Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[free spirit]

You said if it was your job. I was asking which job you meant, the defence lawyer's job? Or some other job?

if posting on urban were my job rather than a complete waste of time, then I might have considered going to the lengths you suggest to obtain the court records, but it isn't so I ran a few google searches, couldn't find it, so relied instead on what I could find, such as press reports from the time etc.

 

[killer b]

The current team seem to be attempting to paint her a liar too, and the private investigator hired to investigate the matter.

 

[cesare]

except that when the defence tried to appeal it they did so by trying to introduce expert witness testimony stating exactly what I've been saying about blackouts, because it hadn't been covered properly in the first trial due to the original defence team's decision to attempt to paint the woman as a lier instead.

To which the court commented: “As we have said, the judge rightly did not direct the jury to consider that loss of memory, even if the jury was satisfied that it was genuine -- that was an issue in the case -- provided evidence that at the time when sexual activity took place the complainant was not consenting. If the judge had said something like that, then the fresh evidence might have been of value. What the evidence does is to reinforce something denied by Dr Eccles: that the claim to loss of memory was not and could not be right. It suggests that, having consumed the amount of alcohol she had, the fact that her memory was lost of itself was of no great significance one way or another”.

The court were asked to consider this as fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in a trial where the issue of loss of memory in the form of expert evidence was addressed. In effect, it was proposed that a new expert should be called to disprove the evidence given by the former defence expert and to assert no more than that the claimed loss of memory does not of itself lead to any implication that the complainant was not consenting to sexual activity at the time when it took place.

In refusing leave on this ground the single judge observed:

"I have perused the 29 page report but have found difficulty in identifying those 'specific areas' on which reliance is placed. In any event, the applicant called expert evidence at trial and it appears that the applicant now wishes to adduce some further and better expert evidence. I am not persuaded, especially where the specific aspects of a long report on which reliance is placed have not been identified with clarity, that the fresh evidence, even if admissible on appeal, is such as to render the verdict of the jury unsafe."

The court agreed with those observations; this fresh evidence does not, taken at its highest from the applicant's point of view, serve to undermine the safety of the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the court declined to admit it.

 

[free spirit]

I know.

 

[free spirit]

They're effectively saying that this expert witness evidence is different to that presented in the original case, but they've taken the judgement that it didn't make any significant difference that this evidence wasn't presented originally, and I think been a bit narked about them trying to introduce expert evidence that directly contradicted their original expert witness.

I disagree with that, as I'd expect that most people without significant experience of binge drinking culture, wouldn't really understand the idea that complete memory loss doesn't necessarily equate to someone being obviously incoherant without having this clearly explained to them by an expert. They'd make that leap by themselves whether directed to by the judge or not, and if the defence failed to guide them on that issue then that was a major failing IMO.

 

[cesare]

if posting on urban were my job rather than a complete waste of time, then I might have considered going to the lengths you suggest to obtain the court records, but it isn't so I ran a few google searches, couldn't find it, so relied instead on what I could find, such as press reports from the time etc.

You were saying about not being to find the court transcripts. I was just explaining why you would find that difficult.

 

[cesare]

They're effectively saying that this expert witness evidence is different to that presented in the original case, but they've taken the judgement that it didn't make any significant difference that this evidence wasn't presented originally, and I think been a bit narked about them trying to introduce expert evidence that directly contradicted their original expert witness.

I disagree with that, as I'd expect that most people without significant experience of binge drinking culture, wouldn't really understand the idea that complete memory loss doesn't necessarily equate to someone being obviously incoherant without having this clearly explained to them by an expert. They'd make that leap by themselves whether directed to by the judge or not, and if the defence failed to guide them on that issue then that was a major failing IMO.

What they said was that it was difficult to see from this fresh evidence, the parts that they were relying upon. They either didn't present it clearly or it didn't add anything.

 

[free spirit]

You were saying about not being to find the court transcripts. I was just explaining why you would find that difficult.

I understood that, I was just expaining why I wasn't about to do this bit.

I suppose if there was you could contact the relevant transcription company.

 

[cesare]

I understood that, I was just expaining why I wasn't about to do this bit.

Oh, that was just a suggestion if you were really keen.

 

[free spirit]

What they said was that it was difficult to see from this fresh evidence, the parts that they were relying upon. They either didn't present it clearly or it didn't add anything.

that's the problem with expert witnesses, they have a tendency to waffle and not explain things clearly IME.

 

[free spirit]

Oh, that was just a suggestion if you were really keen.

well, if anybody would actually give a shit I might, but on current form they'd mostly just revert to calling me a rape apologist cunt and refuse to read it or something anyway.

eta but thanks for the information, it might come in useful one day for something, and at least will stop me attempting to google for it.

