Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Athos]

"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?

It explicitly refers to her having no memory of the first three. It does not say she had no memory of the fourth. Else, why make the distinction between the two groups? It would simply say "Mr Owens told Mr Ripley of four separate occasions where he and X spent the night together and the next morning X asked if anything sexual had occurred..." Albeit it might go on to say that intercourse occurred on the fourth.

This interpretation is consistent with what was eventually included in the second statement, and referrered to in para 25, where it makes clear that, on that fourth occasion, she didn't question what had happened. Your interpretation of paras 18 and 19 is inconsistent with that understanding, and its inconceivable that, if what you're saying is right i.e. that there was an occasion where they had sex and she forgot, the second statement would have been worded as it was.

 

[Athos]

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 .

But if she had she'd probably not have known!

You're betraying an agenda, given that the only evidence we have suggests the complete opposite i.e. that on the only occasion we know of where she had consentual sex (the fourth night with Owens), he reports what she says the next morning, and this does not include her having to ask what happened!

 

[Orang Utan]

Personally I don't blame you for not engaging - the thread has taken a somewhat frustrating turn.

It's been like this from the start

 

[Joe Reilly]

- the thread has taken a somewhat frustrating turn.

A not guilty can do this.

 

[bimble]

This seems silly now. She did not remember anything about the night. That is all we know.
It doesn't matter at all whether she had previously had no memory of sex or not. Totally irrelevant surely. Unless you're saying that she only had blackouts on no-sex nights? I don't get what Athos is arguing at all.

 

[Spymaster]

It explicitly refers to her having no memory of the first three. It does not say she had no memory of the fourth. Else, why make the distinction between the two groups? It would simply say "Mr Owens told Mr Ripley of four separate occasions where he and X spent the night together and the next morning X asked if anything sexual had occurred..." Albeit it might go on to say that intercourse occurred on the fourth. This interpretation is consistent with what was energising included in the statement, and referrered to in para 25, where it makes clear that, on that fourth occasion, she didn't question what had happened. Your interpretation of paras 18 and 19 is inconsistent with that understanding, and its inconceivable that, if what you're saying is right i.e. that there was an occasion where they had sex and she forgot, the second systematic would have been worded as it was.

Yes. You're right. I withdraw that argument.

 

[Casually Red]

You're betraying an agenda, given that the three only evidence we have suggests the complete opposite i.e. that on the only occasion we know of that she had consentual sex (the fourth night with Owens), she did not have to ask what happened!

I've no fucking agenda at all . First time round in particular I'd have sent both of them down .

Your pulling an assumption from absolutely nowhere that on the 4 nights she spent with the witness she was under the same level of intoxication on all 4 occasions . That's a very silly assumption to make . 3 of them she demonstrably blacked out and had no idea what happened . Can you demonstrate whether she was even drinking on the occasion she didn't ask ? What her level of drunkenness might have been ?
If not then all you can surmise is she didn't black out on that occasion . Or that she simply didn't ask like all the other times . The assumption you jump to is designed to fit your own scenario .

I don't want to say agenda because that's a very loaded word. Not that it stops you chucking it around .

 

[equationgirl]

A not guilty can do this.

It's not the not guilty verdict at all, it's the continued posts ( and some of yours fall into this category) arguing the same points over and over without listening to the answers.

 

[Athos]

This seems silly now. She did not remember anything about the night. That is all we know.
It doesn't matter at all whether she had previously had no memory of sex or not. Totally irrelevant surely. Unless you're saying that she only had blackouts on no-sex nights? I don't get what Athos is arguing at all.

I'm saying that, contrary to what some have claimed here, there's no evidence of her ever having had consentual sex then forgetting it.

 

[Athos]

Yes. You're right. I withdraw that argument.

Thanks, that's gracious of you.

But having withdrawn your original arguments about the timing and content of the new evidence, where does that leave your conclusion about its admissibility and probative value.

 

[Athos]

I've no fucking agenda at all . First time round in particular I'd have sent both of them down .

Your pulling an assumption from absolutely nowhere that on the 4 nights she spent with the witness she was under the same level of intoxication on all 4 occasions . That's a very silly assumption to make . 3 of them she demonstrably blacked out and had no idea what happened . Can you demonstrate whether she was even drinking on the occasion she didn't ask ? What her level of drunkenness might have been ?
If not then all you can surmise is she didn't black out on that occasion . Or that she simply didn't ask like all the other times . The assumption you jump to is designed to fit your own scenario .

I don't want to say agenda because that's a very loaded word. Not that it stops you chucking it around .

You are missing the point. I was saying that there is no evidence of her having ever forgotten an episode of consentual sex. And, Spymaster has now conceded that point.

You still seem to infer, from the fact that she didn't remember what had happened on occasions when she hadn't had sex, that she could have had consensual sex and not recall it. A position for which we have seen no evidence, and which could be at odds with evidence we do have i.e. the only occasion she seems to remember with Owens being the one on which they did have sex.

