm:
 
Spymaster said:
Bollocks.

"There is no mention in the statement of the fourth occasion when Owens and X did have intercourse but it is common ground that Owens told Ripley of it".

So you are wrong aren't you?
Click to expand...

Yes, he told Ripley they had sex. But, in respect of that forth occasion, he has not said that she did not remember. See para 25.

You said:

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

Which witness(es) gave evidence that she forgot about consenting to sex, and when? Please refer to the relevant paragraph of the transcript.

Or, just concede that you were wrong.
 
Casually Red said:
So on one occasion they were in bed together she didn't have to ask whether they had intercourse or not . It only means she never blacked out on that particular occasion, unlike all the others .
Click to expand...

Yes, the only time they had sex, there's no suggestion she forgot it. That doesn't ammount too what Spymaster claimed the evidence was.
 
Spymaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

But that wasn't an issue in the case. It's a fact that she blacked out on the night in question, so it's of course possible that she might have consented to sex and not remembered. No further evidence is needed to demonstrate that this is a possibility, even if the evidence existed. So, it's not useful to the defence, except insofar as it brings her sexual history into play.
 
Joe Reilly said:
No. I'm asking you to point to the evidence you believe to be decisive.
Click to expand...
You hadn't been asking that, at all.

I believe the totality of the evidence I have heard - the cctv, their accounts, the hotel bloke's etc. - would have led me to return a guilty verdict.
 
Athos said:
Yes, he told Ripley they had sex. But, in respect of that forth occasion, he has not said that she did not remember. See para 25.

You said:

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

Which witness(es) gave evidence that she forgot about consenting to sex, and when? Please refer to the relevant paragraph of the transcript.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely wrong. Paragraphs 18 and 19.
 
Joe Reilly said:
It's subjective. Let him answer.
Click to expand...

Of course it's subjective.

I'm asking you because I have engaged with you and asked questions that you haven't answered. You made statements and implied quite a bit. You appear to have a position. Seems to me you want details that you're not willing to give of yourself.
 
Spymaster said:
You're absolutely wrong. Paragraphs 18 and 19.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong.

There is nothing in those paragraphs which suggests that witness told anyone (either Ripley, or in the latter statement) of any occasion where she had had sex and forgot that fact.

Yes, he mentioned all four occasions. But he explicitly refers to her asking what happened on the first three. There is no suggestion that, on the one occasion they had sex, she forgot.
 
If 12 of the people here on this thread had been the jury the only certainty is we'd have taken days to reach a verdict. They jury only took 2 hours and were unanimous is that right?
 
Athos said:
Yes, the only time they had sex, there's no suggestion she forgot it. That doesn't ammount too what Spymaster claimed the evidence was.
Click to expand...

There's no suggestion she had a blackout then either. Which is the actual important bit . During her blackouts she had no memory of consenting to sex or not . I think that's whats central here . Not winning against cuntysi.
 
Casually Red said:
There's no suggestion she had a blackout then either. Which is the actual important bit . During her blackouts she had no memory of consenting to sex or not . I think that's whats central here . Not winning against cuntysi.
Click to expand...

She couldn't have remembered consenting to sex, because on the three occasions she didn't recall what had happened, she hasn't had sex!
 
I haven't returned to this thread because I don't want to engage with it anymore. I just wanted to make that clear in case anyone was labouring under the misapprehension that I was embarrassed by my posts yesterday. I'm not and I stand by all of them.

Thank you to the posters who were kind about my rape. It means a huge amount in a world where the default is that a man's word is truth and a woman's is deception.
 
Athos said:
No, you are wrong.

There is nothing in those paragraphs which suggests that witness told anyone (either Ripley, or in the latter statement) of any occasion where she had had sex and forgot that fact.

Yes, he mentioned all four occasions. But he explicitly refers to her asking what happened on the first three. There is no suggestion that, on the one occasion they had sex, she forgot.
Click to expand...

"Mr Owens told Mr Ripley of three separate occasions where he and X spent the night together and the next morning X asked if anything sexual had occurred, and a fourth occasion when they had intercourse".

Similar in 19 which I quoted above.

It refers to 4 occasions where she had no memory 3 no shags and 1 shag. Why mention the 4th occasion at all otherwise?
 
Athos said:
Whilst I wouldn't have worded it as he did, you'd have to be really keen to split hairs to take issue with Spymaster's description of the second limb of the definition of rape.

In practice, there's no real difference between saying that, to find him guilty they'd need to decide beyond reasonable doubt that he did not reasonably believe in consent, and that they'd find him guilty if they concluded he could not have reasonably believed in consent. The 'could not' is just another way of saying that they must be sure he did not believe in consent.

At most, you're arguing about whether or not 'could not' its an absolute, or implies some threshold to exclude fanciful possibilities. Which, given the context his position is pretty clear.

You're both coming across as a bit silly with this spat, on this thread in particular. Especially in light of Trashpony having shared what happened to her.
Click to expand...
it was indeed trashpony's post that made me butt the fuck out. A couple of middle aged blokes scrapping it over something that does not primarily affect them and ignoring the people who it does affect is hardly an auspicious sight.

But, it was the hair splitting difference you mention that I was referring to. And, yes, it is a very hair splitting point, but itnt coincidental that every time spymaster split hairs one way, they would always favour the alleged perpetrator, it was another example of what seemed to me to be his inherent bias (and arrogant presentation thereof). And in know that those kinds of misconceptions are seeing bloody rapists and other abusers off the hook, so it's bloody dangerous. And bloody annoying.
 
Athos said:
She couldn't have remembered consenting to sex, because on the three occasions she didn't recall what had happened, she hasn't had sex!
Click to expand...

She wouldn't have known any different whether she had or not . Just as it was with Evans and his mate . She didn't recall that either .
 
trashpony said:
I haven't returned to this thread because I don't want to engage with it anymore. I just wanted to make that clear in case anyone was labouring under the misapprehension that I was embarrassed by my posts yesterday. I'm not and I stand by all of them.

Thank you to the posters who were kind about my rape. It means a huge amount in a world where the default is that a man's word is truth and a woman's is deception.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't blame you for not engaging - the thread has taken a somewhat frustrating turn.
 
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