Ched Evans Cleared - I Still Believe Her

[ChampagneCommunist]

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

What do all the people saying "I believe her" on this thread believe, exactly?

The woman at the centre of this case never made an accusation of rape. She has always maintained she had no memory of what happened.

It is entirely possible to believe that everybody is telling the truth: That Ched Evans is telling the truth when he says that they had consensual sex; that the young woman is telling the truth when she says that she had a blackout and has no memory of the events.

This is by far the simplest explanation that fits the evidence, and it is consistent with the not guilty verdict.

People seem determined to clutch at conspiracy theories ("witnesses were bribed to lie") and irrelevant details ("he left by the fire escape!").

The young woman deserves our sympathy and support - the way she has been treated by vile misogynist trolls on social media is disgusting, and it must be terrifying to wake up naked in a strange room with no memory of how you got there - but none of this makes Ched Evans a rapist.

I know it is now quite a long thread, but if you had read it you would have the answer to your question.

Head. Desk.

I'm going to repeat, although it was only a few posts back that I last said this - the young woman was, according to the LAST person without something to defend to see her before she entered the room - unsteady on her feet, clinging to McDonald for support, glassy eyed and didnt answer a friendly question. Not the actions of someone who would enthusiastically initiate sex later. However in line with McDonald saying she was sick when he left and Evans saying the young woman was asleep when he left. Who can say exactly when she passed out except men who treated her very badly.

Other men come forward to give evidence but one only when a reward is offered and the other agrees the case was the talk of the town for months but still says he didnt know about the reward and only gives evidence useful to the defence after the reward has been offered.

There is no evidence these men were actually given any cash but that doesn't mean they didn't hope to receive some. Money is also not the only reason someone may decide to give false evidence. If there is any support for their evidence of anything except that they were previous sexual partners it has not been reported and the young woman denied some or all of their evidence. The newspapers did not report much of her evidence.

I say I believe her because I believe her denials of the evidence given by the male witnesses who gave evidence, after the existence of a substantial financial award became well known and after the defendant's evidence became well known about her sexual history. How strange that men claim to remember not only exactly what sexual positions they adopted with a partner some years previously but also the exact words used. One wonders how many sexual partners they have had in the years in between and how their memory is so good.

A jury heard and saw all the evidence apart from her sexual history and concluded Ched could not have had a reasonable belief in her consent. I believe them. A second jury heard other evidence that she denied, I believe her.

@alreadytaken

Drawing conclusions about a person's mental state from their outward demeanor is always going to be difficult. A woman ignoring a man's "friendly question"/responding with a blank stare, a young woman clinging to a man's arm on the way to a hotel room - these are situations that are open to multiple interpretations.

Other evidence was heard that she sent a coherent text to a friend, bought a pizza in a takeaway and responded to the taxi driver's admonishment that she couldn't eat in the back of the car by getting out and sitting in the front - which tends to suggest she was mentally alert and aware of her surroundings.

All in all I got the impression that the prosecution's case that she was so drunk as to be incapable of consent was very weak.

As I understand it, the additional evidence was instrumental in making the retrial happen, but how much weight the jury subsequently gave it is another matter.

Surely the very fact that one jury came to one conclusion and the second jury came to a different one suggests that the case wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt.

@js ever been drunk? Ever felt drunker when you hit the fresh air? Ever passed out after drinking? I gather all these things arent that uncommon. And that is leaving aside the question of whether she was, at she thought, because she had never felt that way before, drugged. There was no evidence of it but at least one drug used in date rape doesnt stay around very long.

Ched says he didnt ask for her consent, he didnt speak to her at all.He says his friend asked, his friend says Ched asked - one or both must be lying. Yet although these two men cannot agree a few hours later on which asked a crucial question other men giving evidence about sexual encounters can apparently remember what was said very much later, even years later. Sounds were heard from the hotel room but no independent witness heard her speak there.

A jury saw all the evidence about the journey to the hotel and heard from all the witnesses. Having done so they found Ched guilty.

Only the new jury could say why they took a different decision and they arent permitted to say.

@alreadytaken I'm not saying that the incapable of consent theory is completely implausible, but the evidence to support it seemed very thin thin. The alternative, that she remained capable of and gave consent, seems equally if not more plausible.

Ched says he didnt ask for her consent, he didnt speak to her at all.He says his friend asked, his friend says Ched asked - one or both must be lying.

Alternatively, one may simply have misremembered. It doesn't really matter which of them asked, does it? What matters is that according to their evidence, the question was asked and consent was given.

In the original trial there were two defendants while at the second trial there was only one. I can't help feeling that that could have had an effect on jury deliberations. In the first trial, they will have been tempted to compare and contrast the behaviours of the two defendants, in the second trial the jury had to focus purely on the case against CE.

And it's very strange the first witness when making an earlier statement, apparently didn't mention the fatal phrase, don't you think? He righteously wanted to clear Ched as raped women don't have sex two weeks after a rape so the whore must have lied, and yet he neglected to mention that she told him to "go harder"? Luckily he remembered it later!

The takeaway owner described the woman as "falling over drunk"
The taxi driver described the woman as "very drunk"
The receptionist described the woman as "vacant, glassy eyed and struggling to stand"

The only two people who saw her at the time who believe she was relatively sober are the defendants. Funny that, isn't it?

I'm not saying that the incapable of consent theory is completely implausible, but the evidence to support it seemed very thin thin. The alternative, that she remained capable of and gave consent, seems equally if not more plausible.