 

[Casually Red]

I'm saying that, contrary to what some have claimed here, there's no evidence of her ever having had consentual sex then forgetting it.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest she would habitually get in a state were shed have no recollection whether she did or not. As occured in the hotel . And there's reasonable doubt .

that witnesses was pointing to a pattern of behaviour that jurors would have to consider . It's highly unlikely they'd consider she only took black outs in the company of that witness . The evidence was that this was a normal thing for her to do. Abuse alcohol to a degree were she had no idea what she got up to the night before. It's reasonable for a juror to derive an assumption from the pattern of repeated blacking out while in bed with someone she had engaged in intercourse on previous occasions and had no recollection of it . Very reasonable.

Otherwise the witness evidence would be completely irrelevant to the case. He wasn't on trial and blacking out with him wasn't the issue . Her blacking out on a semi regular basis was the issue . Your focussing forensically on a narrow aspect when the point of the evidence is establishing a much wider pattern .

 

[Raheem]

During her blackouts she had no memory of consenting to sex or not . I think that's whats central here .

It's not what's central, it's what's bleedin' obvious and irrelevant. If anyone has a blackout, they will be left with no memory of consenting to sex, eating a pork pie or climbing the Eiffel Tower.

Let's break it down logically, starting with three uncontested facts. X was sexually active. On the night in question, X blacked out. While blacked out, she had sex with Ched Evans.

Our main question is whether X consented to sex with Ched Evans.

So, if we additionally establish that X had blacked out on a number of other occasions, does this make it more likely that she consented to sex with Ched Evans?

If we establish that X had consented to sex with people other than Ched Evans on a number of other occasions, does this make it more likely that she consented to sex with Ched Evans?

Unless you can answer "yes" to one of those two questions, then this part of the witness testimony does not go to Evans' guilt or innocence and so should not have been found particularly useful by the jury.

The fact that multiple people here of apparently average-or-better intelligence seem to think that this is actually compelling evidence for Evans' innocence is a bit troubling, and a really good illustration of why sexual history evidence is generally better kept away from juries.

 

[Spymaster]

... where does that leave your conclusion about its admissibility and probative value.

Well it can't be considered as evidence. Perhaps there's an implication that she wouldn't have remembered anyway (due to her not remembering anything on the non-sex nights either) but as it stands it's of no value.

 

[Athos]

Well it can't be considered as evidence. Perhaps there's an implication that she wouldn't have remembered anyway (due to her not remembering anything on the non-sex nights either) but as it stands it's of no value.

Cool.

We got there in the end.

 

[Athos]

There's plenty of evidence to suggest she would habitually get in a state were shed have no recollection whether she did or not. As occured in the hotel . And there's reasonable doubt .

that witnesses was pointing to a pattern of behaviour that jurors would have to consider . It's highly unlikely they'd consider she only took black outs in the company of that witness . The evidence was that this was a normal thing for her to do. Abuse alcohol to a degree were she had no idea what she got up to the night before. It's reasonable for a juror to derive an assumption from the pattern of repeated blacking out while in bed with someone she had engaged in intercourse on previous occasions and had no recollection of it . Very reasonable.

Otherwise the witness evidence would be completely irrelevant to the case. He wasn't on trial and blacking out with him wasn't the issue . Her blacking out on a semi regular basis was the issue . Your focussing forensically on a narrow aspect when the point of the evidence is establishing a much wider pattern .

The point is that establishing a pattern of X not remembering what happened on nights she didn't have sex ought to have no probative value to the question of whether she did consent to sex on another occasion in which she did not remember!

 

[equationgirl]

Raheem if it were as simple as 'whilst blacked out X had sex with ched evans' there would not be a thread over 100 pages long on the subject.

 

[Spymaster]

Cool.

We got there in the end.

Apologies for calling you an idiot!

 

[Raheem]

Raheem if it were as simple as 'whilst blacked out X had sex with ched evans' there would be thread over 100 pages long on the subject.

And there is, so what does that tell you?

 

[equationgirl]

And there is, so what does that tell you?

That your simplistic assumption is wrong.

 

[Raheem]

That your simplistic assumption is wrong.

Actually, I think it tells us that there was a typo in your previous comment. But I'm afraid I still don't understand it. X did black out and did have sex with Ched Evans. There's no dispute about either of those things.

 

[Joe Reilly]

It's not the not guilty verdict at all, it's the continued posts ( and some of yours fall into this category) arguing the same points over and over without listening to the answers.

Here is a case where without any complaint or evidence of a crime having been committed, police nevertheless take it upon themselves to pursue a very specific line of inquiry, resulting in what is objectively, extremely thin circumstantial evidence supporting said line of inquiry. All it could ever have suggested was that a serious crime might possibly have taken place. Entirely self-fulfilling so far.

