Ched Evans Cleared - I Still Believe Her

[ChampagneCommunist]

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

If there are any legal folk here, does this case set a precedent in that previous sexual conduct, and consenting to someone the same day, can be used in future against other rape complainants? Or is this already a thing (sorry for my ignorance).

I believe her.

Ched Evans is a rapist piece of shit

Natasha M is a disgusting excuse for a woman, a terrible mother and a rape apologist.

It beggars belief that in this case the victims previous history could be presented in court but when people like child killer Robert Howard who was on trial for the murder of Arlene Arkinson the jury could not be told his previous convictions.

A serious change in the law is required here.

Horrified. I cannot believe this has been permitted. I am ashamed of my profession (retired solicitor, but not a criminal specialist)
Who is going to report rape now? What an utter travesty.

It greatly heartens me that my 22 year old football going son and his mates think that Ched Evans is a lowlife scum rapist. And that my 20 year old daughter and her mates think his girlfriend is pathetic and deluded. Attitudes are changing even with this setback.

My 16 year old son and I both go to the football, he just said that Evans will be slaughtered by opposition supporters and he's right, things like this aren't forgotten about. It's a number of years since Wayne Rooney's indiscretions but he still gets abuse about them while playing.

It's when Ched Evans gets disowned by the home supporters, for being a disgusting piece of shit, that things will have changed.

I've already told the Welsh FA that I will not attend an international if he plays, should he ever be fit enough

I'm very uncomfortable with the abuse his fiancee is getting. Everything about her conduct suggests profound self-esteem problems. Her millionaire father, who has bankrolled Ched's legal team, sounds a nightmare and if he was responsible for her upbringing it explains a great deal. Her behaviour is shocking but she's another Ched victim. Some compassion please.

She is one of the people who have been slandering his victim.

No, I feel no sympathy for her.

It's when Ched Evans gets disowned by the home supporters, for being a disgusting piece of shit, that things will have changed.

Yes, and we're a long way away from that.

Instead people are busily posting all over social media about what a lying slag his poor victim is.

It isn't even a question of "I believe her".

It is "I believe the medical evidence". And "I believe Ched and his mate when they originally said she didn't say yes before someone pointed out that this is commonly known as rape."

I'm very uncomfortable with the abuse his fiancee is getting

My heart bleeds for her and the £50k she was casually mentioning when she contacted trial witnesses. I can't wait to hear how she's going to explain to her son, about how daddy lied to get a key to a hotel room, where he had sex with a drunk woman he never actually spoke to, whilst his brother and a friend tried to video it and then daddy made his escape through a fire escape.

The law currently is that drunken consent IS consent unless you are so drunk that you have lost the capability to choose.

An early post on this thread states that she was unable to talk. The prosecution did not suggest this and the evidence is that she was still capable of speech when she entered the room.

It remains the case that the victim's previous sexual history is not admissible as evidence unless the victim effectively introduces it herself, e.g. by stating she would not have consented as she was always faithful to her partner. It was only allowed in this case due to the striking similarities between these other accounts and the defendant's account.

Ad I have said before, I am very uncomfortable with "I believe you" in relation to this case. The victim has faced considerable abuse from people accusing her of making a false accusation. I therefore think it is very important to be clear that she did not at any stage allege that she had been raped. She simply stated that she cannot recall what happened. Unfortunately she is likely to face further abuse as a result of this verdict.

In this case my "I believe her" is that I believe she does not remember. I believe she was so drunk that she was in the class of "not legally able to consent"

I also believe chedwyn when he said he didn't speak to her in advance. He only changed his story after realising he fucked up.

Another early post on this thread suggested that Evans changed his evidence in this trial. He did not. Doing so would have been extremely foolish. The prosecution would have used any inconsistency to attack his evidence which would have substantially weakened his defence.

Prh47

The defence case seemed to be that CE described her having sex in a particular (but fairly common way) that implied consent. Other partners later gave evidence of her having sex in a similar way at around the same time.

Is the argument that therefore CE was telling the truth? Was he thought to be lying at the previous trial? Is the idea that as 2 other people also described her doing a similar thing, it would be too much of a coincidence for him to be lying now?

I don't understand why, given the length of time that passed and attempts to pay people for evidence, there wouldn't be suspicion of coroboration?

