Ched Evans Cleared - I Still Believe Her

[ChampagneCommunist]

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

[Clonakilty]

What circumstances? When is someone's sexual past relevant? I am sickened beyond belief to the point of throwing up. I am having terrible flashbacks about the times I was raped.

[Marbleheadjohnson]

I guess the circumstances were the guys claimed she used the exact same phrase to them that the defence claimed she said on the night. And there is no way they could have been influenced by the offer of 50 grand for information that would lead to acquittal.

[KimmySchmidtsSmile]

Injustice. I find this verdict unbelievable.

[merrymouse]

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.

The problem is that isn't very reassuring. It is already so difficult to get a conviction and the situation seems very open to abuse.

[Thornyrose7]

I am enraged that her sexual history was used by the prosecution. This is corrupt! Such a terrible day for this woman and for all women in the UK who report rape.

[Chippednailvarnishing]

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 I wonder why that is? FFS.

[garlicandsapphire]

I believe her too. It felt like National Treasure to me.

[ChiefClerkDrumknott]

I believe her. I felt physically sick at this verdict today

[UnGoogleable]

I believe her.

I am appalled by this case.

[prh47bridge]

merrymouse - Don't be fooled by the 6% figure that is widely quoted. Juries convict more often than they acquit in cases they get to decide. The big problem is the number of cases that are dropped before getting anywhere near court, the most common reason being the victim withdrawing their complaint.

This case has not changed the law. The defence can only introduce evidence about the victim's sexual history if it rebuts evidence advanced by the prosecution (e.g. the prosecution claiming that the woman is faithful to her partner) or it relates to a relevant issue at trial and the issue concerned is not whether or not the victim consented.

[merrymouse]

The big problem is the number of cases that are dropped before getting anywhere near court, the most common reason being the victim withdrawing their complaint.

And the cases that are never reported in the first place.

or it relates to a relevant issue at trial and the issue concerned is not whether or not the victim consented.

But wasn't the point of this evidence to show that the victim had consented - acting in a particular way shows consent, similar behaviour with different partners establishes that the claim of a particular behaviour is true?

If that is the case, it would seem to offer a fairly straightforward way for somebody with money to buy evidence.

I would have thought that the suggestion of a reward would be particularly problematic when evidence is difficult to verify.

It's quite possible that there is more to the story than has been reported in the media, but again, on the face of it and with no further information I think it's difficult to argue that it won't discourage reporting of rape.

[Uiscebeatha85]

I believe her.

[Somersetlady]

This is a genuine question as I have not read the dull court transcripts.

I see people are outraged that her precious sexual hostory was admitted as evidence. Reading above many seem to think it was paid for evidence which would suggest that the accuser did not sleep with, have threesomes etc with the other men.
Is it the case that she challenged the submissions as evidence and denied sleeping with the other men etc that the wvidence given was false?

[Somersetlady]

*full not dull. A most unfortunate typi.

[prh47bridge]

But wasn't the point of this evidence to show that the victim had consented

It cannot have been that - at least, not directly. The law is clear that the victim's previous sexual history cannot be introduced as evidence of consent. The Court of Appeal cannot change that. Their judgement is not yet available so I can't see their reasoning for allowing this evidence but it will be more nuanced than that. If it was directly about consent the prosecution would have gone to the Supreme Court who would have overturned the Court of Appeal.

The nearest you can get would be if the victim stated that she would never behave in a certain way, e.g. being unfaithful to her partner. If the defence can show that she has behaved in that way in the past it is clearly relevant as it shows that the victim's testimony is untruthful. If the victim gives evidence that is untrue it is a basic requirement of justice that the defence must be allowed to challenge it.

I would have thought that the suggestion of a reward would be particularly problematic when evidence is difficult to verify.

It is and, as I said above, the jury should take the question of rewards into account when determining how much weight to attach to evidence. Note that in this case at least one of the new witnesses was challenged about the reward. He denied being aware of the reward until just before the retrial and strongly denied that he had received any reward or that he would receive a reward in future. He also stated that he earned more in a year than the reward and that he would lose his job if he accepted the reward. The prosecution do not appear to have challenged these statements. Note also that in this case some verification was available in the form of text messages.

Is it the case that she challenged the submissions as evidence and denied sleeping with the other men etc that the wvidence given was false

The prosecution cross examined these witnesses. Judging from reports they seem to have focused on the question of whether or not these men received any rewards rather than challenging the basic truth of their statements. It appears that at least one of the men had text messages from the victim in which she appears to be indicating a desire to have sex with him (to put it mildly).

The evidence will not have come as a surprise to the prosecution. They knew what was coming. I find it telling that they did not use the victim's evidence to try and undermine these witnesses. That suggests to me that she was unable to deny their accounts.

On the "I believe" point, I too believe the victim's evidence which is that she has no recollection of what happened. She agreed with the experts that she had not consumed enough alcohol to induce memory loss and suggested that someone unknown (definitely not Evans) had spiked her drinks. There is no evidence to suggest that her drinks were spiked but the new evidence suggests she is prone to memory loss. So yes, I believe she has no recollection of events and therefore does not know whether or not she was raped.

[merrymouse]

Ok prh I suppose at the moment all we can say is we don't know why jury made their decision.

However I think it is important that the reasoning is made clear. This was a very high profile case, and at the moment the message being sent is not good.

