Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Pac man]

One of the witnesses thought that X was a gold digger when he found out tha CE was being pursued on a rape charge. He thought this because he slept with x two weeks after. Good character? Judgemental arsehole? Dodgey attitudes?

With regard the possibility of fabricating evidence...What do you think about the 50k offer and the fact that their detailed evidence was used after CE's testimony had become public?

No point in second guessing the judges and jury, Id go as far as suggesting that its almost ludicrious to suggest that anybody let alone two other men would want to publicly give evidence in a rape trial and fabricate evidence for money if they are of good character, the thought is really very flimsy..People dont generally have the confidence to give evidence let alone base a whole testimony they are not forced to give on fabrications and for a share of a poxy 50k vs the risk of proson for perveting the course of justice for a rapsit..no chance is what i honestly think.

With regarsds to why the witness came forward later, i belive that the sexual dominance of the alleged victim with the witnesss a short time after the alleged rape was so out of character with somebody who had just been raped that he felt compelled to come forward. This is indeed judgmental but bares no baring on the facts.

 

[bimble]

That appears to be at odds with the solicitor's own account, as set out in para 18 of the transcript of the second appeal judgment; he appears to have given evidence that it would have been usual practce to ask about anything said during sex, but he has no recollection (or note) of the witness saying anything about X being vocal at that time.

Witness says that he wasn't asked for any such detail at time of first trial. Maybe he was lying about that, and they did ask him, and he answered, but nobody wrote it down, or they lost the notes. That requires you to believe that at least 1 lie and 1 bungle took place though, instead of just one bungle.

Hanlon's razor - Wikipedia

 

[Thimble Queen]

With regarsds to why the witness came forward later, i belive that the sexual dominance of the alleged victim with the witnesss a short time after the alleged rape was so out of character with somebody who had just been raped that he felt compelled to come forward. .

Can you explain what you mean here?

 

[Spymaster]

Id go as far as suggesting that its almost ludicrious to suggest that anybody let alone two other men would want to publicly give evidence in a rape trial and fabricate evidence for money if they are of good character, the thought is really very flimsy..People dont generally have the confidence to give evidence let alone base a whole testimony they are not forced to give on fabrications and for a share of a poxy 50k vs the risk of proson for perveting the course of justice for a rapsit..no chance is what i honestly think.

I'm surprised this has been given more credence here. It was also brought up by Vaughan, and the judges seem to have agreed too.

 

[Athos]

No point in second guessing the judges and jury, Id go as far as suggesting that its almost ludicrious to suggest that anybody let alone two other men would want to publicly give evidence in a rape trial and fabricate evidence for money if they are of good character, the thought is really very flimsy..People dont generally have the confidence to give evidence let alone base a whole testimony they are not forced to give on fabrications and for a share of a poxy 50k vs the risk of proson for perveting the course of justice for a rapsit..no chance is what i honestly think.

With regarsds to why the witness came forward later, i belive that the sexual dominance of the alleged victim with the witnesss a short time after the alleged rape was so out of character with somebody who had just been raped that he felt compelled to come forward. This is indeed judgmental but bares no baring on the facts.

I don't know whether they did or not. But they'd not have to fabricate much; just add that crucial detail about her being vocal and liking doggie. (Which detail didn't appear in their statements until after Evans' account was in the public domain, and after the offer of a reward.) And, if they had made that up, it couldn't be proved - it'd be her word against theirs - so not much of a risk.

 

[Athos]

Witness says that he wasn't asked for any such detail at time of first trial. Maybe he was lying about that, and they did ask him, and he answered, but nobody wrote it down, or they lost the notes. That requires you to believe that at least 1 lie and 1 bungle took place though, instead of just one bungle.

Hanlon's razor - Wikipedia

Or maybe he answered, but there was nothing to write down, becasue he didn't report her using those words. Occams razor!

