Ched Evans

Frank the tank

I believe he is a man of low moral standards and poor judgement, But, from what I have read and heard I would not have found him guilty of rape.

slowmart

Frank the tank wrote:

I believe he is a man of low moral standards and poor judgement, But, from what I have read and heard I would not have found him guilty of rape.

So when is it rape ? If Evans team mate called the entire 1st team round rather than Evans for a gang bang and the woman was to drunk to consent, is that still not rape?

The only difference is the number of people involved.

Btw, Evans expensive legal team which built the appeal will no doubt be retained so let's hope the jury selection have the intellect and intelligence to sift through the noise for a fair verdict.

kingstonian

Will be interesting to see what the new evidence is that has made the original conviction unsafe.

Frank the tank

Kingstonian wrote:

Will be interesting to see what the new evidence is that has made the original conviction unsafe.

Yes.

bendertherobot

So........there we are then.

dinyull

Kingstonian wrote:

Will be interesting to see what the new evidence is that has made the original conviction unsafe.

Ex sexual partners, so it seems.


Haven't read this thread, but always found this case a bit strange. The girl can't remember giving consent, but also can't remember a lot from the night. My memory is shocking when I've had a good drink, always lose large chunks of a night out.

I hope for the girls sake this is the correct decision, because it's tragic if not.

pblakeney

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

bendertherobot

If anyone's interested have a read of section 41-43 of theYouth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

It's interesting that the reports are that this is rare. It is, but it's specifically provided for in law for cases such as this. It wasn't run, I would imagine, at the original trial because those statements were not present. And, of course, given victim anonymity finding people who'd testify to such matters is problematic. And it applies in a limited amount of cases. So yes, it's rare. But there's a context to that rarity.

slowmart

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Pity we don't as the world would be a better place without this lowlife scum

Let's look at the facts. His campaign offer a £50k reward for information leading to the overturning of his conviction.

Two former boyfriends of the victim then testify to the victims sexual behaviours.

Cheds girlfriend is threatened with prosecution due to fact that she brings the reward to the attention of a material witness

The campaign employ private detectives to reexamine the case. Oh and the judge allows evidence of the victims previous sexual behaviours as relevant to the case. The full repercussions of this decision are massive and drive victims away from the judicial process as they then become judged.

Somehow it seems the "justice" this cunt has got is beyond the reach of most people due their finances.

bendertherobot

There's no question that money talks and that's a real problem for our justice system. It's all pretty complex. Would legal aid pay for some of this stuff? Possibly not, so does that person suffer? Yes. Is that Ched Evan's fault or the fault of a flawed system.

The Judge did allow that evidence. Not on a whim. On a careful examination of sections 41-43 of the Act and with some security given that the Court of Appeal had already ratified that approach with a full evaluation of the effect of that evidence. This isn't necessarily the slippery slope the papers would have you believe, it's been on the statute books for 17 years.

And, consider this, given the victim's right to anonymity there are huge questions of how on earth you dig up these new witnesses in the first place. Nevertheless, it took a mere 2 hours to acquit having heard all the evidence of the case. That's pretty quick.

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Pity we don't as the world would be a better place without this lowlife scum

Let's look at the facts. His campaign offer a £50k reward for information leading to the overturning of his conviction.

Two former boyfriends of the victim then testify to the victims sexual behaviours.

Cheds girlfriend is threatened with prosecution due to fact that she brings the reward to the attention of a material witness

The campaign employ private detectives to reexamine the case. Oh and the judge allows evidence of the victims previous sexual behaviours as relevant to the case. The full repercussions of this decision are massive and drive victims away from the judicial process as they then become judged.

Somehow it seems the "justice" this **** has got is beyond the reach of most people due their finances.

You don't have to like an innocent man or woman.

bendertherobot

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Pity we don't as the world would be a better place without this lowlife scum

Let's look at the facts. His campaign offer a £50k reward for information leading to the overturning of his conviction.

Two former boyfriends of the victim then testify to the victims sexual behaviours.

