Ched Evans Cleared - I Still Believe Her

[ChampagneCommunist]

Just seen this in the BBC website. His poor, poor victim

Its not a case of believing or not believing her as what she stated did happen and has never been in doubt or denied. What was in question was weather or not it constituted rape. In my eyes it always did and in the eyes of the first jury it did. However it did not in the eyes of the second due to them hearing about her sexual history.
I think its disgusting really. He raped her. Weather or not she had put up with other men behaving similarly or even enjoyed other men doing similar things does not mean she wasnt raped on this occasion.
The police thought she had been raped when they looked into it.... she wasnt even the one who claimed she had been raped because she couldnt remember anything, it was the police who thought she had been. And then the first jury as well.
She has never lied about anything or made 'false allegations'. This has been a matter of different peoples understanding of what constitutes rape. Sadly some people dont seem to think that having sex with a woman who may not know who you are or whats going on is not rape. I disagree and feel that it is.

sorry i meant 'seem to think' not 'dont seem to think'

I think I'm a bit clearer now, that it's possible she consented and then forgot, and part of the defence was that this had happened before.

I will try to link the interview

Natasha Massey offer an 'inducement' did she not to a potential witness?

There is no evidence that money offers were "chucked at them".

Given that CE's fiance actively contacted the key prosecution witness and dangled 50k if they 'remembered something new' (we know this because the witness was honest and decent and shared the message with the police/CPS), it's fanciful to think that she wasn't also doing similar with other people - particularly defence witnesses who might be able to help them get permission to use sexual history.

Yes Liney, she did.

He was the only one who reported the message to the prosecution, but I'd eat my shoes if he was the only person she approached.

Do you really think that 12 ordinary men and women are going to decide that based on use of a common phrase?

At the moment, there is nothing else to believe. All we have is the judgement (which you say will be what lawyers will use in future) and what was reported. In the judgement the lawyer representing the crown argues that the phrases and positions are common - if there were other phrases that were used that haven't been mentioned in the summary, how is it possible to understand the judgement? As posted above, if they came to the judgement with trepidation, why wouldn't they put all the relevant information in the judgement?

I appreciate that you are taking the time to respond prh, but your argument seems to be that there must be more to it.

That isn't very enlightening and in a case like this, what people understand matters.

Katie Hopkins is sticking her oar in now and all sorts of lovely people have been called on to give their opinion.

www.google.co.uk/amp/m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_5804cfbce4b0e982146d05b0/amp?client=safari

Meanwhile, some presumably experienced lawyers have expressed concern at the decision.

We need to understand what happened.

He is acquitted because the jury decided there was a "reasonable doubt" NOT because they decided he was innocent. Having been on a jury I'm well aware that there can be other reasons jurors decide to acquit that are even less rational.

The standard of discussion does not always approach that of a mumsnet debate.

The "corroborating evidence" was what exacty? There was confirmation that she had been in the company of these men but not of their evidence.

pr47. McDonald has always denied asking the victim if Evans could have sex with her, as Evans claims. I think the second jury should have been told that Evans claims were not supported.

The whole thing stinks.
Witness offers no information as he isn't asked because the reward hasn't gone up yet. Reward goes up, he's asked if he's been paid, says no and falls over himself to go into long and graphic detail about the victim. It really doesn't matter what he said or how it tallies, it's only his word. It's so flimsy. I believe he was friends with CE's sister and he was known to meet with CE's family on many occasions.

We may not know the full story but I just don't understand how he is in any way credible.

The jury weren't given the full information. I wonder if they're kicking themselves.

McDonald has always denied asking the victim if Evans could have sex with her, as Evans claims

It is true that McDonald said that Evans asked the victim if he could have sex with her whereas Evans says that McDonald asked. Both agree that she was asked and said yes. It may be that the original jury took this disagreement as evidence that neither of them actually asked the girl and she did not consent. If the prosecution had gone with that line they may have got a different result, although I'm not convinced they would. It is not uncommon for people to attribute something they said to someone else when recounting an incident. However, the prosecution went with the line that the victim was too drunk to consent which, in their eyes, would make this disagreement irrelevant.

