Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[crossthebreeze]

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.

It might be inevitable (and i'm a hypocrite because i've been discussing it too), but its still shit for x that it will be happening everywhere even in spaces where she isn't being directly threatened.
And the only person i'm calling anything here is Casually Red, who is doing something very specific which you haven't done! (though i think there's posts by others which are also troubling but not out of order in the same way).

 

[likesfish]

Do you really think that's how it went?

Police get told a woman wakes up naked in a hotel room and can't remember how she got there..


The defences new evidence was the woman had sex doggy style with men after a night out not threesomes or with a man she'd never talked to or seen .

Why the fuck wasn't cheds sexual history brought up

 

[Athos]

I stopped posting last night to have a think if I'd got this wrong but overall I don't believe I have.

Given your position yesterday was based on your understanding of the timing and content of the new evidence, and given that you eventually conceded you had been wrong about both, I'm at a loss as to why you still think your overall conclusion was right.

Can you see how those circumstances give the impression that you're determined to take a particular side, no matter what?

 

[Spymaster]

Given your position yesterday was based on your understanding of the timing and content of the new evidence, and given that you eventually conceded you had been wrong about both, I'm at a loss as to why you still think your overall conclusion was right.

Well because that was only a part of my position. Even removing it, there is still the argument that LBJ and Joe Reilly have been making about the paucity of real evidence; the fact that the evidence that was allowed at the second trial convinced a jury to unanimously acquit him extremely quickly; and I still question whether 2 men have perjured themselves for money. So I think there is potentially an argument that the case shouldn't have been brought, as well as that on the accumulative evidence presented, I don't think I could say that he was guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, if she had said or indicated that she was raped, it would be game over.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why the fuck wasn't cheds sexual history brought up

ask the prosecution. or Athos.

 

[Athos]

Well because that was only a part of my position. Even removing it, there is still the argument that LBJ and Joe Reilly have been making about the paucity of real evidence, the fact that the evidence that was allowed at the second trial convinced a jury to unanimously acquit him, and I still question whether 2 men have perjured themselves for money. So I think there is potentially an argument that the case shouldn't have been brought, as well as that on the accumulative evidence presented, I don't think I could say that he was guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, if she could had said or even indicated that she was raped, it would be game over.

He wasn't acquitted because of the paucity of evidence. As we saw from the first trial, there was sufficient evidence to convict. Rather, he was acquitted because of the new evidence. You seem determined to mischaracterise any objection to that evidence as being founded solely on the basis of perjury for financial reward, conveniently glossing over very serious issues about the proper application of s.41 and the limited probative value such testimony should have.

But, for whatever reason, you've made up your mind, so I guess there's not a lot of point going through it all again.

 

[Athos]

ask the prosecution. or Athos.

Because it's irrelevant. The question isn't why his wasn't, but why hers was.

 

[Spymaster]

He wasn't acquitted because of the paucity of evidence.

Of course not. The paucity of evidence goes to whether or not the first trial should have been brought at all, not whether he should have been acquitted in the second.

As we saw from the first trial, there was sufficient evidence to convict.

Well we can see that he was convicted. The arguments that that littlebabyjesus and Joe Reilly have put, although searingly unpopular on these boards, are not entirely without merit. No point in rehashing those all over again though.

Rather, he was acquitted because of the new evidence. You seem determined to mischaracterise any objection to that evidence as being founded solely on the basis of perjury for financial reward, conveniently glossing over very serious issues about the proper application of s.41 and the limited probative value such testimony should have.

Again, this is only a part of my position. Overall I don't believe that there's enough evidence that a rape was committed to safely convict him.

But, for whatever reason, you've made up your mind, so I guess there's not a lot of point going through it all again.

Well I've made it up for the above reasons after giving the matter considerable thought. I'm still open to changing it but there's nothing in the recent argument here that makes me inclined to do so.

 

[DotCommunist]

This 'crock of shit' carried on over two trials, the first one he was found guilty, the second acquitted. What was different about the 2nd trial?

50k

 

[Athos]

Of course not. The paucity of evidence goes to whether or not the first trial should have been brought at all, not whether he should have been acquitted in the second.

Well we can see that he was convicted. The arguments that that Littlebabyjesus and Joe Reilly have put, although searingly unpopular on these boards, are not entirely without merit. No point in rehashing those all over again though.

Again, this is only a part of my position. Overall I don't believe that there's enough evidence that a rape was committed to safely convict him.

Well I've made it up for the above reasons after giving the matter considerable thought. I'm still open to changing it but there's nothing in the recent argument here that makes me inclined to do so.