Cheds girlfriend is threatened with prosecution due to fact that she brings the reward to the attention of a material witness

The campaign employ private detectives to reexamine the case. Oh and the judge allows evidence of the victims previous sexual behaviours as relevant to the case. The full repercussions of this decision are massive and drive victims away from the judicial process as they then become judged.

Somehow it seems the "justice" this **** has got is beyond the reach of most people due their finances.

You don't have to like an innocent man or woman.

Rubbish, everyone loves Billy Joel and Tom Selleck.

slowmart

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Pity we don't as the world would be a better place without this lowlife scum

Let's look at the facts. His campaign offer a £50k reward for information leading to the overturning of his conviction.

Two former boyfriends of the victim then testify to the victims sexual behaviours.

Cheds girlfriend is threatened with prosecution due to fact that she brings the reward to the attention of a material witness

The campaign employ private detectives to reexamine the case. Oh and the judge allows evidence of the victims previous sexual behaviours as relevant to the case. The full repercussions of this decision are massive and drive victims away from the judicial process as they then become judged.

Somehow it seems the "justice" this **** has got is beyond the reach of most people due their finances.

You don't have to like an innocent man or woman.

It's not a question of subjectivity, but simply what's right. Making the victim's behaviour a component in the juries deliberations of the accused actions, to me, is wrong. As is offering a reward which then changes the testimony of previous witnesses statements. That's wrong. Running an online hate campaign against the victim, that's wrong.

Additionally the victim's image being published by two national newspapers is wrong. The law was changed after the first infraction and when the torygraph published another image they were fined £80k

So I doubt any victims of rape will be encouraged to report the offence to police as not only do they have to testify they have their behaviour on trial as well.

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Pity we don't as the world would be a better place without this lowlife scum

Let's look at the facts. His campaign offer a £50k reward for information leading to the overturning of his conviction.

Two former boyfriends of the victim then testify to the victims sexual behaviours.

Cheds girlfriend is threatened with prosecution due to fact that she brings the reward to the attention of a material witness

The campaign employ private detectives to reexamine the case. Oh and the judge allows evidence of the victims previous sexual behaviours as relevant to the case. The full repercussions of this decision are massive and drive victims away from the judicial process as they then become judged.

Somehow it seems the "justice" this **** has got is beyond the reach of most people due their finances.

You don't have to like an innocent man or woman.

It's not a question of subjectivity, but simply what's right. Making the victim's behaviour a component in the juries deliberations of the accused actions, to me, is wrong. As is offering a reward which then changes the testimony of previous witnesses statements. That's wrong. Running an online hate campaign against the victim, that's wrong.

Additionally the victim's image being published by two national newspapers is wrong. The law was changed after the first infraction and when the torygraph published another image they were fined £80k

So I doubt any victims of rape will be encouraged to report the offence to police as not only do they have to testify they have their behaviour on trial as well.

But, did he rape her?

pblakeney

bendertherobot wrote:

Rubbish, everyone loves Billy Joel and Tom Selleck.

Not everyone.

FishFish

If I was him I'd get rid of the gf before she becomes fat, a victim and unending source of personal focus.

slowmart

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Pity we don't as the world would be a better place without this lowlife scum

Let's look at the facts. His campaign offer a £50k reward for information leading to the overturning of his conviction.

Two former boyfriends of the victim then testify to the victims sexual behaviours.

Cheds girlfriend is threatened with prosecution due to fact that she brings the reward to the attention of a material witness

The campaign employ private detectives to reexamine the case. Oh and the judge allows evidence of the victims previous sexual behaviours as relevant to the case. The full repercussions of this decision are massive and drive victims away from the judicial process as they then become judged.

Somehow it seems the "justice" this **** has got is beyond the reach of most people due their finances.

You don't have to like an innocent man or woman.

It's not a question of subjectivity, but simply what's right. Making the victim's behaviour a component in the juries deliberations of the accused actions, to me, is wrong. As is offering a reward which then changes the testimony of previous witnesses statements. That's wrong. Running an online hate campaign against the victim, that's wrong.

