Ched Evans verdict

Because the only thing that is a pattern of, is a pattern of her being taken advantage of by predatory males.

"because it was claimed by witnesses that she had had consensual sex with other men and forgotten it the day after."

Shame she didn't lose her handbag those times too, really.

Even if you think it wasn't 'rape', what he did was worse than just 'infidelity'. It was predatory and despicable, the actions of a scumbag, even if you believe CE's pack of lies account of events.

I couldn't stay with a man who behaved like that.

flippinada

I can only assume, as hard as you find it to understand, that she believed he was innocent of the charge and loved him enough to forgive the infidelity. As you point out yourself she certainly didn't stick with him for the money.

This whole case is just hideous.

One of the (very) many things that troubles me deeply about this case is the lengths gone to by CE's fiance and her father to defend him. Why?

I could perhaps understand a bit more (but not condone) if she was from a poor background and CE's money supported her family but they are wealthy themselves.

I keep coming back to that, because I can't understand it at all..to me is one of the most disturbing aspects of the case

She didn't claim she'd been raped because she had no idea what had happened.

I imagine that, once she found out what had happened to her, she very much considered it rape. But it wasn't her that called it that - it was the police.

The police interviewed him and CM, looked at their behaviour and other evidence (cctv and independent witnesses) and concluded that it was rape. So did the CPS.

It is a myth that a victim has to 'press charges' for a rapist to be prosecuted.

His sexual history wasn't relevant though and neither was here's -apart from the fact she had had sex and then forgotten on other occasions.

What I don't get, is if she didn't complain or consider it rape herself, how it got as far as it did in the first place?

Ninja, nice post.

If her sexual history was considered relevant then certainly his should have been as well. Poor prosecution lawyer? Or lack of funds to pursue?

And the film taken by two men wasn't shown either (which might have proved something) and no action was taken against them for filming.

Can't help thinking it might be better to stop using the word 'rape', sexual assault perhaps, GBH or assault against a person.

If it's quite clear that she did not report him for rape – he said so himself and again in today's Sunday Times – why is she described as the complainant? Don't understand that bit.

You know what? I hope he does sue & then someone else with deep pockets & the right resources (his previous employers & previous solicitors) do some digging to defend against the brass neck CE would need to even go there & that will unravel the whole house of cards that odious fucker has built in 'buying' so-called justice. Now that would be justice.

To be fair - the girls sexual history was only brought up because it was considered relevant - not with regard to number of partners, history etc but because it was claimed by witnesses that she had had consensual sex with other men and forgotten it the day after. Thus having a direct influence on this case too. (Consensual in terms of, she never considered it rape.)

Just to add - CE's defence tried every angle they could think of. They tried to suggest X already had prior history of sleeping with strangers - only they then had to drop that as 1 witness conceded they did not have sex the 1st time they met (I can imagine he gave the impression she did ).

They tried to undermine X's claim she had no memory - the vitriol against X about her being a liar & somehow having the power to acquit CE if only she'd admit to remembering what happened IMO stemmed from the desperate attempts of CE's defence to suggest that was a possibility with absolutely no evidence of that claim whatsoever. Even the other witness was motivated by that belief, even stating so in court.

All the independent evidence about how X appeared i.e. drunk, from the kebab shop CCTV, hotel CCTV, taxi driver & hotel receptionist all confirm she was pretty wasted - and still that fucking website tried to suggest all that evidence was some kind of fabrication/misrepresentation.

And of course, that mythical social media crap too - where the fuck was that in the defence?

An accused rapist has the right to defend himself against that accusation but it's absolutely galling to see every rape defence lawyer work through a tick box list of rape myths as they try to build up that so-called defence. And in doing so, create a narrative about a victim that comes no where near reality - its then just tough luck if the fall out means some fuckwits believe the shit thrown at rape victims by defence lawyers.