The all-important next stop ought to have been to establish a prime facie case. But they neglected to do this. Instead in collaboration with the CPS, they proceeded to charge, and eventually jail one of the defendants. And then 5 years later opt for a re-trial after a successful appeal on even thinner (aka zero) evidence. That even now, that a goodish number still believe that this is exactly how Police/CPS should operate in a democracy is frankly alarming.

 

[Athos]

Apologies for calling you an idiot!

And "fucking stupid"?

No worries mate; the Mrs has called me worse for wasting a day arguing with you!

 

[Raheem]

The all-important next stop ought to have been to establish a prime facie case. But they neglected to do this. Instead in collaboration with the CPS, they proceeded to charge, and eventually jail one of the defendants.

No they didn't. A judge and jury did that last bit.

 

[Athos]

Here is a case where without any complaint or evidence of a crime having been committed, police nevertheless take it upon themselves to pursue a very specific line of inquiry, resulting in what is objectively, extremely thin circumstantial evidence supporting said line of inquiry. All it could ever have suggested was that a serious crime might possibly have taken place. Entirely self-fulfilling so far.

The all-important next stop ought to have been to establish a prime facie case. But they neglected to do this. Instead in collaboration with the CPS, they proceeded to charge, and eventually jail one of the defendants. And then 5 years later opt for a re-trial after a successful appeal on even thinner (aka zero) evidence. That even now, that a goodish number still believe that this is exactly how Police/CPS should operate in a democracy is frankly alarming.

I was going to go through this line by line, but there are so many errors and assumptions that I lost heart.

 

[Casually Red]

It's not what's central, it's what's bleedin' obvious and irrelevant. If anyone has a blackout, they will be left with no memory of consenting to sex, eating a pork pie or climbing the Eiffel Tower.

Let's break it down logically, starting with three uncontested facts. X was sexually active. On the night in question, X blacked out. While blacked out, she had sex with Ched Evans.

Our main question is whether X consented to sex with Ched Evans.

So, if we additionally establish that X had blacked out on a number of other occasions, does this make it more likely that she consented to sex with Ched Evans?

If we establish that X had contented to sex with people other than Ched Evans on a number of other occasions, does this make it more likely that she consented to sex with Ched Evans?

Unless you can answer "yes" to one of those two questions, then this part of the witness testimony does not go to Evans' guilt or innocence and so should not have been found particularly useful by the jury.

The fact that multiple people here of apparently average-or-better intelligence seem to think that this is actually compelling evidence for Evans' innocence is a bit troubling, and a really good illustration of why sexual history evidence is generally better kept away from juries.

I don't think it's compelling evidence one way or another . Im far from convinced even that Evans conviction should have been quashed . And also of the opinion if hes guilty then so was his coaccused .What I do believe though is that testimony regarding frequent black outs introduced reasonable doubt . As did testimony shed had sex with at least one stranger , which was central to undermining the CPS case she couldnt have consented because Evans was a stranger . So was the other scumbag .

X has no recollection as to whether or not she consented to sex with Evans . If she said she didn't I'd believe her .The series of questions you've posted are also wrong because they're subjective. Nobody has any idea whether or not she did, including herself . And it's a simple fact people have sex with other people when drunk they normally wouldn't consider as partners while sober. I've wished I could gnaw my arm off more than once . Your questions ask us to speculate on a likelihood that simply can't be quantified .

The question put to a jury was not your question. The question put was did Ched Evans have a reasonable belief X was capable of giving consent . Evans , by hook or by crook, has convinced a jury he had that belief . That's the question as far as the trials concerned and the laws concerned . Not the ones you put .

 

[Joe Reilly]

No they didn't. A judge and jury did that last bit.

As a result of the poisoned package presented to the court by the police and CPS.

 

[equationgirl]

Actually, I think it tells us that there was a typo in your previous comment. But I'm afraid I still don't understand it. X did black out and did have sex with Ched Evans. There's no dispute about either of those things.

There was a typo and I corrected it.

I take issue with 'had sex with' as it implies consent. His behaviour by his own admission was that he did not speak to her before, during or after, therefore how could she have reasonably consented to having sex with him?

All this case demonstrates that if a woman agrees to have sex with a man, and at some point his friend appears then she apparently has also agreed to having sex with him as well.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I was going to go through this line by line, but there are so many errors and assumptions that I lost heart.

Yes we've been through that. The fact that you still insist both are guilty is good enough for me. I for one have moved on as they say.

 

[Casually Red]

The point is that establishing a pattern of X not remembering what happened on nights she didn't have sex ought to have no probative value to the question of whether she did consent to sex on another occasion in which she did not remember!

Please explain why there'd be a regular doubt in her mind whether she had sex or not ? Do you not agree she thought it possible on a number of occasions shed had sex but blacked out afterwards and couldn't remember ?