Additionally the victim's image being published by two national newspapers is wrong. The law was changed after the first infraction and when the torygraph published another image they were fined £80k

So I doubt any victims of rape will be encouraged to report the offence to police as not only do they have to testify they have their behaviour on trial as well.

But, did he rape her?

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

Not really.
If you want to start a thread on the failings of the judicial system then crack on.

pinno

But it is a failing of the judicial system and perhaps a lack of control of the press or breaches in disclosure of information that we are in the situation of wondering if he is or he isn't. It leads to unsatisfactory conclusion for either parties.

Last nigh on Newsnight, an author of a book about professional footballers was saying that they retain teenage attributes long after the teenage years. This explains a lot of their behaviour: Boys with toys and girls and money to fuel their boyish lifestyles.

bendertherobot

Pinno wrote:

But it is a failing of the judicial system and perhaps a lack of control of the press or breaches in disclosure of information that we are in the situation of wondering if he is or he isn't. It leads to unsatisfactory conclusion for either parties.

Last nigh on Newsnight, an author of a book about professional footballers was saying that they retain teenage attributes long after the teenage years. This explains a lot of their behaviour: Boys with toys and girls and money to fuel their boyish lifestyles.

It's a complex failing though. Part of it is a failing of the system as it's set up, where newspapers breach current written law. Part is a failing of what hopes we have for our justice system as, it seems, most commentators find it unsatisfactory that our system permits the introduction of this evidence. Today on the news it seems we've been "set back 30 years." That's a bit silly coming from the solicitor general, we've been set back precisely 17 years given the introduction of the relevant provision.

A lot is made of the floodgates argument here but, actually, this is one of those really rare cases in which this evidence was allowed because it's so strikingly similar. The 1999 Act prevented this sort of thing happening unless there was compelling evidence to allow it.

But now we're left with a biq question which is how witnesses came forward in relation to an anonymous complainant. The £50k? Word of mouth? Did the newspapers mess this up for the complainant? And, given complainant anonymity isn't that a potential issue for similarly prosecuted people?

This is case worthy of wider discussion but not necessarily for the reasons the media would have us think.

bendertherobot

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/ ... vans-case/

That's a good and balanced read.

pinno

bendertherobot wrote:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

That's a good and balanced read.

Concluding with:

"10. What does this whole affair say about our society?
Christ knows. Nothing good."

bendertherobot

I agree with that. Hence why the Judge told the jury to ignore morality because, well, footballers.

FishFish

I think he meant her morality.

bendertherobot

FishFish wrote:

I think he meant her morality.

SHE meant the morals of everyone involved.

CiB

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Pity we don't as the world would be a better place without this lowlife scum

Let's look at the facts. His campaign offer a £50k reward for information leading to the overturning of his conviction.

Two former boyfriends of the victim then testify to the victims sexual behaviours.

Cheds girlfriend is threatened with prosecution due to fact that she brings the reward to the attention of a material witness

The campaign employ private detectives to reexamine the case. Oh and the judge allows evidence of the victims previous sexual behaviours as relevant to the case. The full repercussions of this decision are massive and drive victims away from the judicial process as they then become judged.

Somehow it seems the "justice" this **** has got is beyond the reach of most people due their finances.

You don't have to like an innocent man or woman.

It's not a question of subjectivity, but simply what's right. Making the victim's behaviour a component in the juries deliberations of the accused actions, to me, is wrong. As is offering a reward which then changes the testimony of previous witnesses statements. That's wrong. Running an online hate campaign against the victim, that's wrong.

Additionally the victim's image being published by two national newspapers is wrong. The law was changed after the first infraction and when the torygraph published another image they were fined £80k

So I doubt any victims of rape will be encouraged to report the offence to police as not only do they have to testify they have their behaviour on trial as well.

It would seem that some people would prefer to jail innoncent men rather than test factual evidence upon which the case rested, and then turned.