 

[cesare]

that's the problem with expert witnesses, they have a tendency to waffle and not explain things clearly IME.

Maybe it explained it very clearly but the court couldn't see how it was sufficient to make the jury's decision unsafe.

 

[killer b]

What is your experience if expert witnesses?

 

[free spirit]

Maybe it explained it very clearly but the court couldn't see how it was sufficient to make the jury's decision unsafe.

"I have perused the 29 page report but have found difficulty in identifying those 'specific areas' on which reliance is placed. In any event, the applicant called expert evidence at trial and it appears that the applicant now wishes to adduce some further and better expert evidence. I am not persuaded, especially where the specific aspects of a long report on which reliance is placed have not been identified with clarity, that the fresh evidence, even if admissible on appeal, is such as to render the verdict of the jury unsafe."

code for 29 pages of waffle that obscured whatever point they were trying to make.

 

[free spirit]

What is your experience if expert witnesses?

I helped run consultancy projects for my dad and collegues for a while, including expert witness reports and statements. One of which the lawyer asked me if I was expert enough to give evidence instead due to the amount of incomprehensible waffle that I was able to translate into something understandable. I declined.

eta and that was also the opinion the barrister gave about expert witnesses waffling and obscuring the point, so I assumed it's not just my dad and his collegues.

as an example he just submitted a 120 page objection to a public inquiry, resulting in them having to adjourn for a week to attempt to read it and respond to it.

 

[killer b]

Ok.

 

[cesare]

code for 29 pages of waffle that obscured whatever point they were trying to make.

That was a waste of time and money then.

 

[cesare]

Edit, it's already been said over and over, not adding anything.

 

[trashpony]

indeed, as previously pointed out I tend to prefer to quote the salient parts, but if you insist.



Which still doesn't say exactly what was reported to the police in the first place, or what happened between her reporting the matter, and being examined by a police doctor.

So nothing about a handbag or mobile. Do you think the police routinely call in a doctor when a women goes to report a lost phone and handbag?

 

[comrade spurski]

The cap seemed to fit.


potentially. I didn't expect that everyone involved in drunken sex would suddenly find themselves locked up, just that they were more vulnerable to it if this was how the law was to be applied more widely.

I've no idea how pissed or otherwise Evans was or claims to have been, but I doubt he was entirely sober either after a night out on the town with his mates.


bollocks, never said this, never implied it.


you mean other than the bits where I've specifically said that I don't think she lied, and the amount that she had drunk in that space of time was IMO sufficient to induce alcoholic blackout?


people keep referring to these lies, but I've not seen anyone actually state what they're supposed to be, so yes I'll ignore it until someone gives some specifics.

I don't actually give a fuck how it looks. This is or was Urban 75 not fucking mumsnet last time I looked.

You clearly don't care how you come across as you;
Whine about being called names but are happy to do it to others,
Say one thing then claim it means something else,
Openly contridict yourself (you say she was not too drunk to be able to give informed consent but in this reply state that in your opinion she had drunk enough to black out...both can not be true)
You believe his version of events stating that he clearly believed she had consented.
You have, regardless of your denials, impled he was set up by the police...you believe it is an unsafe conviction...that the law was improperly applied...your denial is simply pedantry.
You do think a pissed man having consensual sex with a pissed woman is at risk of being charged with rape...hence you newcastle town centre example.
You claim not to be aware of his lies yet claim to have read a wide variety of materials on this case from different sources? That shows you have not read that widely.

You have empathy only for the rapist

Calling me stupid again only adds to my belief that you are an arrogant, self pitying, misogynistic fuck wit who I am glad I dont know in a personal capacity.

Your views and you become more odious by the post

 

[belboid]

so the fact this is the only one of them where both defendants actually claimed she'd specifically consented, and where the woman hadn't contradicted that just said she couldn't remember, and where the only evidence against them was the alleged level of drunkeneness of the woman isn't sufficiently different to be worth discussing?

All the cited case law that I checked had featured the woman giving some sort of evidence against her rapists, with the closest being the rapists claiming some sort of implied consent rather than that she'd actually specifically consented as in this case, some of the older ones attempting to argue that the lack of an objection or lack of physical resistance was sufficient. None of this applied in this case.

Repeating yourself doesn't make your drivel any more true,you repugnant human being.

 

[likesfish]

The fact the two blokes legged it seems to suggest to me they were suspect

 

[BigTom]

Can someone clarify something for me about the verdicts in these cases please?

My memory/understanding is that in both cases the woman was judged to have been too drunk to give consent, but in the first case the jury decided that it was not beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant would not have known that she was too drunk to give consent*, whilst in the second, the jury decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt for Evans to not have known she was unable to give consent.

Is that right?

