Ched Evans verdict

But gobbolino, that was the evidence at the first trial.

The difference at this trial was that the evidence from the two witnesses gave more strength to his claim that she had enthusiastic sex.

originally, based on just his word, he was convicted.

I wonder how many "lads" thought twice about picking up a very drunk woman after the first trial. I wonder how many of them have gone back to their old behaviours now.

I don't know about everyone else, but I've had alcohol induced amnesia a few times in my life - however I only wet the bed once. And that was the time I tripped over a bin bag (last thing I remember), chipped one of my front teeth on the floor, which also went through my lip, and had to have emergency dental work the next day. That, ime, is piss-the-bed-drunk.

How on earth could he claim reasonable belief when he never once even spoke to the victim

His evidence was that Macdonald asked the victim if Evans could join in and she agreed. She asked him to give her oral sex and then proceeded to have enthusiastic penetrative sex with him. None of this could be challenged as the victim couldn't remember anything.

On that basis, the jury decided that Evans reasonably believed she was consenting.

The fact that she'd wet the bed (another objective fact, unlike CE's claims) is also testament to how out of it she was.

and had no memory of actually having sex with him either.

I have to admit that I have lost track of which other man had sex when.

However.

Man A was somebody she had known for years - their mothers lived on the same street. She actually slept with him a few times before she had sex with him as in apparently drunkenly fell asleep in his bed but had no memory of what had happened.

Man B was somebody she met on face book. They exchanged messages (which for all I know we're full of sex) then went to a party with him then had sex with him the next day and had sex with him on a few other occasions.

No evidence was presented to show that she was routinely picking up strangers in bars for one night stands. However, even if she was, CM appears to have been the one night stand. CE, from the information he gave, was just somebody who walked into the room.

Do we want our daughters to behave like this? Well, she appears to have had a massive problem with alcohol. However, as far as the sex with the witnesses are concerned, I suspect there are many, many 19 year olds from all walks of life having this kind of sex. Isn't that the kind of thing they do on 'Made in Chelsea ' pretty much every week?

Yes.

It's not that rare for women to be raped whilst asleep etc.

The reason it was brought to trial is because CE's own account showed behaviour that was consistent with rape. How on earth could he claim reasonable belief when he never once even spoke to the victim. He decided to have sex with her when he turned his taxi around (having received the "got a bird" text) - before he'd even met her.

Defendants in rape cases always claim the victim was enthusiastic and consenting. It's what they do. That doesn't mean their claims should be treated as credible. All the most credible evidence in this case (cctv, receptionist's account) was that she was too out of it to behave in the way CE claimed.

Fairly rare in a case that gets to trial surely?

I can only talk about reported cases and my own personal experience. I can't surmise on cases which don't go to trial. However, in terms of reported cases, it is fairly rare for a victim to remember nothing and be unable to challenge the defendant(s) account, yes.

"fairly rare for the victim in a rape case to remember nothing"

Fairly rare in a case that gets to trial surely?

Even a screaming stranger rape - if he genuinely believes that her shouting no wasreallya yes, then "he, at that moment believed she was consenting". Iyswim?

Depressingly this has been used as a successful defence many times. Men claim that they thought the woman liked rough sex and therefore didn't mean it when they said no or fought back.

But what's the judgement of what belief is "reasonable"? I think it makes it dodgy, the only question should be "did she consent".

But according to the article it doesn't matter if she was traumatised (though I've not read that anywhere) - the issue was if they believed she gave consent. The fact that she was drunk doesn't matter it seems in this second case. Even if it was drink consent it still applies.

His attitude towards women isn't on trial though - only facts.

I'm not excusing by the way, just trying to understand the different verdicts

The evidence given (and unchallenged, as far as I can see) is that McDonald asked if Evans could join in and the victim consented. They both corroborated each other's account. The victim couldn't challenge it as her accepted evidence is that she can remember nothing at all of what happened.

To prove rape, the CPS woukd have required to demonstrate that:

That the victim was not consenting (because she was incapable through intoxication);

(ii) That Evans did not reasonably believe victim was consenting.

Evan's evidence was that Macdonald asked if he could join in and the victim agreed and that, further to this, she was an enthusiastic participant in what followed. Again, both Evans and Macdonald corroborated each other and the victim could not give any evidence to challenge this.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that Evans behaved in a pretty despicable way. However, this is a very unusual case as it is fairly rare for the victim in a rape case to remember nothing and be unable to challenge the evidence of the defendants. Further, every case does turn very much on its own facts - particularly rape cases where the determination of consent is obviously key.

There are a lot of good points on this thread but there is also a lot of mis-reporting of the facts and misapplication of the law which I think is perhaps unhelpful in respect of women deciding to report rapes and sexual assaults.

I find it surprising that a man could claim that he stopped having sex with a fully conscious, enthusiastic woman and she wouldn't say anything, or ask why he stopped.