That's what angers me so much - defence lawyers can accuse/throw mud to get a reaction/response they think might prove that point & even when it's refuted (as X did re that 'striking phrase' 2 low life scum bags claimed she said) it's still taken as some sort of irrefutable fact instead of fed/widely available information 'bought' with £50k.

Im getting angrier and angrier the more I talk about this. It's fucking outrageous what has been allowed to take place.

Merrymouse - I thought the same. He is deluded if he thinks any of that will do him good

The accused on the other hand is protected. 'Bad character' evidence can be used in some cases, but generally the accused's life is off limits. (As is seen in the CE trial - it was her life that was scrutinised, not his.)

Completely agree ninja. However, with threats to seek compensation and sue his lawyers he also seems to be planning to use those funds to dig a deeper hole.

If you are a victim in a rape trial, your entire private life is up for grabs by the defence:

• sexual history (if the judge grants permission, which they often do)
• medical records
• counselling notes
• SS records, if there are any
• etc...

In my case, the defence wrote to all my friends, asking to meet with them trying to dig dirt. (To be clear - none of these friends had witnessed the incident or ever met the rapist)

In my case, my sexual history was so minimal that it probably worked in favour of the prosecution. But it shouldn't have been relevant at all. I shouldn't have had to describe exactly what I had and hadn't done before because it made no difference to whether the accused was guilty.

woman I wonder if your sexual history had involved a criminal conviction would that have meant none of it could be used? Or is it just that he was the accused and you weren't?

Given the huge disparity in funds for investigating the details surrounding this case, none of that information would have been found even if the prosecution felt it relevant. CE's defence had what looks like a bottomless pit of cash to keep digging until the evidence fit any narrative that got an acquittal.

The amount of time/effort/money it would take to piece together CE & his cronies actions/history would have been huge - I've no doubt if the money was there & there was the available staff support, there would be plenty found on CE & his friends/family over a 5/6 year period. But which CPS has that sort of time/ resource available for every case they deal with?

Those with money more often than not find a way to 'buy' so- called justice. £5M seems to be the going price in CE's case.

(Conversely, my non-criminal sexual history was raised in court. The fact that mine was considered fair game but his criminal history was deemed off limits shows how rotten it is.)

Jen - you're right. The sexual behaviour of an accused rapist is relevant. But the sexual behaviour of a complainant is not. I would very much like to see a change in the law over this.

Even where a man has previous sexual offence convictions, which are extremely relevant to the trial, (as my rapist did) the jury might not be informed. The jury were only told about my rapist's previous indecent assault/ABH conviction after they'd found him guilty - how can that be right?

An unpleasant thought that I have nicked off someone on Facebook...

"What's worrying, is that at the very extreme end of the scale... an angry, psychotic ex boyfriend could arrange for someone to rape his ex girlfriend, then act as witness in a trial to discredit her. Nice one Ched... the unsavoury gift that keeps on giving."

We know that his friend convicted of beating a woman and trying to throw her in front of a taxi that same night did so in retaliation to her headbutting him (she was also convicted of affray). And we know that this woman headbutted him when he intervened in an altercation between her when A.N. Other man, when Mr Other made comments of a sexual nature to her. Mr Other was one of Javan's friends. I wonder which one.

But none of this context was relevant. Only how the victim conducted her consensual sex life.

I still think CE's sexual history should have been allowed. I mean, we know he has cheated on his GF before, we know he has had threesomes with his mate before, we know him and his mates are all very comfortable with videoing each other and strange women having sex without permission and we know at least one of his mates (who he was going to support) is a convicted woman beater. Pretty sure they would have found something that supported the prosecutions case that this was rape. Appeals by the prosecution for his former sexual partners to come forward in exchange for £50k would have been allowed wouldn't they?

^ if so

One thing that I have no doubt about is that the use of sexual history evidence in rape trials should be totally banned. This trial has shown that the notion that there can be 'exceptional circumstances' that warrant the use of sexual history evience in court is utter bollocks.

Has a petition been started to demand this? I'd like to sign it if do.