*horrible phrasing, was going to say that the jury decided that it was reasonable for the first bloke to think he had consent, but technically that won't be what they've decided, they may have thought that he should have known he didn't, but that couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Citizen66]

Well she agreed to get in a cab with bloke 1 and presumably agreed to go to the hotel with him. Ched Evans rocked up later after being informed by text from bloke 1 that he 'had a bird'. Charming.

 

[belboid]

As Evans arrived later, even more of the alcohol she had drunk had entered her bloodstream, so she was even more pissed when Evans arrived.

Which seems to be a difficult fact to understand.

 

[Cid]

Can someone clarify something for me about the verdicts in these cases please?

My memory/understanding is that in both cases the woman was judged to have been too drunk to give consent, but in the first case the jury decided that it was not beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant would not have known that she was too drunk to give consent*, whilst in the second, the jury decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt for Evans to not have known she was unable to give consent.

Is that right?

*horrible phrasing, was going to say that the jury decided that it was reasonable for the first bloke to think he had consent, but technically that won't be what they've decided, they may have thought that he should have known he didn't, but that couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

That's about right. The defence has to raise some evidence that the defendant had a reasonable belief in consent... The prosecution must then disprove that evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In McDonald's case the jury decided that it could not be disproved beyond reasonable doubt, in Evans' case that it was. The reasonable element (in the 'reasonable belief' bit) is important as it's objective. The previous standard was purely subjective so even a completely unreasonable belief would be sufficient.

 

[marty21]

saw on twitter that the woman who started the petition asking Sheff Utd not to sign Ched Evans (150,000+ signatures) has been getting rape threats from ched supporters

 

[Citizen66]

What a wonderful world we live in.

 

[belboid]

saw on twitter that the woman who started the petition asking Sheff Utd not to sign Ched Evans (150,000+ signatures) has been getting rape threats from ched supporters

very good statement from her:

Over the weekend I have been targeted by relentless abuse from men on Twitter. Some of it has been sexist and predictable and simply annoying like “get back in the kitchen you sl*g”. Some of it has been quite threatening and scary at times like the man who told me “It’s a real shame you and Peter Sutcliffe never crossed paths!”

Some of it leaves me cold like the one threatening to rape me with my own petition.

This is interspersed with men who needed to tell me how I should have done the petition. What else I could do. What I should also be doing which would be far better - like solving Ebola.

It got a bit quieter yesterday and I started to think the storm was over and I could begin to focus on the other things that concern me around women’s rights. After all feminism - no matter what Ched’s mum thinks, isn’t just about whether a rapist gets his lucrative footballing career back.

Or whether he goes on to influence the views of sexual consent of thousands of young men who are just forming their views of how they should treat women in a sexual situation because he is in denial about the nature of what rape is

 

[BigTom]

Cheers

As Evans arrived later, even more of the alcohol she had drunk had entered her bloodstream, so she was even more pissed when Evans arrived.

Which seems to be a difficult fact to understand.

That's about right. The defence has to raise some evidence that the defendant had a reasonable belief in consent... The prosecution must then disprove that evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In McDonald's case the jury decided that it could not be disproved beyond reasonable doubt, in Evans' case that it was. The reasonable element (in the 'reasonable belief' bit) is important as it's objective. The previous standard was purely subjective so even a completely unreasonable belief would be sufficient.

So was the different verdicts down to the jury deciding that she wasn't too drunk to consent when she met the first bloke, but by the time she got to the hotel she was, so the first bloke could have a reasonable belief to consent as she wasn't too drunk when she agreed to go to the hotel, but Ched having arrived later never had a time when she was able to give consent, or was it that she was never able to give consent but because the first bloke met her after the pub in relatively normal circumstances this would mean that he would have a reasonable belief that she could consent, whereas Ched coming to the hotel following the text was clearly being a predatory fuck and no way he could have a reasonable belief of consent?

Cos if it's the latter then I don't see how these cases open the doors to prosecuting people after drunken one-night stands, if anything I'd say that they show that you're not going to get a conviction in those circumstances, or the first bloke would have been convicted too, surely?
If it's the former then I'm not convinced it directly relates either, since Ched's behaviour wasn't that of someone on the pull on a friday night, where the first bloke's behaviour was*. I think that the jury would be able to see the difference between the actions and why one is rape and the other isn't (necessarily). I don't know how this would change if the people only ever met when one was too drunk to consent though.

*someone who is a predatory rapist and going out on a friday/sat night to find women who are too drunk and take advantage of them will behave in a very similar way to someone who isn't a predatory rapist but pulls someone and genuinely thinks they can give consent, so it's not like there isn't a grey area in reality, but that may be all that means he got acquitted as it couldn't be shown beyond reasonable doubt that he was on the pull and not reasonable to know she was too far gone, rather than heading out to target very drunk women.