That is a good point. Surely if she was conscious and fully consenting she would have asked him why he stopped. Who wouldn't? Unless they were completely unaware of what was happening to them. I'm
Surprised this didn't come up in court actually.

The more I think about this case the angrier I get. He went into that hotel room with one motive and one motive only and I think he would have had sex with her whether she was enthusiastically consenting or completely unconscious. The whole thing stinks.

It's not whether he had belief. It's whether his belief was reasonable.
It's really depressing that people think that a man can reasonably believed he has consent from an extremely drunk woman he's never spoken to.
Interestingly in Macdonalds original testimony no one asked her if she wanted sex with ched. Ched asked MacDonald if he could "have a go".
The more I read about this case the more depressed I get. So many people think the answer is to tell girls not to get drunk, seemingly forgetting about drink spiking. Yet no one seems to think we should expect young men not to shag drunk women. Because if she's too drunk to consent, that's her look out. Yuck.

given that they both drank who's to say 100% that he didn't believe she didn't give consent? Genuine question

In most rape cases only two people are present and you could argue that it's one person's word against another. That is why other circumstances are taken into account and why CM wasn't convicted at the first trial and CE was.

It's certainly true that the accused is given the benefit of the doubt and isn't so much proved innocent as proved not to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The jury and the appeal judges could all have thought it more than likely that CE committed rape, but could still fail to find him guilty.

You don't have to remember being raped to be traumatised by the knowledge that two men did what they wanted with your body while you were too out of it to stop them.

This should go without saying, but clearly not.

^ wtf, not wrt

But she never claimed rape. She wasn't traumatised by the thought that CE and cMcD both forced her into something she didnt want to do. She didn't feel that. Because she remembered nothing about it.

Wrt are you talking about? 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. Sounds like trauma to me.

Odfod

This case is just awful on every level. Agree with pp, how did it ever get this far? She went to the police station re a lost/stolen hand bag. She was TOLD that she'd had sex with CE and she said she didn't remember that. She remembered nothing. it later transpired that she had done similar with another man the month before? - and had no memory of actually having sex with him either.

Now, as an aside, nothing to do with a rape case, but that's not good is it? None of us would want our dd's to have sex and then know nothing about it. Whether that's through drink, or some sort of memory issue, or whatever medical reason, that's just not good. Doesn't deserve rape, because nothing does. But in life generally, for our daughters, for safety, that really shouldn't happen to anyone.

But she never claimed rape. She wasn't traumatised by the thought that CE and cMcD both forced her into something she didnt want to do. She didn't feel that. Because she remembered nothing about it. Did the CPS push this and run with it all. Did she really want this?

Its just a mess. Poor her.

"From reading the above article it seems they had to return not guilty if -
they thought she was unable to give consent
-OR if they believed he thought she gave consent."

I think the unpleasant truth is that he probably didn't care if she had given consent - what mattered was that his mate had said it was ok for him to 'have a go' on the woman HE had 'got'. Awful, horrible attitude but it seems ingrained in some men.

Horrible verdict and really depressing. The only good thing is that some of the papers seem to have dimly realised this wasn't a fine moment for UK justice or for women and girls everywhere.

As I said (here? Somewhere else? I forget...) I find the "he, at that moment believed she was consenting" rule problematic. If a man (cough footballer cough) genuinely believes he is gods gift to women and no woman could possibly say no to his perfect-ness, does that make him legally incapable of rape?
Even a screaming stranger rape - if he genuinely believes that her shouting no was really a yes, then "he, at that moment believed she was consenting". Iyswim?

I find it surprising that a man could claim that he stopped having sex with a fully conscious, enthusiastic woman and she wouldn't say anything, or ask why he stopped. Yet that is what he claims. He says she was wildly shouting 'fuck me harder', but that she and he both said absolutely nothing when he stopped and walked out.

It's just not credible. The fact that he didn't need to say anything when he stopped indicated that she was out of it and not really aware what was happening in the first place (imo anyway).

But by his own admission he didn't even speak to her - not before, not during and not aftet. So what was his 'reasonable belief' based on?

The receptionist testified as to how out of it she was.

From reading the above article it seems they had to return not guilty if -
they thought she was unable to give consent
-OR if they believed he thought she gave consent.

Therefore I have to say, controversial as it is, that I'm suprised it got past the first trial as there were no witnesses in that room, she didn't and still doesn't say she was raped - given that they both drank who's to say 100% that he didn't believe she didn't give consent? Genuine question.

Initially with the first trial, I thought it was cut and dry -if too drunk for consent, then no consent was given (so guilty) but that article says they had to return not guilty if he believed she gave consent?

So in this trial emphasis wasn't on whether she gave consent but rather if he believed she did. In which case, those witnesses in terms of terminology are relevant. If he believed it, then that was all he needed to prove?

I'm not justifying all the other behaviour, filming, turning up out the blue etc - all terrinle behaviour but that not wasn't on trial so in legal sense irrelevant.