You are trying to conflate the fact that the new evidence caused the retrial with it's content having a direct affect on it's outcome. It may or my not have done. You're asking us to believe that NOT ONE juror said "hang on, what the fuck has her previous behaviour with X and Y got to do with her behaviour with Evans".
So, having conceded that the new evidence casued the retrial, you must concede that, but for the new evidence, there would have been no retrial, which means that, but for the new evidence, the original verdict would not have been quashed i.e. he would still be considered guilty, no?
That is all I'm saying; I'm explicitly not saying what you keep trying to suggest I am; I have very clearly acknowledged (more than once) that the second jury's decision may not have been influenced by the content of the new evidence.
No, but they would realise that they were hearing evidence of her previous sexual encounters and they would have been able to put forward their objection or disbelief in deliberations.
No they wouldn't. Juries can't object to the admission of particular evidence. That you seem to think they can reveals a profound misunderstanding about the process, and the role of a jury.
As far as (i) goes, I think probably. This is an exceptional case where the alleged victim didn't make any complaint and didn't say she didn't consent. She didn't even want the case brought. That makes it fucking difficult not to allow the defendant leeway on the issue of consent.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the reasons this evidence satisfied the legal test for admissibiity are: first, that the victim didn't make a complaint; secodly, the she didnt say she didn't consent; and, thirdly, becasue she disn't want the case to be brought? If not, please set out the reasons why you believe the admission of this evidence being legally sound.
On (ii) & (iii) I think on balance the justice is probably correct in process and outcome for the reasons stated in the previous post as well as above.
I don't think you've ever really made those reasons clear; please would you set out why you decided that the admission of the new evidence was procedurally just and produced a just result.
Probably enough to be put to a jury when the rest of the evidence of actual rape is so shit.
So, your position is that, becasue of the alleged paucity of the other evidence (which overlooks that it was sufficient to secure a conviction the first time), the similarity between the Evans' accounts and those of the two new witnesses cannot be explained by coincidence i.e. that there's something that must be more than coincidental about the fact that the three of them said she liked doggie and vocally encouraged partners?
Are you saying it's not (or shouldn't be) that compelling?
No, I'm asking you what you think. Please would you have a go at those questions? Namely:
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?
Many on this thread disagree completely with you and you seem to be arguing that it's what turned the jury.
Once again, I am explicitly NOT saying any such thing! I'm saying the new evidence is what convinced the Court of Appeal to quash the original verdict, though.
Yes. I've been explaining that. Where do you think it should be in a case of rape where the complainant hasn't indicated lack of consent?
Ok, so if you agree there's a cut-off point, where do you think it should be? How insignificant ought the new evidence to be before it ought not to be admitted?
Personally, I don't think the new evidence is of sufficient probative value to justify it's admissibility; taken at its highest (and so putting aside the questions about the circumsatnces in which it was produced), it cannot provide a sound basis for any conclusion about what happened that night, partly becasue it can very easily be explained as coincidence, and so ought not to have met the test for admissibility.
Explain this in the context of this case.
The admission of this evidence effectively introduced the idea that she was promiscous, which would have been otherwise inadmissible. Do you think that's right?
