To be totally baffled (Ched Evans related)

[soapboxqueen]

Just reading in the guardian that Ched Evans has applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to review his case. That's fine because it is part of our due process and legal system.

However, in the article it points out that his girlfriend's father is paying for appeal barristers, private detectives and even offering a reward for information in order to help his appeal. Why would you do that? Why would you put up so much money to protect a person who at best (from their perspective at least) cheated on your daughter in a rather deplorable fashion and at worst a rapist? Why would got want your daughter to be with such a person?

I really don't understand.

I'll see if I can get the link to work.

Agree

Thank you soapbox and anyfucker for clarifying, yes, let's hope that this latest appeal is turned down.

There may be an angle that because of the high media profile which has implications for his victim's privacy, the sooner the legal side is exhausted the better.

Does anyone know if there's a limit to how often he can apply?

Interesting question, and I can't find the answer to it

If the grounds for appeal are "new evidence" I hope it isn't unlimited. For god's sake, someone has to draw a line under this for the sake of the victim. he is a convicted rapist found guilty under our legal framework. It couldn't be any more clear cut than that.

But wasn't there evidence to suggest that at some point her drink had been spiked?

No. That was her original complaint but a toxicology analysis showed that her drink had not been spiked. She was well over the drink drive limit (2.5 times) and had traces of cocaine and cannabis in her blood. She admitted taking cocaine but said that it was over 1 week before the incident. Expert evidence suggested that, unless she was a very heavy user, the cocaine was taken 3-5 days before the incident.

The central question in this case is whether the victim was able to consent. Some of the posts upthread suggest that posters think she was unconscious at the time. That does not appear to be true. The evidence available suggests she was conscious - the night porter was listening outside the door and heard male and female voices "squealing, panting and groaning". On the evidence available the victim was the only woman in the room.

For clarity, I am not offering any opinion on this case. I am not sufficiently familiar with the evidence.

Everyotherfreckle - but I am encouraged (pathetic little laugh) by the men on that FB page who are asserting that they don't want to watch a rapist play football and that he should not be re-signed. This is balanced of course by the number of women who are saying that of course he should be allowed to play, bless him. OK, I made that last part up but they might as well have said that.

he is a convicted rapist found guilty under our legal framework.

I'm afraid this is on a par with those who said that the conviction of Winston Silcott for the murder of PC Keith Blakelock should not have been investigated further because of the distress to Blakelock's family and the fact that Silcott was a convicted murderer. His conviction was eventually quashed when it became clear that he was nowhere near the scene of the crime. If there has been a miscarriage of justice it needs to be corrected. If there has been no miscarriage the conviction needs to stand.

If someone convicted of a crime comes up with new evidence that throws doubt on their conviction they can always apply to CCRC for a review. However, once the CCRC has looked at a case they won't look at it again for every trivial piece of new evidence found. The new evidence will need to be strong enough to give a reasonable possibility of a different outcome.

pr , is there a limit as to how many times a petition for the right to appeal can be made ?

after two knockbacks, isn't a third attempt a bit of a piss take of the system ?

I hope so, Empire.

I'm afraid this is on a par with those who said that the conviction of Winston Silcott for the murder of PC Keith Blakelock should not have been investigated further because of the distress to Blakelock's family and the fact that Silcott was a convicted murderer. His conviction was eventually quashed when it became clear that he was nowhere near the scene of the crime. If there has been a miscarriage of justice it needs to be corrected. If there has been no miscarriage the conviction needs to stand.

Not a legal expert, but I fail to see how this is 'on a par' with Silcott's conviction. In that case, confessions were fabricated. Chad Evans himself has never suggested that any evidence has been fabricated. There is no question that Ched Evans was present and no question that he 'had a go' at the victim.

Thanks, MEOD.

From what I understand, it was Evan's own testimony that signed his conviction warrant. The only "new evidence" I can see being unearthed would be to do with the victim, and as enough dirt has been flung about in that direction to returf my back and front gardens many times over, I fail to see that there could be any "evidence" useful in securing an appeal

< not an expert, obvs >

No, there is no limit. But obviously with each referral it becomes harder for the convicted person (or their representatives) to come up with new evidence sufficiently significant to result in a fresh investigation.

As far as I am aware this is the first referral of this case to CCRC but I'm happy to be corrected - I haven't been following it that closely. If, however, the two knockbacks to which you refer are the trial and the appeal the same argument could have been made about Silcott, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Sally Clark and a whole host of other miscarriages of justice.

PRH, do you know if CRCC decisions are made public? It's hard to see what new evidence could come to light which affected the "capacity to consent" issue, short of of someone having spoken to the victim shortly after the attack and found her sober!

It is the first referral to CRCC; it's gone to single judge then panel of three judges already.

purplefeathers Mon 20-Oct-14 10:51:00
I don't know why it's not front page news that her identity has been leaked. I believe her safety is more compromised by that than Chloe Madeley's was (not intending to belittle the seriousness of tweets received by her. Oops I sound like Judy now!)

Agree purple but i have a nasty feeling that the reason its not front page news is because she "isnt famous enough" so she doesnt make "good copy"