To think the Ched Evans verdict shows why mob justice is wrong

[JonathanDunn]

Hundreds of thousands of people were willing Condemn a innocent man. He was practically forced out of football. This is why we can't play jury from our sofas.

Speaking of which though, I have a family member found not guilty of a similar crime.
I believe his victims and have as close to cut him out as I can.

Oh pinky, we both missed the Jo Yates bloke being trotted out.

Poor jo - her murder has become about a man.

No evidence pinky, just my personal view based on my idea of justice.

Your view is based on nothing. Just speculation that being accused of rape is worse than any other crime. It isn't.

Comparing it to the Christopher Jefferies case is like comparing apples and oranges. The controversy primarily surrounded the press' behaviour because Jeffries fit a 'weirdo' stereotype. Being "in law" not that you actually are you should know the reason anonymity is not given is to allow witnesses and other victims to come forward. It's proven that seeing your abusers face in the paper gives you the courage to tell your own story. That is so much more important than protecting identities of people who have been accused of a crime - these people haven't been picked at random, evidence is stacked against them and to charge a person the CPS must reasonably believe they could be found guilty.

Again I desperately hope you don't work in law

Slightly off point but I have been with friends when very young who have fallen over when drunk and, yes, stopped to wee in the street, and been perfectly capable of consenting to sex.

But, Grumpy, you claimed that she was walking quite normally. Suddenly you seem to accept that she wasn't but want to interpret it differently. Really, your argument is all over the place.

I find it quite extraordinary that you repeatedly claim that your opinions have special weight because you are allegedly a lawyer, but you are incapable of understanding the legal issues involved which mean that the original verdicts were legally entirely legitimate; and you are still ignoring and failing to acknowledge your basic error in stating that the woman concerned alleged rape when she did not.

Maybe the moral compass of some people can be reset to what is normal by looking at the case. If nothing else Ched Evans hopefully will be able to educate fellow sportsmen after his own experience. For those people saying use of her sexual history being used is wrong if you read the details there is a huge link, whether or not you agree, that if you were the mother of a young man you would most likely feel was highly relevant. I really hope the young lady also reflects on this, she most certainly was violated but it is vital young women understand about not putting themselves in precarious situations. Are there any winners in this ? No. is there a lesson? Yes, society needs to educate young people about consent, about self respect and about fame creating celebrities when they are sports people first. Rape is rape and we must not allow any case including this one to dilute the seriousness of rape, be it a male or female victim.

Beyond how long before someone mentioned the odious John Leslie? I give it to page 16

Sorry if Jo Yates was previously mentioned, don't have time to rtft, much as I'd like to. No need to be snide, this is an interesting discussion.

Dangerous to dismiss this sort of thing though. What if that was your son? Your dad? Your partner? Anonymity doesn't dissuade the rape or other victims to fight for justice, but protects everyone until the outcome of the case (including subsequent appeals), including the victim from the inevitable evidential bunfight in the press. If everyone were anonymous, the press would be policed much more strongly and this dreadful obsession with the public publically 'trying' cases as lay persons would be eradicated.

Ack what a load of victim blaming shit. What do you hope the lady (victim) reflects on? Reporting a missing handbag?

Pinky - could you please stop the personal slights about my profession, it demeans all your cogent points which may be sound, even if I disagree. Let's debate like grown ups, and respect each other's views even if we don't enthusiastically accept them.

If I was the mother of a man found guilty of rape, i'd disown him. You may think this is what everyone says, but check back on my post of my own experience.
I would hope that being raised by an ardent feminist and 'good dad' would prevent it though.

Seriously, Grumpy, if you cannot see the difference between the Jefferies and Evans cases you demonstrate a serious problem with basic factual analysis which again is worrying in an alleged lawyer. Jefferies was never charged or convicted and had nothing whatsoever to do with the killing of Jo Yeates. The papers acted illegally in publishing information about him, hence the findings of contempt of court; they also published lies, hence the successful libel actions.

Evans was charged, tried and convicted, largely on the basis of his own evidence that he never spoke to the woman concerned before having intercourse with her. He has been acquitted on a retrial when he fully admitted to all the disgraceful conduct rehearsed upthread but changed his story about what was said and the jury seems to have accepted that it was not proved beyond reasonably doubt that he did not believe the woman was consenting. A large amount of the mud that is sticking to him is as a result of his admitted conduct which, even if it was not rape, was on any interpretation utterly despicable. These are not lies, nor is what the papers published about Evans in contempt of court.