Witness offers no information as he isn't asked because the reward hasn't gone up yet

The witnesses (there were two, not one) gave information but were not asked about details of their encounter with the victim - positions used, words said, etc. That has nothing to do with the reward not being available. It was simply that the lawyers defending Evans did not realise the answers could be relevant and so failed to ask the questions. In one case their main interest in the witness (who came forward before the initial trial) was to counter any suggestion by the prosecution that the victim would not have sex with a stranger she had just met - an argument the prosecution did not, in fact, make. The other witness came forward to the police on the day of the original verdict, apparently because he could not understand why the victim slept with him 2 weeks after the rape. In his first statement he described the victim's loss of memory every time she spent the night with him but the defence did not pursue this when they first attempted to appeal.

it's only his word

It is the word of two men who do not know each other supported to some extent by text messages and evidence from the mother of one of the men (this particular witness was living with his mother at the time of his encounters with the victim).

I believe he was friends with CE's sister and he was known to meet with CE's family on many occasions

As far as I can see this is not true. The prosecution would certainly have put it into evidence if it was.

Tristin Owens, the witness who contacted the police on the day of the verdict in the initial trial, does not appear to know the family directly but one of his friends is also a friend of Evans. His mother, who was able to partly confirm his evidence, is a close friend of the victim's mother. Steven Hughes, the witness who came forward before the original trial, also does not appear to know the family directly although he has a cousin who knows Evans.

The jury weren't given the full information

They were given everything the prosecution considered relevant, including everything the prosecution could throw at the witnesses in an attempt to undermine them. They were certainly told about the reward and the way in which this evidence emerged. The prosecution will also have challenged the witnesses in other ways and certainly accused them of making up essential details. The only things the jurors will be finding out about the witnesses from the press or social media are things that aren't true.

Again, in a high profile rape case, what the public think matters.

We are being asked to believe that the content of the witness statements - words, descriptions -couldn't have been coincidental, but the circumstances of their statements - timing, links to family -and friends were completely coincidental. All this, when we know that CE's family, friends and supporters were prepared to break the law on his behalf with no financial incentive.

I don't know whether the bar has been lowered or whether it was never really there in the first place.

Maybe there is extra evidence that isn't revealed in the summary and was only available to those in the court room.

However, while I appreciate the sentiment behind trying to reassure rape victims, it is ultimately patronising and pointless to tell them that this case was somehow different, without being able to explain why.

I've had another read. FFS. It seems to me that the appeal court was hell-bent on justifying why they invoked Section 41. They could only do so if her sexual past was relevant. In their efforts to justify the relevancy of the evidence, they minimised its credibility. If the credibility is undermined, the relevance becomes invalid. From what I've read, the credibility is so suspect, that its relevance is negated. There is page after page of what was said by the witness, using past precedent, claiming the similarities are no co-incidence, etc. And very little over the witness's credibility given their association with CE. The main witness (Owens) stated he has known CE for eight years (page 5, section 23).

However, it IS all there.

'...the new detail bears all the hallmarks of witnesses being fed information...'

'...There is the possibility that the witnesses may be more partial than they cared to admit...'

'...As to whether the evidence is credible - we must put that to one side ... that the details of his (CE's) account has been made public'. (Put to one side !!!!).

'...the witnesses current accounts did not come to light until CE had exhausted the appeals process...'

Because

'...If the jury rejected his account of the sexual behaviour, HE HAD NO DEFENCE.'

It stinks to high heaven in other words Datun? Which is what we knew but I can't believe the appeal court knew and it's in their judgment. Is that the case?!

Datun, I just read paragraph 23 again. The more I read this the more unbelievable the whole outcome is.

