Ched Evans Cleared - I Still Believe Her

[ChampagneCommunist]

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

rh your attitude is clearly demonstrated by this "And no, the conviction was absolutely not quashed because the victim had a history of going with strangers and having sex. " Your implication is that she did, in fact, do this when no evidence was presented to that effect.

You talk of the mother partially confirming the son's evidence without making it clear that the son told his mother he had not had sex with the victim - so he lied about sex with the victim once, albeit not under oath - or that she could not, therefore, confirm anything relevant.

You said the victim didnt deny these claims, newspaper reports say she did.

Couldnt multi quote but you said "The jury may have found it telling that the victim did not deny the accounts of these witnesses." How do you know that when the newspaper reports said she denied parts of the accounts? She seemed to have denied those parts of the reports that made the appeal court decide their was sufficient similarity to permit the evidence.

And when asked about how well the case was handled - ignore the failure to present information on how much of the accused's evidence was in the public domain.

As for the suggestion that you wouldnt remember which of you asked someone if they were happy to have sex - doesnt give me any faith that either asked and the accused had a "reasonable" belief he had consent.

prh was only quoting me in that; and I in turn was only quoting someone else. I don't think he/she actually believes it

that was the "strangers" thing, to clarify

I believe her too.

She never alleged she'd been raped.

The Police did......I don't believe them, they had no evidence.

They did have evidence. That is why the case went to court.

There is a massive gulf between what was said in that report and what the jury heard. And I believe it's due to our rape myth culture. For example, if the victim didn't turn up in attire that was akin to a nun's habit the culture would have kicked in. She was grilled for 3 hours. If she remembered nothing, what on earth was that about?

WHY did the prosecution think their case was weak ? What don't we know ?

Does anyone know if the full transcript eventually becomes available ?

They had Evan's own testimony. That was evidence. He admitted to his own crime without even knowing what he was doing the stupid fuck

The police, CPS and original jury all believed that she was raped. The evidence being predominantly Evans' own testimony, plus that of his mates and a number of witnesses who testified to her state of intoxication. There is a convincing argument that she was in no fit state to consent but sufficient doubt was introduced in this retrial by the very controversial step if allowing evidence about the victim's sex life to be heard in court. I've read the reasoning for allowing those witnesses to testify and I really do not buy it at all. The whole thing is just appalling and my DP who is a police officer totally agrees.

TheDuchessOfKidderminster

And whether it sets a 'legal' precedent or not, it's still setting back the demolishing of rape myths. In the eyes of the public who are all future jurors.

"They did have evidence. That is why the case went to court." - merrymouse

They had some very flimsy circumstantial evidence - nothing that proved rape 'beyond reasonable doubt' because the woman couldn't remember what had happened and the 2 men who were in the room said that she wasn't raped.

Thats tantamount to no evidence.

I'm glad you have faith that the Police only bring charges based on the evidence that they glean and don't vexatiously or complaisantly cook the books to their own ends - in fact I doubt that you do have such faith in the boys in blue ...... do you really?

I don't have any faith in them, I think they were influenced by the fact they were dealing with marginally famous footballers and that they know full well that the conviction rate compared with the actual persistence of rape in society is painfully low the CPS trusted the Police too and they should know better.

I formulate my views based on first hand experience, and the fact that many of my friends were at both Orgreave and Hillsborough and my reading of the framing of the Birmingham 6, Stefan Kiszko, de Menezes and many more.

Do you really believe that the Police only act when the have evidence to back it up?

The first jury found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There certainly was evidence.

But as you are yet another newbie ched apologist, meh.

And was surprised when it was revealed to him that he was therefore a rapist

He had every right to be surprised. On the basis of his account he was not a rapist. According to Evans, McDonald asked the victim if Evans could have sex with her. She answered that he could. She then asked Evans to give her oral sex, following which they briefly had vaginal sex. There is nothing in Evans account that makes him a rapist. The prosecution is based entirely on the victim's lack of recollection of the events, using that to argue that she was too drunk to consent and that Evans' account is false. His behaviour was not ok but the statements given by Evans and McDonald do NOT describe rape, nor can they in any way be described as confessions. They describe an encounter between consenting adults.

why did the prosecution not make more out of the friendship between the witness and the accused

There does not appear to have been much of a friendship for them to make anything out of. I presume we are talking about Owens. The wording in the appeal judgement states that he had been acquainted with Evans which does not suggest a close relationship.

And why do you think there is such a disconnect between the prosecution thinking they had a weak case and the general public (including us mumsnetters), etc who think it's a strong case

There is a lot of misinformation circulating on social media about the case, most of it beefing up the prosecution case. See, for example, the comments above from ageingrunner who thinks Evans' statement amounted to a confession. I've seen that one quite a lot but it simply isn't true. It shows him behaving very poorly but it does not show that he was a rapist. I've also seen other comments such as the victim consuming a large amount of drink from the mini-bar in the hotel room (she didn't), being bundled into a taxi by McDonald (she wasn't) and so on.