The CPS's decisions to prosecute turn on whether or not there's a realistic prospect of conviction, and whether it's in the public interest. I'm assuming you accept it's in the public interest to attempt to prosecute alleged rapists. So, given the first trial resulted in a conviction, its bizarre to suggest the decision to prosecute in that instance was a poor one. To hold such a logic-defying position can only be indicative of a particular agenda.

 

[Spymaster]

The CPS's decisions to prosecute turn on whether or not there's a realistic prospect of conviction, and whether it's in the public interest. I'm assuming you accept it's in the public interest to attempt to prosecute alleged rapists. So, given the first trial resulted in a conviction, its bizarre to suggest the decision to prosecute in that instance was a poor one.

The extension of the position is that the jury got it wrong in the first trial. Is that not possible? Half the board is arguing that they got it wrong in the second.

Please don't suggest again that I have an agenda. I respected you on this, and have reconsidered my position after our exchange yesterday with a view to changing it. I have no agenda, just a sense of fairness. If Evans had been convicted of being a total bastard I'd be fully behind it. I just can't say that I completely believe he's guilty of rape.

 

[Athos]

The extension of the position is that the jury got it wrong in the first trial. Is that not possible? Half the board is arguing that they got it wrong in the second.

Please don't suggest again that I have an agenda. I respected you on this, and have reconsidered my position after our exchange yesterday with a view to changing it. I have no agenda, just a sense of fairness. If Evans had been convicted of being a total bastard I'd be fully behind it. I just can't say that I completely believe he's guilty of rape.

Even if (which is not admitted) the jury in the first trial got it wrong on the evidence they heard, the fact that they returned a guilty verdict vindicates the CPS's view that there was a realistic prospect of conviction. To argue that even the first case shouldn't have been prosecuted is non-sensical, unless you have reasons other than those which are proper to making a charging decision.

 

[Spymaster]

Even if (which is not admitted) the jury in the first trial got it wrong on the evidence they heard, the fact that they returned a guilty verdict vindicates the CPS's view that there was a realistic prospect of conviction.

Or they got lucky.

The points that Joe was being abused for making last night are not unreasonable.

 

[bimble]

Even if (which is not admitted) the jury in the first trial got it wrong on the evidence they heard, the fact that they returned a guilty verdict vindicates the CPS's view that there was a realistic prospect of conviction. To argue that even the first case shouldn't have been prosecuted is non-sensical, unless you have reasons other than those which are proper to making a charging decision.

Does that make sense? It looks like it only makes sense if you also think that every time there's been a guilty verdict in any case anywhere then it was right for that case to be brought to trial. Which would mean that every time there's been a miscarriage of justice with someone being found guilty of a crime they are later cleared of, (sometimes after spending half their life in prison) it is the fault of the jury alone and not the criminal justice system ? Don't know about that.
(just talking in general).

 

[Athos]

Or they got lucky.

The points that Joe was being abused for making last night are not unreasonable.

People who didn't hear the evidence the first jury considered, but who are determined to conclude that they got it wrong (on what they did hear), and that the conviction was a fluke, despite the CPS's assessment that there had been a realistic prospect of success.

Sorry, but I have query why someone would bend over backwards to speculate to that extent. But, the point's been made, now.

 

[Athos]

Does that make sense? It looks like it only makes sense if you also think that every time there's been a guilty verdict in any case anywhere then it was right for that case to be brought to trial. Which would mean that every time there's been a miscarriage of justice with someone being found guilty of a crime they are later cleared of, (sometimes after spending half their life in prison) it is the fault of the jury alone and not the criminal justice system ? Don't know about that.
(just talking in general).

No it doesn't. They decided to prosecute based upon the extant evidence. The acquittal was predicated on material that was created later. The decision to prosecute in the first trial was sound.

 

[Spymaster]

People who didn't hear the evidence the first jury considered, but who are determined to conclude that they got it wrong (on what they did hear), and that the conviction was a fluke, despite the CPS's assessment that there had been a realistic prospect of success.

Well they are making that assessment on the information that is in the public domain. Namely, that X didn't complain that she'd been raped, no other witnesses (except the defendants saying there was consent), no memory, etc, etc; and retrospectively, the damage it's caused to X when apparently she didn't want them prosecuted in the first place (I believe that this was established way back in this thread somewhere).

 

[Athos]

Well they are making that assessment on the information that is in the public domain. Namely, that X didn't complain that she'd been raped, no other witnesses, no memory, etc, etc; and retrospectively, the damage it's caused to X when she didn't want the prosecution made in the first place (I believe that this was established way back in this thread somewhere).

