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.

a7 also thinks the victim in this case has a proven history of sex with strangers, so I can't give much weight to a7's analytical skills.

Why aren't mens xexual conquests called to court
I don't know why consensual 'sexual conquests' would be relevant, but certainly previous rape victims often come forward, and in fact this is the main argument for naming an accused rapist

Fair enough. I'd still like a7 to justify their slur on Rape Crisis.

In court, stuff that seems relevant (previous complaints, convictions etc) is often not admitted in case it prejudices the trial. In this case, the evidence that Massey had approached a witness (the receptionist I believe) and said there was a 50k reward for info to clear ched, wasn't heard by the jury because the judge disallowed it. Similarly the fact that the guy in the police station was convicted of violently assaulting a girl that the group (including CM and CE) made a sexual comment to.
But the evidence of previous boyfriends to call into question the victims behaviour was allowed. It seems to be a total double standard in the law.

The fact remains women will now not report.

The resulting MH issues never go away.

rapecrisis.org.uk/centres.php

I agree Portia. I think people don't understand how damaging it is to realise that your body and rights as a human being meant nothing to someone, they didn't care what it would do to you, only about their own gratification. They didn't see you as a person with feelings, but something to stick their dick into.

Yes Felas,

I was thinking of that man who was recently jailed for beating his 6 year old daughter to death (having had a conviction for causing serious head injuries to her as a baby quashed ) ... then once he was convicted "it can now be revealed" that he also beat the six year old's sister on the very same day of the murder, and he had also been violent to an ex girlfriend.

If that's not important contextual information for the murder of a six year old child, I don't hold out much hope for "mere" rape trial. But of course how the victim behaved in the lead up to and after the incident is entirely important contextual information

www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2482.aspx

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/an-overview-of-sexual-offending-in-england-and-wales

www.bath.ac.uk/ipr/our-publications/policy-briefs/court-response-to-rape.html

The lsst link is particularly relevant

Felas,

It is an intentional double standard. The accused is given the benefit of the doubt until found guilty. Beyond reasonable doubt is a high hurdle and one that I am glad of. I think there is an expression 'difficult cases make bad law'.

• apologies for typos I'm upset and furious

Yes I'm glad the accused is given the benefit of the doubt. It's the focus on the complainant I don't like. It seems totally unfair and this case has starkly highlighted that

Think I need to read more on this case before I respond...as I heard yes he was convicted but then it was over turned.
I thought hed joined in on a drunken session between this girl and a friend of his,yes she may have been steaming but that doesn't mean she didn't agree to it...just because she cant remember it the next day!! Who hasn't had too much to drink and forgotten things the next day???

Not looking for back lash like I said I will have to read up more but that's where I stood before seeing this thread!

Precisely

In terms of an accused sexual history being relevant, I'm thinking.

He raped me from behind vs he used to like to doggy style (not really relevant as loads of people like that position, doesn't make him a rapist).

He raped me from behind vs he used to make me go doggy style even though it was painful (probably relevant)

He raped me from behind vs he raped me from behind too (relevant).

Lighthouse,

Again this goes to the burden of proof. Your examples are far away from even helping get to beyond reasonable doubt.

If she sued him for damages I can see that they would then be relevant as they are both clearing the same hurdle,

This case though was not about her being 'loose' as some seem to think. It was about whether how Ched says she behaved during sex matched how she behaved during admitted consensual sex. He was arguing that her behaviour matched her behaviour during previous enthusiastically consensual sex ergo she consented,

I have no comment to make about whether I agree as I have no idea. His behaviour was scummy throughout and he did seem to buy witness testimony (is that allowed). However the jury acquitted him very quickly and I assume it was the normal balance of men and women.

Some here say they have read the trial transcript. What guidance did the judge give? Can the CPS appeal the judgment?

People have read the appeal transcript which is publicly available. I'm not sure anyone has read the trial transcript, and if they have please do link as I would really like to read it.

weveallkissedafrogor2
Yes. I strongly suggest you do 'read more on the case* before making such a crass comment.

Yes but what did she do that was out of the ordinary? She said "fuck me harder", how many women have said that? She was enthusiastic? It doesn't exactly 'match', like in my example of doggy style.

I don't see how a woman's sexual history is ever relevant. A mans is if it suggests he's raped before.

I'm not daft Larry I understand they were saying her previous sexual experiences were similar to what Ched described, but they were hardly unusual and typical of any woman in any bedroom, not really proof, in my opinion.

Well,

To be honest most women (at least in my experience' don't say it, except in porn. There are a variety of ways and it would be highly coincidental for him to guess just the right phrase.

Was that the only thing as well or were there others?

The flaw, I feel, is that the witnesses were coached to say the right thing. However I believe the crown was allowed to tell the jury that this could be the case.