 

[Spymaster]

I don't know whether they did or not. But they'd not have to fabricate much; just add that crucial detail about her being vocal and liking doggie. (Which detail didn't appear in their statements until after Evans' account was in the public domain, and after the offer of a reward.) And, if they had made that up, it couldn't be proved - it'd be her word against theirs - so not much of a risk.

How many people would need to be complicit in it though? All conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

 

[Pac man]

You're not exactly unbiased tho, are you? Para 18 contradicts your claim quite strongly

I am unbiased, the CCRC found Rilpey hadnt made any notes whatsoever on whether the victim said anything during sex, the question cant have been asked because there wasnt even a "nothing" answer.

 

[bimble]

Or maybe he answered, but there was nothing to write down, becausue he didn't report her using those words. Occams razor!

No, you're not using either razor. The people who are convinced that both witnesses lied under oath for money and that the footballers both lied too are creating a far more complicated scenario than the facts as far as we know them suggest. Which is fair enough if that's what you are convinced is the case but its certainly not the simplest explanation.

 

[belboid]

With regarsds to why the witness came forward later, i belive that the sexual dominance of the alleged victim with the witnesss a short time after the alleged rape was so out of character with somebody who had just been raped that he felt compelled to come forward. This is indeed judgmental but bares no baring on the facts.

Funny that he didn't mention how vocal she (supposedly) was straight away then. If it all surprised him so much. I'm not convinced your theories hang together

 

[Athos]

How many people would need to be complicit in it though? All conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

Three: one of those close to the Evans campaign and the two witnesses (and two of them wouldn't have to conspire with each other i.e. the two witnesses).

 

[Athos]

I am unbiased, the CCRC found Rilpey hadnt made any notes whatsoever on whether the victim said anything during sex, the question cant have been asked because there wasnt even a "nothing" answer.

Not a sound conclusion. People often fail to note negative responses.

 

[Athos]

No, you're not using either razor. The people who are convinced that both witnesses lied under oath for money and that the footballers both lied too are creating a far more complicated scenario than the facts as far as we know them suggest. Which is fair enough if that's what you are convinced is the case but its certainly not the simplest explanation.

FWIW, I'm not one of those people; I don't know whether they did or not. That they might is not a significant part of my objection to the CoA's decision in this case.

 

[belboid]

I am unbiased, the CCRC found Rilpey hadnt made any notes whatsoever on whether the victim said anything during sex, the question cant have been asked because there wasnt even a "nothing" answer.

Oh dear. No one is unbiased, and those claiming to be so are usually the dodgiest of the lot.

The judgement says that the notes are sparse, which means it could well be the case that they simply didn't write down 'non answers'

 

[hegley]

It should be noted that the witnesses had very little contact with Evans and his circle,

But this isn't true is it. Ripley didn't have an email address so correspondence with him from the defence solicitors went via a friend of Ched Evans in the first instance, and then via Ched Evans' sister. It was a friend of Ched Evans that originally suggested to Ripley talk to the defence team. Which, by any stretch of the imagination, isn't "very little contact".

 

[bimble]

anecdote: I went to the old bailey this morning to hear the summing up in the case of the murder / manslaughter/ accident that happened in my street last summer.
It was really interesting to hear how the judge explained to the jury what their duty was - after summing up all the evidence she stressed the importance of beyond reasonable doubt, several times, impressing on them the importance of that idea.

In the case of Evans a lot of people seem willing to just chuck that whole principle away, but it is kind of vital.

 

[Spymaster]

Three: one of those close to the Evans campaign and the two witnesses (and two of them wouldn't have to conspire with each other i.e. the two witnesses).

At least three. Possibly a few more when you consider the need to eventually pay the bribe. But there's at least one bloke who has the ability to grass them for years to come, plus anyone he might tell etc, etc.

Perhaps people who are prepared to take that risk do exist, but the chances that two such people were X's recent sexual partners ...

 

[belboid]

No, you're not using either razor. The people who are convinced that both witnesses lied under oath for money and that the footballers both lied too are creating a far more complicated scenario than the facts as far as we know them suggest. Which is fair enough if that's what you are convinced is the case but its certainly not the simplest explanation.