Yeah, people who, for their own reasons, choose to prefer what they read on the internet to the evidence the jury heard.

 

[Spymaster]

Yeah, people who, for their own reasons, choose to prefer what they read on the internet to the evidence the jury heard.

Can't you also suggest that of those determined to believe the same of the 2nd trial jury?

 

[Athos]

Can't you also suggest that of those determined to believe the same of the 2nd trial jury?

Not when their criticisms are based on e.g. a proper understanding of s.41 and a critique of the detailed rationale behind the Court of Appeal's decision to quash the original verdict, and to admit the new evidence, no.

 

[two sheds]

Evans could have avoided all this from the outset if he'd just said he'd fallen over while naked and accidentally penetrated her.

 

[Spymaster]

Not when their criticisms are based on e.g. a proper understanding of s.41 and a critique of the detailed rationale behind the Court of Appeal's decision to quash the original verdict, and to admit the new evidence, no.

Very few of the objectors on this thread are basing their opinions on that. In fact I think you might be the only one, and you don't know what evidence the second jury acquitted him on.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

It seems Ched Evans is now going on a talking tour
about alcohol and consent. Must have got that idea
from Brock Turner.

Is Craig Charles the support act?

 

[Athos]

Very few of the objectors on this thread are basing their opinions on that. In fact I think you might be the only one, and you don't know what evidence the second jury acquitted him on.

My criticism isn't that they acquitted. I couldn't properly criticise on that basis, since I've not heard the same evidence. My criticism is of the decision to quash the original verdict, and to allow the new evidence.

 

[Spymaster]

My criticism isn't that they acquitted. I couldn't properly criticise on that basis, since I've not heard the same evidence. My criticism is of the decision to quash the original verdict, and to allow the new evidence.

I know.

The fact remains that a jury has unanimously acquitted him, in short order, on the basis of something that we can't be sure of. It's possible that the acquittal had nothing to do with the new evidence, beyond the fact that it was what enabled the second trial.

 

[Athos]

I know.

The fact remains that a jury has unanimously acquitted him, in short order, on the basis of something that we can't be sure of. It's possible that the acquittal had nothing to do with the new evidence, beyond the fact that it was what enabled the second trial.

You constantly try to diminish the significance of the new evidence (in respect of which you previously conceded being wrong about the timing and content). It's ridiculous to say that the acquittal might have had nothing to do with the new evidence, since, but for that new evidence, the original verdict would not have been quashed. That's not some trivial consequence!

 

[Spymaster]

You constantly try to diminish the significance of the new evidence (in respect of which you previously conceded being wrong about the timing and content). It's ridiculous to say that the acquittal might have had nothing to do with the new evidence, since, but for that new evidence, the original verdict would not have been quashed.

As I said, the new evidence enabled the second trial. Beyond that you don't know what weight, if any, it was given by the jury.

It's entirely possible that the second jury acquitted, purely on the basis of evidence that was heard by the first.

You were bemoaning 'people who prefer to accept what they read on the internet and haven't heard the evidence', yet you're doing the same.

 

[Athos]

As I said, the new evidence enabled the second trial.

It's perfectly possible that the second jury acquitted on the basis of the evidence that was heard in the first.

You were bemoaning 'people who prefer to accept what they read on the internet and haven't heard the evidence'.

You have created a strawman.

My position has always been that you can't sensibly criticise either jury for their decision on the evidence. Particularly when you've not heard it, and/or based on some shit you got off the web.

But you can criticise the decision to quash the original verdict, and allow the new evidence. And you can't deny that the new evidence was decisive, because, even if the second jury disregarded it entirely (which is pretty inconceivable), but for that evidence appearing and being ruled admissible (in the circumstances those things happened) the original verdict would have stood.

My criticism of the events which ultimately led to the acquittal is completely different from your criticism of the original conviction/decision to prosecute.

 

[Pickman's model]

so, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, pa?

 

[Spymaster]

But you can criticise the decision to quash the original verdict, and allow the new evidence. And you can't deny that the new evidence was decisive, because, even if the second jury disregarded it entirely (which is pretty inconceivable), but for that evidence appearing and being ruled admissible (in the circumstances those things happened) the original verdict would have stood.

... and potentially perpetuated a miscarriage of justice!

There is no strawman.

The second jury unanimously returned a different verdict to the first. Why, we don't know. It's possible that they thought the new evidence compelling, but also that they took the prosecutions advice, treated it as tainted, and acquitted on something else; like the lack of evidence of rape.

In that case the first conviction was unsound. That isn't altered by the way the second trial came about.