[DownWithThisSortaThing]

I have no sympathy at all for his girlfriend, she doesn't give a shit about the teenager that was taken advantage of - or as I call it, raped - in a hotel room by 2 men she didn't know when she was alone and too drunk to stand up.
She has chosen to stand by a lying cheating rapist and have a child with him.
She has bribed people to be witnesses for him. She's a discrace, IMO.

The only sympathy I have here is for the victim, who has had some truly vile abuse, and has had to change her name and address numerous times because of the hate campaign witch hunt by rape apologists. None of this is her fault but she has no choice but to be part of it. Ched's girlfriend has that choice, but is the one doing her best 'poor me' face.

As far as I can tell the only person who's received an apology for what Ched did is his girlfriend. He'll do it to her again, let's just hope the next woman can actually consent.

[prh47bridge]

too drunk to stand up

Back to making up evidence. Yes, she fell over in a takeaway but, after entering the hotel with McDonald she returned to the taxi and then went back into the hotel unaided and with no apparent sign of unsteadiness on her feet. She was not too drunk to stand up.

She has bribed people to be witnesses for him

There is no evidence that any witnesses were bribed. A reward was offered for information (something the prosecution do regularly with no-one referring to it as a bribe). There is no evidence that it has been or will be paid to the witnesses. At least one of them stated that he will not receive any part of the reward as it would result in him losing his job.

I have a lot of sympathy for the victim - part of the reason I am uncomfortable with the "I believe you" meme in this case because it encourages those who accuse her of having made a false allegation when she actually made no allegation at all. I do not feel it helps her (or anyone else) to make allegations such as her being too drunk to stand when it is simply not true.

[prh47bridge]

However I think it is important that the reasoning is made clear

I would hope that, now the case is over, Lady Justice Hallett's full decision will be published. I have no inside information. However, I note that during the retrial the victim stated that she would not behave as described by McDonald and Evans even when drunk. If she made similar statements in the original trial it would mean that evidence suggesting that she does indeed behave in that way when drunk would be admissible. That would be my guess but I may be wrong.

Note that this does not mean she lied. Given that it appears she is prone to memory loss after getting drunk it could be simply that she is unaware of how she behaves when drunk. It could, of course, also be that the new witnesses were lying but the text messages tend to suggest that there is at least some truth in their evidence.

We will, of course, not know the jury's reasoning. All we will ever be able to say for sure is that they concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the either the defendant was too drunk to consent or that, if she was not too drunk, she did not consent.

[NinjaFeminist]

This was posted on another CE thread & is the ruling from the court of appeal.

Reading through this makes me so angry. The 'new evidence' is heavily tainted by the involvement/interference of the friends/family of CE in the extreme lengths they went to, to buy 'justice' IMO. The friends & family being the contact/go-between for these witnesses before the investigator took statements, and after the graphic details from CE's testimony has been widely published in both the media and online, not least on the website inducing witnesses to come forward with £50k being dangled - how on earth can their evidence be considered credible or reliable under these circumstances. The lack of CE's direct involvement in the procuring of that evidence does not mean it's untainted.

NM approached an independent witness to try and induce 'new evidence' - and yet the court don't think anything similar happened with these 2 witnesses when they had links to CE and had involvement/interaction with friends & close family of CE?

The whole thing stinks. The victim here has had her credibility/life eviscerated online - again - for the sake of evidence obtained in these circumstances which IMO is hugely questionable. As for the comments made within that judgement/decision about not expecting a repeat of the treatment the victim had during/after the 1st trial? I can get my head around that level of ignorance over what's gone on in this case.

[DiegeticMuch]

I believe that she has no recollection of events. I've no idea whether she was raped, obviously, only one person knows that. The men involved acted in an appalling way. I wonder whether the authorities who decided to bring this case wanted to bring a footballer down a peg or two on the basis of pretty flimsy evidence, in which case the woman was their pawn. Whatever the truth is, I genuinely wish her well for the future. I hope she finds strength.

[Birdandsparrow]

I wonder whether the authorities who decided to bring this case wanted to bring a footballer down a peg or two on the basis of pretty flimsy evidence, in which case the woman was their pawn.

I doubt it. It is notoriously difficult to get a rape conviction (and will be even harder now). I'm fairly sure the police and CPS reckoned this was a fairly solid case or they wouldn't have pursued it and spent public money on it.
I mean, a woman who was so drunk she couldn't remember it (proved by the fact she reported a lost bag and the police uncovered that she'd had sex) and was so drunk she pissed the bed, is penetrated in a dark room by a man who lies to get the key to that room, penetrates her without even speaking to her and then legs it down the fire escape. Fairly clear case of consent not being obtained I would say.

[Datun]

NinjaFeminist

I've tried to get my head around that PDF. Am I correct: did the first witness all ready know Ched Evans sister? Is it right that his first two statements made no mention of what the victim said? The appeal court accepted his third statement where he did mention what she said, whilst thinking that those words were not in the public domain. And then when they found out that they WERE in the public domain, they allowed it anyway?! And that his sole point of contact prior to being questioned was with Chad Evans' family?

That can't be right.

[LineyReborn]

Datun it's scandalous.

[legotits]

Datun it's outrageous.

I don't think most of us know all the facts according to the case.

They should make a reenactment based on Cheds version.
Make it blatantly obvious what he did according to his own fucking words.

Poor lass, eviscerating is a good description.