Ched Evans verdict

How anyone who is remotely informed about this can claim she wasn't traumatised is beyond me...

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ched-evans-rape-trial-woman-crying-hysterically-hotel-victim-latest-a7349276.html

She didn't know she'd had sex but she knew something bad had happene - probably rape. She thought she'd been spiked.

Like most victims, she wasn't going to report anything. She only went to the police because she wanted to try and get her handbag back. In reporting the circumstances of the lost handbag, the police picked up (rightly) that this was more than what she'd reported.

Her friend testified to that effect in both trials. There are also texts from her saying she 'felt horrible'. It's been covered in the trial reporting.

I've never heard that either - is there a link?

Ob she did say in evidence that she was sore and tender between her legs the next day.

Woman, I didn't know that: "The evidence is that she showed up at a friends house the next day, crying and shaking because she didn't know what had happened".
The report I read, said she knew nothing. She had to be prompted/told by presumably Police that she had had sex at all.

If I got that wrong, I apologise.

A man was recently acquitted because he claimed he tripped and fell into his victim.

He was also a millionaire.

Money seems to make a difference.

(as if there wasn't enough of a skew in favour of the rapists).

I would really like to know why that wasn't included this time.

I think that the lack of Macdonalds evidence that she was sick was the issue.
In the first trial he told the receptionist that at the same time ched was alone in the room with the victim, suggesting she was extremely drunk in the room.
This time the jury didn't hear that and the defence barrister made a big deal about how her being pissed in the takeaway didn't mean she was/appeared drunk in the room. There was nothing to counter that and I don't know why.
I'm also interested as to why ched didn't ejaculate. It could be a fit of conscience, as he claims, or could it be he was suddenly turned off by an unconscious, or possibly puking, victim.

I think that was the essential difference buttercup. The two witnesses gave strength to his claim that she was a willing participant - or at least cast enough doubt on the idea that she wasn't that they felt unable to return a guilty verdict.

There is no evidence to show that their opportune appearance wasn't entirely coincidental...

Didn't read the first trial details but Maybe they didn't convict CE because she was too drunk - maybe in the original trial he was convicted because he didn't prove he had belief in consent.

The addition of the two witnesses, collaborating language that she used in consensual sex then supported his claim that he believed she consented?

Does it gobbolino?

A man was recently acquitted because he claimed he tripped and fell into his victim.

I think the chances of justice are slim whether the victim is able to give a detailed account or not. Men are given the benefit of the doubt, rape victims are not.

They can't use the fact she was out of it, sick etc against Evans when they didn't use it against consent in macdonalds case.

She got into a taxi with McDonald. She went back to his hotel room. She may have been very, very drunk, and she may not have consented to sex with him, but the circumstances were not the same.

If a victim can dispute the account of a defendant, it does make a conviction more likely.

Sorry - the victim could not remember anything

No - it's more likely that the jury in the first trial thought she was too drunk but that clayton had 'reasonable belief' because she'd got into a taxi etc. with him. It seems clear that they thought she was too drunk, otherwise they wouldn't have convicted CE.

His contemporaneous account of what happened in the room could not be challenged as the witness could not remember anything. Macdonald generally corroborated his account in as far as he was there. Evidence about wetting the bed etc could be put to Evans. Presumably he would say that he didn't know if he wasn't there when the victim did wet the bed.

However, from reading the transcripts, the wetting the bed evidence came from the victim. The police did not take the sheets as evidence so there is no corroboration of that. Further, wetting the bed is not a killer blow as it is possible to give consent whilst drunk.

Sorry typos - they accepted
Lanyard - language
Cake - came

I understand gobbolino. I don't think knowing the whys will help someone thinking of reporting though. All they will see is that someone who was blatantly guilty enough that their own testimony convicted them on their first trial, is now 'free' because of reasonable doubt. And I don't know any rape victim who can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did not consent.

I'm just trying to clarify what happened and why in case someone who is thinking of reporting is reading

But it's not clear, even if sober, what about another rape would make a guilty verdict more likely.

But how drunk she was and how that impacted on consent was accepted by the jury in macdonalds case so I guess they couldn't pick and choose. She accepted she was waywas out of it but they also accepted he believed she gave consent dispite how drunk she was.

So presumably, given his and macdonalds account, the 2 witnesses in terms of lanyard used etc, they determined that he too may have thought he gave consent? They can't use the fact she was out of it, sick etc against Evans when they didn't use it against consent in macdonalds case. Since she offered no comment the only evidence regarding perceived consent cake from the defence

The jury convicted on the evidence at the second trial. That's what I'm commenting on.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that I think Evans is not a rapist etc. None if us know - unfortunately the only people who truly know what went on in the room are Evans and Macdonald (although he did leave before Evans). Whether the evidence they gave was truthful or not, none of us know for sure.

I'm just trying to clarify what happened and why in case someone who is thinking of reporting is reading.

He's had a lot more time to practise his story. And the jury also weren't told about CM telling the receptionist that the girl was 'sick' this time.

I think it's untrue to say that his account couldn't be challenged because she couldn't remember, as there are plenty of other facts and account which are not consistent with his account. (CM describing the girl as 'sick' is a big one imo). Just because the jury didn't get to hear it, doesn't mean that there wasn't evidence to contradict him.

Oh I forgot. My sister and DH had to carry me home. I passed out on the floor of my flat and was sick where I lay. They had to put me in the shower and get the worst of the sick out of my hair before putting me to bed.

Lucky I wasn't out alone.