From what I've read on this case, the offer of £50k was made to the hotel porter; two different men came forward with their evidence after the original trial once they realised the link.

Offering money for evidence to gain prosecution evidence seems quite the norm on programmes like Crimewatch, and high profile cases. Why the distaste for allowing it for evidence that supports the case for the defence? If you're hinting at perjury or bribery, the new evidence came about after the first trial and was what led to the appeal being granted. The judges on both the appeal and the retrial seem to be okay with it, and the peanlty for perjury is usually quite high.

This hasn't set rape cases back 30 years, or 17. What it has done is to highlight that in cases where the claimant makes specific claims about what she would never say or do during sexual activity the central tenet of the case against the defendant, there is a possibility that those claims may be tested where the judiciary believes that such evidence falls within the allowances made in the relevant act that overrides the law denying previous sexual history to be used as evidence. That three appeal court judges allowed this evidence 'with some degree of hesitation' suggests that we aren't going back to those dark days.

veronese68

I don't care what the law says, in my eyes he's a scumbag.
I've been in a situation with a girl that I knew to be drunk was very keen,I said no because I knew she was in no fit state. The bloke is a lowlife scumbag whatever the law may say.

slowmart

CiB wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Pity we don't as the world would be a better place without this lowlife scum

Let's look at the facts. His campaign offer a £50k reward for information leading to the overturning of his conviction.

Two former boyfriends of the victim then testify to the victims sexual behaviours.

Cheds girlfriend is threatened with prosecution due to fact that she brings the reward to the attention of a material witness

The campaign employ private detectives to reexamine the case. Oh and the judge allows evidence of the victims previous sexual behaviours as relevant to the case. The full repercussions of this decision are massive and drive victims away from the judicial process as they then become judged.

Somehow it seems the "justice" this **** has got is beyond the reach of most people due their finances.

You don't have to like an innocent man or woman.

It's not a question of subjectivity, but simply what's right. Making the victim's behaviour a component in the juries deliberations of the accused actions, to me, is wrong. As is offering a reward which then changes the testimony of previous witnesses statements. That's wrong. Running an online hate campaign against the victim, that's wrong.

Additionally the victim's image being published by two national newspapers is wrong. The law was changed after the first infraction and when the torygraph published another image they were fined £80k

So I doubt any victims of rape will be encouraged to report the offence to police as not only do they have to testify they have their behaviour on trial as well.

It would seem that some people would prefer to jail innoncent men rather than test factual evidence upon which the case rested, and then turned.

From what I've read on this case, the offer of £50k was made to the hotel porter; two different men came forward with their evidence after the original trial once they realised the link.

Offering money for evidence to gain prosecution evidence seems quite the norm on programmes like Crimewatch, and high profile cases. Why the distaste for allowing it for evidence that supports the case for the defence? If you're hinting at perjury or bribery, the new evidence came about after the first trial and was what led to the appeal being granted. The judges on both the appeal and the retrial seem to be okay with it, and the peanlty for perjury is usually quite high.

This hasn't set rape cases back 30 years, or 17. What it has done is to highlight that in cases where the claimant makes specific claims about what she would never say or do during sexual activity the central tenet of the case against the defendant, there is a possibility that those claims may be tested where the judiciary believes that such evidence falls within the allowances made in the relevant act that overrides the law denying previous sexual history to be used as evidence. That three appeal court judges allowed this evidence 'with some degree of hesitation' suggests that we aren't going back to those dark days.

Its a pity the degree of hesitation from the appeal court judges wasn't more as this widens the law in its application and will deter victims from coming forward.

That's the net result

cycleclinic

I agree he is a scumbag in that he took advantage of the victim here but that may not make what he did rape. The law certainly seems to see it that way. the law is a grey moral area here I think on balance the right decision has been made He certainly has not got away with it and has not come out smelling of roses.

pinno

If there was any doubt that the victim was too drunk and in no fit state to consent then it may not be rape but in that scenario, he should never have proceeded. Rich footballers are hardly lacking on sexual opportunities.