Frankly, comparing the two cases is incredibly offensive to Jefferies and, for someone who is concerned about damage to reputation, I'm astonished that you think that is appropriate.

What if that was your son? Your dad? Your partner?

Well my son (non existent) dad (dead) or partner are virtuous creatures who could never rape sontherefore I would always believe them despite any evidence 🙄

Yawn at the analogy that it could be my family, if it was I wouldn't think for a moment they'd deserve anonymity because I'm not hard of thinking or dim enough to think it's different only when it applies to my life.

Anonymity doesn't dissuade the rape or other victims to fight for justice

No anonymity would not dissuade rapists, on the contrary it would make them think "I'm really gonna get away with it" because the likelihood is hey won't be convicted.

And of course it would stop other victims fighting for justice. If they don't see that their rapists has had other accusation, they wouldn't come forward if they hadn't previously. Look at Jimmy Saville and how that snowballed because people felt brave enough to speak up once others came forward. Had we never know JS was a peadophile there'd still be victims being silenced. Remember the Little Ted's nursery workers? That allowed other parents to find out if their children had maybe been abused. Same with Rotherham rapists. The list is endless. This is EXACTLY why those accused of sexual crimes should never remain anonymous. In fact I think there's an argument for why they should be the only non-anonymised accused of it came to it.

Zuleika - I'm simply responding to counter points. If people allege the girl was falling over drunk (I wasn't there, I can't say, all I can comment on is the evidence I have seen which I wholeheartedly accept is not the full court bundle), then I'm saying that doesn't necessarily rule out informed consent if the evidence suggests that she did consent. Doesn't mean my arguments are 'all over the place' - it means I am considering and responding to a variety of circumstances which are possible but about which the actual evidence is not definitive.

Grumpy no I won't, to say "I'm in law" and then demonstrate a distinct lack of knowledge about the law, is a hard one not to pick up on.

Grumpy, in your vast law experience, how reliable it witness memory that has changed after the fact? Is this new account more reliable than Evans' own incriminating testimony?

I'm bowing out guys, I don't continue discussions with people who seek to trade personal insults ('alleged lawyer' stuff, really silly). You don't want a debate, you want a consensus, and in a subject like this you are unlikely to get one.

Grumpy, you haven't addressed the schoolboy error you made in saying the woman "alleged rape"

I am afraid that anything you have said subsequently is massively devalued by that fact.

Translation = I'm not winning so I'm leaving.

Your arguments have been poor and show zero knowledge of the law or justice system. No one is witch hunting you

I'm simply responding to counter points.

But you aren't. You are ignoring the inconvenient ones, such as the fact that the girl did not allege rape as you suggested, and the fact that in legal terms the original verdicts were entirely legitimate and capable of being fair.

If people allege the girl was falling over drunk (I wasn't there, I can't say, all I can comment on is the evidence I have seen which I wholeheartedly accept is not the full court bundle)

But why make such absolute statements about the facts when your posts demonstrate that you really are not conversant with them? You also seem unaware that we are not solely concerned with the "full court bundle" here but the actual evidence that was given in court.

You also haven't acknowledged the perfectly good reasons as to why rape accused aren't anonymous. Or the fact the number of women who do falsely accuse are negligible. Yet you want a whole law change that would tremendously disadvantage women and rape victims based on these negligible "ruined lives"? This is a thread about rape victims. Are you really surprised to the reaction?

Pinky - I demand you retract this statement
Please ignore luckylavender she is a serial apologist and misogynist who often posts her venom towards rape victims and their nerve to come forward

His charming (teacher) brother also filmed it. What a lovely family - their parents must be so proud

I am certainly not demanding a consensus. But I am asking that people contribute to the discussion on the basis of the facts as they are, not on a vague recollection of a small proportion of the facts; and if they make repeated reference to their lawyer status as lending particular weight to their opinions, I do expect them to show some basic legal skills such as checking facts and analysing the legal principles involved properly. Of course no-one is infallible, but it would be more impressive if Grumpy had been prepared to acknowledge errors rather than to claim that people pointing out those errors are simply refusing to listen to differing opinions.

For what it is worth, I have been particularly surprised by Grumpy's posts as I am a lawyer also.

Pinky - and this -