Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

Joe Reilly said:
...yes they pursued it even when it didn't happen like they imagined it did.
Click to expand...
there was evidence she'd been raped, so they pursued it. the evidence was strong enough for the CPS to prosecute and strong enough for a jury to convict.

Are you going to answer the question I asked you?
 
Raheem said:
But they can't decide that, can they? It's for the courts. Their job is to look for evidence. Do you mean they should pursue it if there's some reason to suspect a rape?
Click to expand...

'Suspecting' a rape ought not to be the basis for laying charges unless it can be backed up. Your not really doing anyone any favors least of the alleged victim.
 
Joe Reilly said:
Suspecting a rape ought not to be the basis for laying charges unless it can be backed up. Your not really doing anyone any favors.
Click to expand...

We were talking about the circumstances under which the police should pursue an investigation, rather than bringing charges.

So, you'd agree that it's OK for them to start an investigation before they are 100% certain that a crime has been committed? Even if the possible victim doesn't remember anything?
 
Last edited:
Raheem said:
We were talking about the circumstances under which the police should pursue an investigation, rather than bringing charges.

So, you'd agree that it's OK for them to start an investigation before they are 100% certain that a crime has been committed? Even if the possible victim doesn't remember anything?
Click to expand...

You need to remember how this all started?
X: 'I want to report a stolen bag'. Police: 'Never mind the bag, we believe you were probably raped. Here is what we think happened.'
 
Raheem said:
So, you'd agree that it's OK for them to start an investigation before they are 100% certain that a crime has been committed? Even if the possible victim doesn't remember anything?
Click to expand...
They should always follow the evidence. But if there is no evidence...and they investigate anyway, then automatically they have skin in the game, which is when the whole thing can quickly morph into something else.
 
Joe Reilly said:
They should always follow the evidence. But if there is no evidence...and they investigate anyway, then automatically they have skin in the game, which is when the whole thing can quickly morph into something else.
Click to expand...
why do you keep saying there was no evidence? there was a lot of it.
 
Joe Reilly said:
They should always follow the evidence. But if there is no evidence...and they investigate anyway, then automatically they have skin in the game, which is when the whole thing can quickly morph into something else.
Click to expand...

You're still not answering my question, which was a really simple yes/no one. And you're also not making much sense. If there's no evidence, then there's obviously nothing to investigate. They can't interview no-one or dust a knife they haven't found for fingerprints.

So, in a case where the police have a possible victim who doesn't remember anything but they believe a crime may have been committed, is it OK for them to begin an investigation?
 
Raheem said:
You're still not answering my question, which was a really simple yes/no one. And you're also not making much sense. If there's no evidence, then there's obviously nothing to investigate. They can't interview no-one or dust a knife they haven't found for fingerprints.

So, in a case where the police have a possible victim who doesn't remember anything but they believe a crime may have been committed, is it OK for them to begin an investigation?
Click to expand...
You're talking about a situation where disabling drugs have been surreptitiously administered and presumably found in someone's system who then has no recollection of having sex.

That's very very different to what's happened here.
 
Casually Red said:
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 .
Click to expand...
Just rereading the thread and i'm livid about this.
It seems that you are introducing evidence on here about x's sexual history which was not aired at either trial or in the appeal papers (the three witnesses in the appeal papers are a man who'd known her for 13 years (ie since she was at primary school), his mum, and a man who 'd initially met her on facebook). The part of x's statement when she says she wouldn't consent to sex with a stranger is mentioned briefly in the appeal papers but was not used in either trial. Its irrelevant anyway.
Where are you getting this info from? - from misogynists on twitter who are continuing to harrass and threaten this woman? - from the ched evans website? or from your own fevered imagination?.
Its disgusting enough that a woman had her sexual history interrogated in a rape trial. And shit that people on here are still analysing it and discussing it still. But trying to talk about aspects of her supposed sexual history which were not introduced at trial is absolutely fucking out of order.
 
crossthebreeze said:
And shit that people on here are still analysing it and discussing it still.
Click to expand...
Well, in fairness, it's going to get analysed on here, and in fine detail. That's what happens. There are people who disagree with the case being brought in the first place, others that think it should've been overturned at the 1st appeal, and still more that agree that the new evidence was correctly allowed. Then you have all the people in between them and those that disagree with them, and this is a very important subject.

I stopped posting last night to have a think if I'd got this wrong but overall I don't believe I have. Others are vehement that they are right and nothing less than a second conviction would have made them happy. I think generally speaking the differences between the two groups are probably intractable, but it's hugely unfair for the second group to be accusing the first of rape apology and other shit.
 
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
354
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