He hacd been acquainted with CE for 7 or 8 years, and X (the victim) for approximately 13 years. He socialised with X and there were three occasions at closing time at the Zuy Bar when X had asked to go home with him. These all occurred prior to May 2011. He always said yes, hoping X would sleep with him, Once at home, they would go to his bedroom. Whilst kissing and foreplay took place, they did not have sexual intercourse...

then paragraph 24 explains that after the allegation, she met him again and that time they did have sex.

So, her knowing someone since childhood, going home with him several times for kissing and foreplay but not having sex; then her having sex with that very someone she knew since childhood and presumably had a level of trust with after the police were starting to investigate the possibility that she had been raped, so she was quite possibly in a place of turmoil and looking for comfort in a friend she could trust... is remarkably similar enough for a man she did not know at all coming into a dark hotel room when she was drunk, naked and being penetrated by another man she did not know very well?

How did the appeal judges not say this is absurd?

And then some people don't bother reading the whole thing and say "well his conviction was quashed because she had a history of going home with strangers and having sex, it was a pattern of behaviour obv"...

agerunner

I read all of that from the link given upthread called 'Judgement Approved by the Court for Handing Down'.

www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2016/chedevansappealx.pdf

It's as dry as dust, but it's all there. I'm sure there was a lot of 'legalese' over what was admissible and what wasn't but it appears to me that the focus was subtlety altered from the first trial to the second. Over the timeline, the defence changed from she has sex with one night stands and has memory loss and no mention of her being vocal, to actually it;s about her being vocal as she said exactly the same thing to someone else as she did to CE. Apparently.

One of the stand out bits for me was the witness who said she asked to go home with him, saying 'I'll give you a good time'. What woman actually says that? Those words? It's a minor point, but I couldn't help thinking that's what a man thinks a woman would say.

Happy to stand corrected.

I imagine she would have been asked at the trial in October 2016 if she said to a guy in May 2011 whether she would "show him a good time", she probably said she can't remember. Which was probably taken as "well he must be telling the truth then. She's a drunken slut who offers men a good time when she's in Zu Bar".

I know Marble

I realise we're forensically picking it apart, whilst being fully aware of the internet campaign and the victim's subsequent persecution, etc,. We probably know some info that the jury didn't and they may well have had more information that we're not privy to.

And the whole reason I'm saying that is because I can't believe what I have read.

"I think the latter is unlikely as, on the evidence, Evans does not appear to have spent enough time with her to form a reasonable belief."

I agree re the time. However, the conflation of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'a reasonable belief' is quite complex. If I was asked to say beyond reasonable doubt if someone had a reasonable belief, I might take that to mean 'was the belief itself manifestly unreasonable'

'My mate asked her and she said yes' is the only step CE (allegedly) took to establish consent. To my mind, that is utterly reckless and no due care and attention was paid to the woman or her terrifying situation (drunk, a strange man has let himself in unannounced whilst she is naked, invited by the other person in the room, either or both of whom could overpower her)

Yes HillaryFTW and he was initially convicted on that evidence.

Which was overturned on the basis of what his friend of eight years said.

It's just bullshit isn't it? Just pure bollocks

Yes. I was initially confused by some of the things prh47bridge said. I read it again as she/he said it wasn't true that the witness knew the family.

and paragraph 34, about the other witness who she had known since earlier in the year

the point of taking a statement from Mr Hughes had been to counter the suggestion that X would not have intercourse with a stranger on the first occasion that they met. When the Crown decided not to call the evidence and his statement revealed that he did not have intercourse with her on the first occasion, any interest in calling him at a trial faded away

So neither witness had sex with the victim the first time they met her.

He did not know CE personally, but knew CE's cousin.

But in December 2015 he gave a new statement of all the gory details of how, before the alleged rape, she was a confident sexual partner and said "go harder"

Remarkably similar and remarkably not influenced by the defence or the publicity surrounding the first trial. Sure.