This case has been taken up as something of a cause by some anti-rape groups who see this as a chance to redefine what being too intoxicated to consent means. This, of course, means they don't want to believe Evans is innocent.

Then there is the fact that the original jury convicted Evans. There are always those who believe that every conviction is correct and that there are no miscarriages of justice. Whilst people seem more willing generally to believe that miscarriages do happen, there seems to be particularly strong resistance to believing that any rape conviction could be wrong, possibly due to the oft-repeated 6% conviction rate statistic.

Another big factor, I suspect, is the "I believe you" meme. A lot of people seem to think that the victim accused Evans of rape and/or said that she was too drunk to consent. In fact she has never said either of those things.

And, of course, we now have some newspapers questioning the verdict. It makes for good copy and helps to sell newspapers (as has this case throughout) but the one sided (and frequently wrong) presentation of this case in some parts of the press does not serve the interests of justice.

vorpal

What do you mean by 'cook the books' in this case ?

Prh

I also think the fact the victim woke up naked, alone, with no memory, having wet the bed and lost her handbag, believing her drink must have been spiked, leads many (including me) to consider that she was too drunk to consent.

If she was, ched's defence is that he had reasonable belief in her consent. On his testimony as given in court, I caN see why the second jury might have concluded there was reasonable doubt about the unreasonableness of his belief, IYSWIM.

But we don't know why either jury concluded the way they did.

"What do you mean by 'cook the books' in this case ?" - Datun

yes, sorry, it wasn't a clever turn of phrase as it usually refers to tax fraud & I don't blame them for that. I was being general about the Police's tendency to agree a story between them and 'sing from the same hymn sheet' which is of course what they did about their evidence of the Hillsborough disaster.

'Cooking the Books' only applies tangentially to one snippet of information in this case. Did you see the page from the Police notebooks written the first time they interviewed the accused couple? The Police, interviewer wrote 'Titus Bramble' at the top of a page.

Do you know the 'significance' of that?

There does not appear to have been much of a friendship for them to make anything out of. I presume we are talking about Owens. The wording in the appeal judgement states that he had been acquainted with Evans which does not suggest a close relationship.

I'm trying very hard NOT to be persuaded by social media. Not only did the witness know Evans but his point of contact was with Evans' own sister because 'he didn't have an email address'. You certainly don't have to read the more sensationalist viewpoints in order to join certain dots. I haven't. I'm basing my posts on what the actual appeal document said.

Of course Evans didn't 'confess'. But he was convicted on his own testimony - partly because his and his friend's testimony contradicted each other. Originally CM said he asked CE if he wanted to join in and CE said yes. In the appeal this changed to asking the victim and SHE said yes. Personally I think they shot them selves in the foot at the initial police interview and then changed their stance.

vorpal

Titus bramble ? No, no idea.

Also, if you know more than we're getting, can you tell us? Because it's bloody frustrating asking why this and why that.

Prh, there was evidence adduced to suggest that the complainant was so drunk that she was not capable of consent.

The only reason for this new not guilty verdict is the CCRC application and appeal based on the "fresh evidence" and the retrial admitting this sexual history evidence. Do you really not see why that should be a concern for feminists?

Yes, OK, sorry I was just trying, in the interests of keeping it all polite, to make this correspondence conversational, I'll get to the point.

Titus Bramble was another second rate footballer who had initially been accused of rape but had been 'eliminated from Police inquiries' or whatever they say before that case had come to court.

The Police's absent minded doodling his name at MacDonald and Evans's first encounter with them is suggestive that they had in mind parallels between the two cases, and, by extension, may have been out to get a couple of footballers because they missed out last time they thought they could charge one for rape.

I don't rate the Police's maturity and intelligence or sense of fair play when it comes to a prosecution much more highly that.

They WANT CONVICTIONS, that's that.

Whether or not they want convictions, but they still have to get the case past the CPR.

venusinscorpio

There is a MASSIVE concern. It's shit. But I want to have more reasons than that. It's obvious to most people that what happened is horrendous and particularly the implications. I'm trying to find out why it happened. I want to fight fire with fire.

I feel there has been an injustice, wrapped up in layer upon layer of legalese and I bloody want to know how it can happen.

But there are obviously parallels with a different rapey footballer. CE and CM are both footballers and their behaviour could be construed as rape if the alleged victim wasn't considered capable of consent. They could have just written that as a note for any reason. I don't see it as the killer argument Ched fans do.

vorpal

So, I'm still not sure. Are you saying they took it on, on a shaky basis, because it's a high profile person - and they shouldn't have ? How does that tally with the fact that they did get a conviction initially. Presumably they weren't to know that rewards would subsequently be offered and witnesses who were friends with the defendant would be dubious at best?

merrymouse

The CPR still, (despite all precedent), trust the Police.......I think even Judges and Juries tend to trust them too.

I think ithe trust is misplaced - I don't think they are clever and I think they have entirely the wrong mentality to do their job correctly. Too defensive, too thick, too conformist.

Until the Police recruit people with the IQ's of Sandi Toksvig & Stephen Fry into the ranks (and they never do) then nought will change.