Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[bluescreen]

Who described anything as 'amiable'?
The police are great aren't they, always looking out for anyone who might have been 'taken advantage of', and doing everything they can to make the lives of vulnerable people so much better . So great that she's apparently hoping to move to Australia, to try to get away from all this.

I was making an assumption that your friend's drunken encounters, and those of other people here, were amiable. Perhaps they weren't, which sounds a bit alarming. This one certainly didn't end amiably, did it, which is how the police came into it.

Yes of course the police aren't always great. I never said they were. It's their job to protect the public and they don't always do that, and they sometimes use that as an excuse for harassment. Perhaps some people think they were looking to harass Evans here, eh?

But in rape cases, as in any criminal case, the victim isn't the only concern. It's appalling what the victim (though some say she isn't a victim, despite how she presented to her friend and the police) has had to endure at the hand of Evans's fans and the state. Leaving aside for now the question of evidence, which is so contentious, here's a summary of the policy on deciding whether to prosecute:

When considering the public interest stage, one of the factors that Crown Prosecutors should always take into account is: “the consequences for the victim of the decision whether or not to prosecute; and any views expressed by the victim or the victim’s family”: paragraph 5.12 of the Code. We always think very carefully about the interests of the victim when we decide where the public interest lies. But we prosecute cases on behalf of the public at large and not just in the interests of any particular individual. Striking this balance can be difficult. The views and interests of the victim are important, but they cannot be the final word on the subject of a CPS prosecution.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/rape_policy_2012.pdf
So a victim can be a victim of a crime and a sacrificial victim on behalf of the state in dealing with the criminal. That's not how everyone thinks it should be, but it's how it is right now.

 

[Plumdaff]

Drunk people can be lucid and even charming

But in this case there is evidence from witnesses and CCTV that she was falling over, slurring words, drunk. She wasn't a long term alcoholic or an experienced heavy drinker, she was 19 and this was the first time she ever blacked out. Context.

 

[Spymaster]

Want to go again on those points? Genuinel discussion of the issue, not bickering or ad hominems.

Ok. Half the boards probably have us on ignore now anyway.

I'm travelling today though so it'll be later and sporadic.

One point that you want to dismiss though; the fact that I'd have acquitted at the first trial, is not irrelevant. Many people would have. This opens the door to the possibility of the second jury being of the same mind.

 

[Pickman's model]

But in this case there is evidence from witnesses and CCTV that she was falling over, slurring words, drunk. She wasn't a long term alcoholic or an experienced heavy drinker, she was 19 and this was the first time she ever blacked out. Context.

Yes. And you're taking my post out of it.

 

[Pickman's model]

But in this case there is evidence from witnesses and CCTV that she was falling over, slurring words, drunk. She wasn't a long term alcoholic or an experienced heavy drinker, she was 19 and this was the first time she ever blacked out. Context.

First time she blacked out? First? Are you absolutely sure about that? Btw, CCTV doesn't give evidence of slurring words.

 

[Athos]

Ok. Half the boards probably have us on ignore now anyway.

I'm travelling today though so it'll be later and sporadic.

One point that you want to dismiss though; the fact that I'd have acquitted at the first trial, is not irrelevant. Many people would have. This opens the door to the possibility of the second jury doing the same.

OK, I look forward to your replies to those three questions.

I've never argued against the propositions that another jury might have acquitted at the first trial, or that their decision at the second was wrong on the evidence they heard. Rather, my point is that it should never have got to a second jury, and, when it did, they ought never to have heard the new evidence. I think it was wrong in law and unjust.

Whether you would have acquitted at the first trial is irrelevant to the question of whether the process leading to the quashing of that verdict and the new evidence being admitted was right in law.

I suppose it could be relevant if your case is nothing more than: anything that leads to the outcome I prefer must be right, regardless of whether or not the steps were proper in law or procedurally fair. That's really what the second question was trying to establish.

But, if that was your position, it would also present the question of what bought you to the conclusion that an acqittal was the right outcome, if not an application of the law.

But we'll cross that bridge if and when we get there!

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I know she has been mentioned before, here is the full reply from Vera Baird, the lawyer who had a complainant's sexual history made inadmissible, except in highly specific circumstances:

We cannot allow the courts to judge rape by sexual history | Vera Baird

As you can see, she states that the Ched Evans case comes no where near the bar the law intended for bringing her sexual history in to the case. And as such of course the re-trial should not have happened and Evans' original verdict would still stand.

If anyone wishes to continue the line that he was acquitted last week and therefore must be innocent, that's fine, but you are defending rape.

