Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Athos]

Anyway where's this testimony of her sleeping with strangers?

 

[Casually Red]

Anyway where's this testimony of her sleeping with strangers?

Statements were made to that effect by 3 different witnesses . They weren't called . One had sex with her the next day , not right away and that meant he wasn't considered a stranger .
The decision to bring the case by the CPs was partially based on an insistence by x in her statement she wouldn't consent to sex with a stranger . When that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

I wasn't totally correct in my reading of it first time round , but 3 men came forward to give evidence they'd been strangers to her and shed consented to intercourse. Despite her original assertion shed never consent to that. Had she not stated that the case mightn't have gone to trial at all .

 

[Poot]

Oh good. We're still ploughing through her previous sexual encounters in spite of the recent not guilty verdict.

 

[Casually Red]

Wow, you think disagreeing with you means that much to me? I'd be more pissed off if I was on the same side of an argument as you.

You're not merely disagreeing with me, youre demonstrably telling deliberate lies. And you thought you were too superior and I was too thick to spot it and point it out . that's why your huffing .
Because if a lowly uneducated thicko like me can catch you doing it you must be a pretty crap lawyer . Unlike what you crack on to be .

I'd take a huff too.

 

[Athos]

You're not merely disagreeing with me, youre demonstrably telling deliberate lies. And you thought you were too superior and I was too thick to spot it and point it out . that's why your huffing .
Because if a lowly uneducated thicko like me can catch you doing it you must be a pretty crap lawyer . Unlike what you crack on to be .

I'd take a huff too.

You've done no such thing, though.

 

[Treacle Toes]

No, but that is rather the point nonetheless. There were only three people in the room. Two, claim the sex that resulted was consensual. The third claims not to remember. Unless she was underage; it was her room and they had no reason to be in it, or there was evidence she had not entered the room willingly, the investigation should have stopped there. Reprehensible in many eyes, but it is simply impossible to show evidence of criminal behavior or intent.

This only works if they all went there together. X went there with M. Even so, she could have decided not to have sex with him regardless of her willingness to go to the hotel with him if she had wanted to and that would be okay.

She is known to have been intoxicated (later wondering if she had been spiked) and vulnerable by the observations of the receptionist and her saying 'You won't leave me will you?' (or words to that effect)...I think to myself when have I ever said that? Truth is IMO/E that none of us would unless we were worse for wear/uneasy/vulnerable. She didn't even know the whereabouts of her bag/keys/phone/money etc...all the things that keep us safe.


M then sent a text 'i've got a girl'. Did X know about that text do you think? Perhaps she was sitting there saying 'Oh Ched Evans, yes please!'

Is that the way you would speak about women you may hook up with? When is the last time you hooked up with anyone and sent a mate of yours a text like that? What does that text say about their attitudes and habits? Would any of you mates rush over to join in?

Apparently and posted here by you as some kind of be all to end all facts, the door banged, they both looked up, she consented to sex with CE; too fucking convenient IMO...Personally I doubt she knew he was there or had the ability to deal with the fact a third party had entered the room.

M left and commented to the receptionist about her welfare. He fucking knew it was dodgey. She was probably unconscious at that point. CE left by the fire exit. The behaviour of people that did nothing wrong? I won't even fast forward to the new evidence and the reward.

You posted earlier that perhaps X got Ched instead of him getting her. I think you showed your hand with that statement.

 

[Casually Red]

Oh good. We're still ploughing through her previous sexual encounters in spite of the recent not guilty verdict.

Tell him to put his ego to one side and stop playing rumpole of the fucking bailey . It would have been dropped long ago otherwise.

Fuck it I'm done with this

 

[Athos]

I wasn't totally correct in my reading of it first time round...

No, you weren't.

 

[Casually Red]

No, you weren't.

And you decided to use the opportunity to look clever and superior on the back of this rather than simply correct a partially wrong position with facts. But then again you've an allergy to them that comes and goes.

 

[Athos]

And you decided to use the opportunity to look clever and superior on the back of this rather than simply correct a partially wrong position with facts. But then again you've an allergy to them that comes and goes.

Another thing you're wrong about.

 

[Casually Red]

Nah

 

[Joe Reilly]

You posted earlier that perhaps X got Ched instead of him getting her. I think you showed your hand with that statement.

No I didn't. My memory of it first time round that it was her that approached his mate not the other way round as the prosecution originally had it. Luckily for him this was easily proved by CTTV that showed their original encounter. Did the police bury it or simply didn't bother to check? Incompetence or otherwise, it as good as demolished the case against Evan's co-accused that it was him that had acted in a predatory manner.

 

[redsquirrel]

What everyone here can be clear about is that we don't know the totality of the evidence in the 2nd trial in which a not guilty verdict was returned by the jury. People can argue about the document that details the reason for granting the appeal, but that is not all the evidence from the trial.

A jury sat through the 2nd trial in which they heard the evidence from both parties, second guessing their verdict is pointless as you don't know all the evidence that was placed before them.

Here on urban we have the court of prejudice, speculation and very little evidence, in the 2nd trial the jury had the evidence from both sides and came to a judgement based on the facts put to them.