It's not a very complicated scenario, is it? Especially when we know the gf was waving 50k under witnesses noses

 

[Pac man]

Funny that he didn't mention how vocal she (supposedly) was straight away then. If it all surprised him so much. I'm not convinced your theories hang together

I think too much weight is been given to what she said, it was more than that as the witness said she took the lead, was forceful at times intintiated oral sex and dictated the sexual posissons. He came forward and gave his account, it was more her behaviour than the words she used, and for that reason i think his testimon was overlooked due to perceptions of it being barred unders 41, so it wasnt "thoroughly explored", which is nothing new.

 

[bimble]

It's not a very complicated scenario, is it? Especially when we know the gf was waving 50k under witnesses noses

I just said its more complicated. Requires you to believe a lot more unproven things than the alternative.

 

[Athos]

At least three. Possibly a few more when you consider the need to eventually pay the bribe. But there's at least one bloke who has the ability to grass them for years to come, plus anyone he might tell etc, etc.

Perhaps people who are prepared to take that risk do exist, but the chances that two such people were X's recent sexual partners ...

You asked "would need to be", to which the answer is three, but, yes, it's possible there were more.

And they'd probably realise that anyone who could grass would likely be implicating themselves.

People take much bigger risks for a lot less!

 

[belboid]

At least three. Possibly a few more when you consider the need to eventually pay the bribe. But there's at least one bloke who has the ability to grass them for years to come, plus anyone he might tell etc, etc.

Perhaps people who are prepared to take that risk do exist, but the chances that two such people were X's recent sexual partners ...

Not so, the other party wouldn't need to know any statements weren't true. They might know but there is no need for them to do so.

 

[Athos]

I think too much weight is been given to what she said, it was more than that as the witness said she took the lead, was forceful at times intintiated oral sex and dictated the sexual posissons. He came forward and gave his account, it was more her behaviour than the words she used, and for that reason i think his testimon was overlooked due to perceptions of it being barred unders 41, so it wasnt "thoroughly explored", which is nothing new.

You have no basis for this. You've just plucked it from nowhere!

 

[bimble]

You asked "would need to be", to which the answer is three, but, yes, it's possible there were more.

And they'd probably realise that anyone who could grass would likely be implicating themselves.

People take much bigger risks for a lot less!

Would it be very rude to use the word conspiracy theory here?

 

[killer b]

You have no basis for this. You've just plucked it from nowhere!

I think he's having a wank.

 

[killer b]

All these gross men drooling as they pore over the intimate details of a teenagers sex life.

 

[bimble]

All these gross men drooling as they pore over the intimate details of a teenagers sex life.

Yes. It's very ugly. It is the fault of the police and the CPS though. They started it, because a distressed young woman came in to report that she'd lost her handbag. I don't understand how anyone can think the authorities here did the right thing, were on the side of justice and minimising harm.

 

[belboid]

No, investigating scenarios which are incredibly common results of rape and other sexual abuse is just silly, isn't it?

 

[bimble]

No, investigating scenarios which are incredibly common results of rape and other sexual abuse is just silly, isn't it?

So you think it's a coincidence that in this particular case it was a famous millionaire footballer involved; The police and CPS would have shown the same intense interest in forensically reconstructing her night that she had no memory of had it turned out to have been just some bloke/s.

 

[belboid]

So you think it's a coincidence that in this particular case it was a famous millionaire footballer who they discovered had booked the room: The police and CPS would have shown the same intense interest in her night had it been just some bloke/s.

Yes, actually. When this case started there had just been a similar one locally where a bloke had 'picked up' an incredibly drunk girl after a night out, followed her and.....she didn't remember, because she was utterly pissed. But they eventually pieced together enough information, and got him to tell a bunch of what became obvious lies, so that he got sent down for rape. It's a sadly all too common way that certain scumbags commit rape, because they know they've got such a bloody good chance of getting away with it.