 

[Spymaster]

If anyone wishes to continue the line that he was acquitted last week and therefore much be innocent, that's fine, but you are defending rape.

Good job that nobody's doing that then.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Good job that nobody's doing that then.

Are you now saying you believe him not innocent of rape?

 

[Spymaster]

1) Do you accept that, but for the decision that the new evidence was admissible, the original verdict would have stood?

No. Not necessarily. Obviously the jury heard the entire case again, not just the new evidence. It's perfectly plausible that their decision to acquit was based on their belief that Evans believed there was consent, without relying on the new evidence.

Do you at least agree that that could be the case?

It's also possible that the new evidence did play a direct part in the acquittal but there's a hue and cry from about 50% of the country at the moment about it being admitted. I find it difficult to believe that NOT ONE SINGLE juror, 7 of whom were women, dug their heels in and refused to acquit on either the basis of its admission or its content. According to some analyses on this thread it suggests that they managed to swear a jury of 12 rape apologists.

We don't know what they acquitted on but it's quite possible that they simply disagreed with the first trial jury.

2) Do you think that the acquittal (including the process leading to it i.e. the decision to admit the new evidence) was good in law? And/or in justice?

See above regarding the first part of the question regarding the acquittal.

As far as the decision to admit the evidence is concerned, the defence convinced 3 judges that the similarity of X's behaviour on previous occasions alleged by the witnesses was sufficiently similar to that which Evans testified to, so as unlikely to be coincidence.

The obvious issue is whether the evidence is false, and corruptly obtained, but it's impossible for them to conclude with certainty that it was, and the witnesses swore that it wasn't. If it's not, it could be considered to support his position that he believed that there was consent, and therefore his possible innocence. This is an exceptional case with no actual complaint from the actual complainant. Let a jury decide.

3) What you think the new evidence could be properly adduced to show?

That if true, X used the same words and behaviour on 3 separate occasions, 2 of which there is no question of consent being an issue. It could conceivably follow that Evans believed she was consenting. If X even slightly indicated that she didn't consent I'd believe her 100%, but she didn't even want this case to go to court!

But again, the jury didn't have to have any belief in the safe introduction and content of the new evidence to acquit.

 

[Spymaster]

Are you now saying you believe him not innocent of rape?

I've been saying all along that he may be guilty. I just don't believe that there's enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I've been saying all along that he may be guilty. I just don't believe that there's enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

And if you discount the new evidence, as the formulator of the law intended. What then?

 

[Spymaster]

And if you discount the new evidence, as the formulator of the law intended. What then?

See #3837

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

See #3837

Your contention in that post directly contradicts what Vera Baird states, so we can assume that on that matter you are wrong.

So with that in mind, #3839 ?

 

[Spymaster]

Your contention in that post directly contradicts what Vera Baird states ...

So what?

So did the decision of 3 appellate judges and she concedes in her piece that not all lawyers agree with her as regards this case.

Your #3839 is fully answered in my previous post.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

So what?

So did the decision of 3 appellate judges and she concedes in her piece that not all lawyers agree with her.

You are not a lawyer. The 3 appellate judges failed to apply the law as the law-maker intended, without recourse to her.

All you have is wild supposition.

The two situations are not linked.

Your supposition does directly contradict what Vera Baird states though and she knows a lot more than you do.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Anyway, gotta go to a meeting. You can wish me luck if you like?

 

[Spymaster]

You are not a lawyer.

No. But I can read what lawyers say.

The 3 appellate judges failed to apply the law as the law-maker intended

That's disputable. You are not a lawyer either. Although I've a feeling that Athos will be arguing something similar later.

Your supposition does directly contradict what Vera Baird states though and she knows a lot more than you do.

I don't think so. Which bit?

Once again, you asked 'what if the new evidence was discounted', and I addressed my view on that in the post I directed you to.

 

[Spymaster]

Anyway, gotta go to a meeting. You can wish me luck if you like?

Good luck!

 

[Athos]

No. Not necessarily. Obviously the jury heard the entire case again, not just the new evidence. It's perfectly plausible that their decision to acquit was based on their belief that Evans believed there was consent, without relying on the new evidence.

Do you at least agree that that could be the case?

Yes, that could be the case, but it's a red herring. I've never disputed that it is possible the second jury could have found him not guilty without relying on the new evidence (though it's unlikely that the further material had no impact on their deliberations). That's not in dispute.