You can argue about it until your fingers become stubs, but unless and until the trial transcript is published you will not have the full picture in which you can then come to an informed opinion.

Yeah, I mean courts are these wonderful amazing places that never make a moronic decision, where all the people who enter them suddenly become free from the prejudices they may have, where your wealth has no effect on the outcome of the trial at all.

What absolute fucking tosh, there are any number of cases that are quite clear travesty's of justice. The idea that people should simply accept this verdict when everyone knows that the convictions in rape cases is appalling is not just stupid it's insulting to victims.

 

[Orang Utan]

No, but that is rather the point nonetheless. There were only three people in the room. Two, claim the sex that resulted was consensual. The third claims not to remember. Unless she was underage; it was her room and they had no reason to be in it, or there was evidence she had not entered the room willingly, the investigation should have stopped there. Reprehensible in many eyes, but it is simply impossible to show evidence of criminal behavior or intent.

WTF? How do you make that out?

 

[1%er]

Yeah, I mean courts are these wonderful amazing places that never make a moronic decision, where all the people who enter them suddenly become free from the prejudices they may have, where your wealth has no effect on the outcome of the trial at all.

What absolute fucking tosh, there are any number of cases that are quite clear travesty's of justice. The idea that people should simply accept this verdict when everyone knows that the convictions in rape cases is appalling is not just stupid it's insulting to victims.

Ah red [your all fucking liberals and I'm a revolutionary communist] squirrel has popped up and misunderstood a post as usual, now there's a surprised

Just to help you out a little, my post was about the FACTS, that the people arguing here are arguing from a point of ignorance as they don't know what the facts are.

Now jog along back to the last century where your politics belongs and pick an argument with yourself in a phone-box as I couldn't give a fuck about your stupid misinterpretation of my post Bye Bye

 

[Joe Reilly]

WTF? How do you make that out?

What is it you exactly you are taking issue with?

 

[Poot]

What is it you exactly you are taking issue with?

Presumably the bit in bold. I am also interested.

 

[Orang Utan]

What is it you exactly you are taking issue with?

All of it, but esp the bit in bold. That's why I put it in bold.

 

[Treacle Toes]

'She isn't a minor, , they didn't break in, lighten up everyone!'

Or some such.

Because, as an adult female, willingly going into a room with one man means....whatever he wants it to and that includes his mates and what they want?

 

[equationgirl]

Also, Joe Reilly just because a woman willingly enters a room it doesn't mean she's also consenting to anything else at all. Whether it's her hotel room or not.

 

[equationgirl]

And then some people are surprised at the low rates of a) sex crime reporting and b) subsequent conviction rates.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Oh ffs why have I just read the last 10 pages of this absolute shitfest?

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh ffs why have I just read the last 10 pages of this absolute shitfest?

((((agent sparrow))))

Here, have some mind bleach

 

[Joe Reilly]

'She isn't a minor, , they didn't break in, lighten up everyone!'

Or some such.

Because, as an adult female, willingly going into a room with one man means....whatever he wants it to and that includes his mates and what they want?

Broadly speaking that was indeed the basic case for the prosecution. But the suggestion it might have gone down like this wasn't made by the one person who was in a position to do so. It was was a construct by the police. And they arrived at their conclusion without any input from her at all. Any of that bother any of you truth-seekers?

 

[Treacle Toes]

Broadly speaking that was indeed the basic case for the prosecution. But the suggestion it might have gone down like this wasn't made by the one person who was in a position to do so. It was was a construct by the police. And they arrived at their conclusion without any input from her at all. Any of that bother any of you truth-seekers?

Does it bother you that after questioning CE and M about what the had happened that night specifically in relation to X's lost bag they thought, have these scumbags raped this lass?

The things they admitted to are that dodgy.

 

[Orang Utan]

Broadly speaking that was indeed the basic case for the prosecution. But the suggestion it might have gone down like this wasn't made by the one person who was in a position to do so. It was was a construct by the police. And they arrived at their conclusion without any input from her at all. Any of that bother any of you truth-seekers?

no, why would it? she had no memory of it.

 

[Raheem]

Broadly speaking that was indeed the basic case for the prosecution. But the suggestion it might have gone down like this wasn't made by the one person who was in a position to do so. It was was a construct by the police. And they arrived at their conclusion without any input from her at all. Any of that bother any of you truth-seekers?

So, Joe, would it be your view that if the victim doesn't remember anything the police should just butt out? In rape-drug cases, for example?

 

[Raheem]

Oh ffs why have I just read the last 10 pages of this absolute shitfest?

Because otherwise you'd have had no legitimate right to make it one post longer.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Does it bother you that after questioning CE and M about what the had happened that night specifically in relation to X's lost bag they thought, have these scumbags raped this lass?

Might have. The problem with coppers following hunches instead of the evidence is that they then start to tailor the case to meet the needs of the hunch. A big feature in nearly all miscarriage of justice.

 

[Joe Reilly]

no, why would it? she had no memory of it.

Yeah, but the problem was there was no 'it'.