Interesting view - the evidence of excessive intoxication all comes from independent sources - kebab shop owner, taxi driver, hotel receptionist, CCTV footage. The evidence of consent comes from 2 people who were accused of rape. Yet of the 2 possible sources of evidence, you opt for the 'consent given' version as more plausible? Multiple sources of independent evidence of excessive intoxication -v- vested interest & you opt for the vested interest. I wonder why you feel that multiple independent evidence is 'very very thin' yet 2 people who couldn't even be consistent in their evidence on how consent was supposedly given by X, are more plausible that 3 independent witnesses plus CCTV footage?

js

What if they both misremembered?

Would recommend anyone who has Netflix to watch Audrie & Daisy.

It was triggering (so please be warned) but I watched the whole documentary, and I think everyone should. The hell those girls went through, and the way the boys were defended. The hell women go through everywhere.

Lots of similarities in the situations.

If you haven't seen it, it's about girls as young as 13 who find themselves drinking and then taken advantage of/raped/sexually assaulted.

Responses were:

Girls need to be culpable
It was 1am, what did they expect?
The boys have moved on

One girl committed suicide after photos circulated. Another girl's house was burnt down.

Most 'interesting' part was watching the boy in question interviewed. He was asked if they fingered the girl (who later took her own life). He said yes...

Interviewer: How long did you finger her for?
Boy: Like, literally 1 second
Interviewer: What did she do?
Boy: She asked 'harder'
Interviewer: How many times did she say 'harder'
Boy: 8 times
Interviewer: 8 times? In 1 second?

Lying little shit.

Sounds too familiar with CE saying she asked to 'go harder'.

Plus, I've been to tonnes of hotels over the years, so has DH, and not once have we ever ever gone down the fire escape??!! So I would say that detail was very very relevant js.

The takeaway owner described the woman as "falling over drunk"
The taxi driver described the woman as "very drunk"
The receptionist described the woman as "vacant, glassy eyed and struggling to stand"

This is all evidence that she was drunk. I don't think the defence disputed that she was drunk. Drunken sex is not a crime. The prosecution case was that she was incapable of consent, that's what they had to prove.

It's not self-evident that being unsteady on your feet or looking "glassy-eyed" implies that you can't understand what's going on or make decisions. I think the defence was arguing that her being able to buy pizza, write a text, respond to taxi-driver's request not to eat in back demonstrated that she was sufficiently mentally alert to make decisions & consent.

What if they both misremembered?

Standard of proof in a criminal trial is "beyond reasonable doubt", not "what if".

No my question was to you, what if they both misremembered and no one actually asked. I was curious as to your opinion

Sorry if it was confusing, should have said "whats your opinion"

I know what the standard in a trial is

But dont worry about answering my question now i have rephased it

I am not sure that someone who comes on a thread this size and says "What do all the people saying "I believe her" on this thread believe, exactly*
wants to discuss ...more "explain"

Oooh epic bold fail

Js, this had all been dealt with in the first trial. Why in your opinion was there a second?

No my question was to you, what if they both misremembered and no one actually asked. I was curious as to your opinion

Still not sure I understand your question. If neither of them asked for her consent and consent was not communicated in any other way, then it would be rape. But that's not my opinion, that's pretty much the definition of rape: sex without consent.

However as I said it's not enough for the prosecution to paint hypothetical scenarios under which the defendant is guilty, it has to prove them beyond reasonable doubt.

Js, this had all been dealt with in the first trial. Why in your opinion was there a second?

Er.. because the conviction from the first trial was quashed by the court of appeal, which ordered a retrial.

The prosecution had to start again from square one. It couldn't assume anything was "dealt with" in the first trial.

Js the new trial was ordered because there was "fresh evidence". Do you really believe that anyone remembers exactly what was said in a sexual encounter years earlier? Or is it in fact more likely that some or all of the new evidence was misremembered, to coin a phrase ? Consider this in the light of a substantial reward being offered in a case that was the talk of the town and when the evidence of the defendants was also widely known.

That wasn't my point js. You are insisting on poring over the details of the first trial where he was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. What do you think the appeal was about? It wasn't because the first jury decision was wrong based on the evidence they had. That's not why the appeal succeeded, and therefore why there was a retrial in which he was acquitted. It was the new evidence.

Thanks js

Was Ched Evans ever asked what, specifically it was which made him sure that she was sober enough to be able to consent to sex with him? Given it was 4am, a dark room, he knew his mate had picked this woman up somewhere in Rhyl, he didn't speak to her and he had never seen her standing up.

What was it, in the literal seconds he had before penetrating her (some of which he spent at the window telling his brother to be quiet and closing the curtains, what was the clincher in that time that made him think, 'yep, this girl is definitely in a fit state to decide if she wants my dick in her, and what's more I know she wants me to'?

He didn't know, he couldn't have known in those circumstances, no one could.

He didn't care anyway.

"He didn't care anyway"

This.

Totally agree that he didn't care, but also don't really understand how, given that...how it was a clear case of obviously not having consent. Again, I know they claimed one of them (not sure which) asked if he could join in and she said yes and then apparently did a full porn star routine [hmm but it's all so obviously made up.

oops, posted too soon. I mean, based on all the information, how is anyone ever going to get convicted of rape if they can just say "she might have been totally off her face and I didn't even talk to her but she really wanted it and was really into it and anyway she's a slag, these other men have had normal consensual sex with her so she obviously wanted it with me".
It's so depressing and frightening.

my first message doesn't make sense, I mean basically, I just can't believe how he has got off, the evidence is so clear he didn't have consent and this "new evidence" is so obviously just lies. It's so blatantly obvious.