Ched Evans Cleared - I Still Believe Her

[ChampagneCommunist]

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

It might not wash with you, frog, but not everybody is the same.

The victim in this case has received no money and has been horribly hounded, so your talk of pound signs makes me question if you are here in good faith. Oh, and, of course, she didn't report a rape, she reported a handbag theft and the police used other testimony, not least Ched's, to put together the case.

Well frog, I was raped and had sex very soon after. Still was raped. You're talking shit. Damaging shit.

"I think you can argue both ways about who instigated."

Again, the instigation of letting oneself into a room unannounced and uninvited by a vulnerable naked female stranger dwarfs any other kind of instigation.

If she were seeing pound signs, she would have gone to the tabloids with the story of "My Sexy Threesome with low-rate footballers". Being a rape victim is not exactly lucrative.

But I don't think it's fair to consider her action as instigator with a different man (CM) that is not the person who is the subject of the appeal (CE) in terms of her being the "instigator" of the sex which is being compared to two other unrelated men, somewhat controversially. It's basically saying "x instigated sex with CM and she instigated sex with two other men and that's relevant to her sex with CE and whether it was consensual"

The sex with CM isn't the same thing as the sex with CE, whatever we think about it. It's worrying that you seem to think it is.

was I raped?? I would have consented. but if 'drunk consent is not consent' then it would seem that I was!

As the law stands drunken consent IS consent. So you were not raped if you consented whilst drunk. You were raped if you were so drunk that you were unable to consent. The current legal position is that lack of recollection is NOT lack of consent.

Please withdraw your comment about not believing that "seeing pound signs is justification for crying rape". As has been repeatedly pointed out the victim in this case did not at any point allege that she had been raped. There is also no evidence that she was motivated by greed.

To me the points of dissimilarity are so glaring (the other incidences didn't involve two men, the other instances didn't happen in a pre booked hotel room, the other instances didn't involve one man inviting another to come to the room without her consent etc) that the commonalities are dwarfed, especially as they are so commonplace

The prosecution appears to have pointed out the differences in to the Court of Appeal. I would expect them to have done so in the retrial as well. Although not specifically stated, I think the Court of Appeal's view was influenced by the presumption of innocence.

The sex with CM isn't the same thing as the sex with CE, whatever we think about it. It's worrying that you seem to think it is

I don't think it is at all. It was all part of the same incident but that is as far as it goes. Having consensual sex with McDonald (if that is what it was) does not mean she had consensual sex with Evans.

I couldn't care less whether it "washes" with you, there are a lot of ignorant people in the world, I can't expect to educate them all. But you don't have the first idea what you're talking about, so it would be nice if you could keep your offensive opinions to yourself.

ok then remove the pound signs comment.....still not convinced by her.

Hillary correct not every one is the same so everyones opinion will be different. also I have known a few women who are certainly not vulnerable whilst drunk and naked!!

Still not convinced by her saying she doesn't remember anything? Even that wankstain who was convicted of raping her is convinced by her.

still not convinced by her

Her evidence is that she cannot remember what happened. That, apart from evidence about her actions earlier in the evening and her actions the following morning, is the totality of her evidence. I believe she is telling the truth. There is no reason to disbelieve her evidence and plenty of reason to believe it.

That is quite separate from the question of whether the authorities were right to conclude she had been raped.

not ignorant just simply not convinced..........everyone has their own opinion.

im not saying I don't believe she doesn't remember, im saying I don't believe the label 'raped' simply because she doesn't remember.

Prh, the point I was trying to make is that the "points of similarity" have to be discrete, or they're meaningless. So the two phrases you quoted are essentially the same phrase. And you say that x instigated the sex with CE but she didn't, either CE or CM did. You can't claim that as a separate point when you've already covered directing positions and specifying sex act. How else was she instigating it? You can only instigate once.

Yes and some people's opinions are uninformed, so hold less weight.

as informed as most........just differ in opinon t'is all!
Not a personal attack!

You're ill informed, frog. She hasn't used the label "raped", so there is nothing she needs to convince you of.

then why was he charged with rape?
And your right she doesn't need to convince me or any of us... this is a discussion that holds no legal bearing just opinions.......unfortunately some people take different opinons personally and it turns into attacks on individuals....no need if you cant take the heat don't get involved!!!!

I understand your point about the two phrases. Not sure whether the Court of Appeal counted those as one or two.

I suspect they counted each sexual position as a separate similarity if they counted at all. They may not have done so, just worked on an overall impression. There is certainly nothing in the judgement to indicate that they counted.

No, I'm not saying she instigated the sex with Evans. The Court of Appeal stated that she instigated sex (para 58) so I'm trying to suggest how they might have arrived at that conclusion. I would agree that she did not instigate sex with Evans unless you are double counting, so I can only suggest that the court was either double counting or referring to her instigating sex with McDonald. Not saying that I agree with the court.

I'm not taking "different opinions" personally, I'm telling you that you are ignorant and offensive for saying that rape victims aren't sufficiently traumatised if they have sex two weeks afterwards. You don't have a clue.

then why was he charged with rape

He was charged with rape because the authorities took the view that her evidence and that of others indicated that she was too drunk to consent. If that view is correct it follows that she was raped by McDonald and Evans.

Don't you think it's worrying if they have made 5 "points of similarity" rather than 3 if you don't duplicate and used that as a basis to admit damaging sexual history evidence?

again with the name calling!!
I said I think its strange to want to partake in an act so soon after the last time said act happened was so traumatizing.

trauma is not evidence of rape.

not the only possible evidence, certainly.