But you've not really answered the question; "not necessarily" is a fudge. I can see why you don't want to concede the point, but it's really untenable to imply that there is any possibility whatsoever that the original verdict would not have stood but for the admissibility of the new evidence. It was becasue the Court of Appeal decided that the new evidence was admissible that the original verdict was quashed; had they decided against admissibility, it would have not have been quahed (since the appeal was not granted on any other basis). Can you unequivocally acknowledge that point?

It's also possible that the new evidence did play a direct part in the acquittal but about 50% of the country are up in arms about the sexual history being admitted. I find it difficult to believe that NOT ONE SINGLE juror, 7 of whom were women, dug their heels in and refused to acquit on either the basis of its admission or its content. According to some analyses on this thread it suggests that they managed to swear a jury of 12 rape apologists.

The jury would not have known the basis of the appeal, and what further material had been admitted. Nor would they have been allowed to disregard evidence based upon their own assessment of its admissibility. They were hardly likely to acquit on its content; it was called by the defence.

As far as the decision to admit the evidence is concerned, the defence convinced 3 judges that the similarity of X's behaviour on previous occasions alleged by the witnesses was sufficiently similar to that which Evans testified to, so as unlikely to be coincidence.

I understand the chronology of what happened, but, again, you've not asnwered the question. I asked whether you believed it was: i) good in law; ii) good in justice; and, iii) if good in justice, whether that's becasue the process was just and/or the outcome. Please would you answer those three very specific points.

The obvious issue is whether the evidence is false, and corruptly obtained, but it's impossible for them to conclude with certainty that it was, and the witnesses swore that it wasn't. If it's not, it could be considered to support his position that he believed that there was consent, and therefore his possible innocence. So let a jury decide.

The obvious issue isn't just whether the evidence was true or false, or whether it was corruptly obtained, there's questions (of law and procedural fairness) of whether or not it ought to have been admitted, and a big question mark about what conclusions could properly be drawn from it. If you answer the three original questions (and some supplemental questions, below, concerning the third original question), we will be better able to tease out this issue. (Meantime, I note your implication that the test for admissibility should be whether or not the court could conclude with certainty that it was false or corruptly obtained.)

That if true, X used the same words and behaviour on 3 separate occasions, 2 of which there is no question of consent being an issue. It could conceivably follow that Evans believed she was consenting.

Do you think that a woman liking doggiestyle sex and urging people to fuck her harder is too unusual as to be explained by coincidence? How much weight could a jury reasonably attach to those facts even if proved? What does it show? Do you think there's a cut off point below which the limited probative value of evidence is outweighed by factors in favour of its exclusion? Or that any fact that might, however tenously, add weight to the dfence case should be admitted? What if it also means the 'backdoor' admission of other material which would, of itself, be inadmissible?

 

[Pickman's model]

You are not a lawyer. The 3 appellate judges failed to apply the law as the law-maker intended, without recourse to her.

i am not sure that judges contact lawmakers to find out their apparently unstated intentions, going rather - as i understand it - on what the law actually says. or at least that's the way it works in theory.

 

[Athos]

i am not sure that judges contact lawmakers to find out their apparently unstated intentions, going rather - as i understand it - on what the law actually says. or at least that's the way it works in theory.

Judges often have to infer what parliament intended, which is often not clear on the black letter of the law alone.

 

[Pickman's model]

Judges often have to infer what parliament intended, which is often not clear on the black letter of the law alone.

as i said about 1000 posts ago, baird should have spoken out some time ago about the appeal court's decision.

 

[Athos]

as i said about 1000 posts ago, baird should have spoken out some time ago about the appeal court's decision.

Maybe, but I suppose she was fearful of commenting on what was still a live judicial matter.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe, but I suppose she was fearful of commenting on what was still a live judicial matter.

... not to mention what the ccrc's lawyers considered ...

i suppose they do have lawyers look at stuff before they refer cases to the court of appeal.

 

[Athos]

... not to mention what the ccrc's lawyers considered ...

i suppose they do have lawyers look at stuff before they refer cases to the court of appeal.

Yes, albeit there are serious question marks about the transparency of that process.

 

[trashpony]

Obviously the jury heard the entire case again, not just the new evidence.

They didn't actually - McDonald wasn't called

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Good luck!

Thanks. Went well

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

as i said about 1000 posts ago, baird should have spoken out some time ago about the appeal court's decision.

She, like everyone else, wasn't privvy to the grounds for the appeal until the new trial was underway. So how could she have done as you've asked erroneously twice now?

 

[Pickman's model]

So how could she have done as you've asked erroneously twice now?

please stop pedantically attacking my grammar on specious grounds