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.

actually ChazsBrilliantAttitude he has been an 'innocent man' since his conviction was quashed several weeks ago, you remain innocent until proven guilty in UK law so it wasn't just until Friday.

Not quite. You're presumed innocent till proven guilty. The distinction is important.

sorry, I haven't read the whole thing. but as I understand it, CE got a phone call from a friend who had taken a girl back to the Premier Inn, saying, essentially, "do you want a go too?". So he went out of his way to swing by the Premier Inn (it's not really on the way to/from anywhere, although having said that I think his mum lives in Rhuddlan) to have sex with the woman, who was shiters, then continue on his merry way. Considering he was a big shot footballer, earning loadsamoney, reasonable-looking etc, why couldn't he just find a girl to have sex with in a slightly more overtly consensual way? You know, chat her up, buy her a drink, actually make some sort of connection with her beyond just plugging in when she was practically unconscious. It just says to me that her being out of her skull was part of the appeal for him.

I'm a bit late to the thread but can anyone explain to me how, since he seemingly admitted to having sex with a woman who was unconscious which is obviously rape, this has been overturned? Is there any plausible grain of justice in this ruling?

I've read a fair few articles today and I can't find any explanation. Help me please.

Museum: he claims she wasn't unconscious, but concious and verbal. She woke up later with no memory.

I believe he is guilty, but I don't think there was ever a claim she was unconscious. The question is was she 'just' drunk, or too drunk to consent. The initial case and evidence came to the conclusion she was too drunk to consent. The second case concluded that she has enjoyed some sex before (how very dare she) so she was suddenly clearly not too drunk to consent, despite such evidence not being legally admissable and the whole bribery thing, so it's the same case, additional bullshit.

Museum, some men came forward and claimed she used a phrase during sex that Ched Evans claimed she said during sex. Said phrase was publicised in the first trial, and there were offers of financial reward of evidence that would lead to acquittal. The men made the statements claiming said phrase after the publicity, and after the offers of reward were made. The appeal judges were hesitant about whether or not their statements about sex on different occasions were at all relevant to the allegation. I'm not sure if they were partly hesitant because one could surmise they were motivated by financial reward, given that there is proof that his team were contacting potential witnesses offering them money for information that would lead to acquittal. eventually they decided that the statements were enough to quash a conviction.

Some people think this exonerates him completely. Some think it makes the justice system stink like a nest of dead rats.

Who stole her handbag? Or was that prior to the hotel incident?

It wasn't stolen, she left it behind in the takeaway. The man who worked in the takeaway handed it into police with CCTV of the night. The next day, she went to the police asking if her handbag had been handed in.

Ahhh thank you.

Really? There are so many conflicting accounts aren't there.
I hope the poor girl doesn't have to move again. The twat who put her name on fb needs locking up. She's being hounded she'll have a breakdown because of victim blaming. Scummy ched evans has put a statement his website saying he's not associated with the social media bullying.
His web address is on the bbc if you want to look Im not linking it

"I am female. I am in the law."

Yes and you're obviously not a very good lawyer, you haven't even followed the basic details of the case and yet you feel qualified to talk bollocks and rape apologia about it here.

How has he gotten away with naming her?

Thought that was illegal?

Yet a teacher who was a woman was sacked for posing in lingerie.

Who named her?

Those who were prosecuted for naming her before were fined about £600. A small price to pay.

I think one of those prosecuted for naming her was also a teacher...

ETA: yep.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ched-evans-teacher-holly-price-1887197

"Teacher suspended for naming rapist footballer's victim on Twitter

A teacher who tweeted the name of the teenager raped by jailed footballer Ched Evans and called her a “money-grabbing slut” has been suspended for 12 months.

Holly Price re-tweeted the message about the 19-year-old woman who was sexually attacked by the former Welsh international striker.

The 26-year-old was ordered to pay £624 compensation after she was one of 10 defendants prosecuted after the victim of Sheffield United forward Evans was named on the internet.

Price was working as a biology supply teacher at Llandrillo College in North Wales at the time, but told a General Teaching Council for Wales disciplinary hearing that her conviction “shouldn’t be a matter of concern to my students.”

She was suspended.

People who have made the girl's name known & said abhorrent things about her, can & have been prosecuted. Problem is her name is her name is out there on the internet & a quick google search gives her name. There's very little anonymity these days once something about you is published on-line. Thousands of people will know this girls identity by a simple search.

That girl has parents how must they feel about sickos on twatter
Sometimes tinternet is gross

So many people on this thread don't even know the basic details of the case.

I have not "rtft" but BombadierFritz eloquently and succinctly said all that needs to be said in the second post.

yeah whatevs
he is utter utter scum and can fuck off to the far side of fuck

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

My recollection of the Christopher Jeffries' case is that whilst it must have been horrible for him there was considerable contrition and public sympathy for him once the facts were known as he hadn't actually, unlike Evans, done anything morally reprehensible.

Even The Sun and The Daily Mail recognised Evans might not longer have a criminal conviction but he is definitely left with a large stain on his character because of what he himself admits he did.

It is all sorts of wrong.
The information from the first conviction was out there.
The £50k get out of jail free card was flashed.
A man resumes his high paying career, a woman resumes her wag status.
And a teenager whose night out was hijacked by a group of entitled wealthy males has her life changed forever.
How that judge can sleep I do not know.
Shame on Evans, his friends, his partner and her family.

[[https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/ ]]

This is a fairly factual account of the legal side of things.

Yes, but that blog concentrates on the technical correctness of the procedure without being able to explain why this case wouldn't dissuade somebody from reporting rape. The overall appearance is that you can procure witnesses years after the event to cast enough doubt to prevent a conviction.

Yes, I know, merrymouse, that's why I said it was a good reporting of the legal side.

It's helpful to know what actually happened rather than running with some of the wilder assertions that have been made.

My issue with it it the weight given to three men corrobotating each other's statements when the statement that needed corroborating was already in the public domain.

The judgement that it couldn't possibly be a coincidence for that relatively common phrase to be used,

The judgement that the men are telling the truth and didnt read the words in the paper in the paper and think "well I'll just come forward and say the same thing",

The judgment that the men could not possibly have been swayed by the offer of financial reward

the judgment that his side contacting witnesses pressuring them to provide info and offering money is nothing like bribery

the judgment that when questioned on his motivation for coming forward, a witness said "because I think she is lying" and he is taken at his word, when his account doesn't even contradict what she says so he is clearly chatting shit. But he's "a man with more to lose than to gain by lying about this" , so his opinion "I think she is lying" is considered good and true.

The judgemet that the fact that it took 4-5 years for the corroborating statements to be made seems entirely ok.

I'm not an expert on legal technicalities, but I am someone who has been raped. I did not report it, and this is why. The judgement calls always swayed on the side of the person who convicted himself the first time round, and it sways general opinion to always look for ways that a woman could not be raped if xyz. I'm making no comment on that in a legal context, just saying it's why I didn't report being sexually assaulted, I wouldn't report if it happened again, and I wouldn't press a friend or daughter to if it happened to her.

Did that witness ever give any concrete reasons as to why he thought she was lying or what exactly she was lying about?

I'm stunned it got through the CCRC and would also like to know on what basis it was fast traked.