I am assuming that the point was that enough doubt was introduced that the jury thought there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

The blog linked below argues that this is a very rare case and that it be difficult to introduce sexual history as evidence in a court case. However, looking at what we know of this case, all you need to do is find the right witnesses. The blog argues that people don't know enough about the case to comment and that it is scaremongering to suggest that rape victims won't come forward.

However, I think the reasoning needs to be made clear. To all intents and purposes it does now look as though previous sexual partners can be paid for evidence.

thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

"The blog linked below argues that this is a very rare case and that it would be difficult to introduce sexual history as evidence in another court case.

This whole thing makes me sick :( That poor girl,Ched Evans girlfriend is an absolute disgrace she has gone after this girl out of some sick jealousy because her boyfriend is scum.I can't get over people's reaction also it makes me feel scared of the future.

Evans did not "realise he'd fucked up" and changed his story. He has always said that Mcdonald asked the victim if Evans could have sex with her and she said yes.

merrymouse - I have not seen a transcript but my understanding is that the similarities extended to particular words and phrases used plus the victim's inability to recall events the following morning. Her memory loss has always been a puzzle. Expert evidence was that she did not consume anywhere near enough alcohol to induce memory loss.

The defence argument is that the similarities between the account given by Evans and the accounts given by these other men who, it appears to be accepted, had consensual sex with the victim lends credence to his account. His account is widely misrepresented on social media. If we accept his actual account he is a disgusting excuse for a man but he is not guilty of rape. The jury, of course, did not have to accept his account. They could simply have decided that the prosecution had failed to prove his account was a lie.

I'm not sure if the new witnesses were paid for their evidence. I am away from home at the moment so can't check easily but I think at least one of them denied that there was any payment. If witnesses are paid it does not automatically rule out their evidence but it is a factor the jury should take into account when considering how much weight to give it.

So the scumbag got off.

But what were the jury thinking ?
They heard that the victim had previously enjoyed sex with other men. So therefore any man who finfs her unconcious is entitled to his "go" too.
They are a bunch of shits too

I'm so angry and shocked.the judge today and jury have taken us back in time by 50 / 60 years..clearly women haters.do they not have mothers? Daughters? Sisters?. Would he still be not guilty if it was their relative?... were these ex partners paid to come forward by the father in law? I thought a women's sexual history was irrelevant in a rape case...he's a fucking bastard.and he's going to hell.

The point about the new witnesses is that there is wide spread perception that they were paid. I suppose the problem is that it would be difficult to know without investigating them - on the face of it the court have to assume they weren't committing perjury - but then the prosecution certainly seemed to imply that they were.

At the moment it's really not clear why sexual history would be admitted in this case, but not others. The implication is that if you can find somebody to corroborate a sexual detail you can cast enough doubt on the case to avoid a conviction.

Yes, there is a lot of misinformation floating around the Internet, but in the absence of more explanation, I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion, looking at what happened to this woman, that it's best not to report rape.

On the other hand would a public explanation just prolong this dreadful experience for her?

I believe her too... she's never claimed Ched raped her she claimed she had no memory and that seems to be consistent with the new evidence presented by one of her other sexual partners in addition to similarities between the actions which haven't been reported on in detail.

So I also believe the not guilty verdict was the appropriate one in this instance. No one knows for sure what exactly happened in that room aside from Ched and his friend but she wasn't completely wasted and was still able to walk in heels as seen on the CCTV, the member of the hotel staff who walked past heard her making sex noises (so she wasn't unconscious as someone tired to allege in one of these threads) and having a threesome isn't something that is out of the question for her neither is having a one night stand. So I really can't see how the jury could come to any other conclusion - there is no way Ched is guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' there is plenty of doubt.

That doesn't mean he isn't a pretty nasty individual for the way he's treated his own partner, the way he seems to look at women. But I think some of the vitriol directed at him is because he's been turned into a bit of a hate figure by the tabloids. And some of the 'I believe her' comments might be under the false impression that she's alleged a rape has taken place when she hasn't - she's not accused this footballer of anything. Fact is the jury reached a unanimous verdict and they heard all the evidence on the other hand we've just seen him as a villain and read extracts in the press.

What the hell can we do....this has to be challenged.for the future of our daughters and granddaughters

No that is not what the jury decided at all. The prosecution did not advance any evidence to support the assertion that the victim was unconscious. Indeed, the evidence of one of the hotel staff suggests she was not.

Just to reiterate, a woman's sexual history is generally irrelevant in rape cases. It was allowed in this case due to the particular circumstances.