Ched Evans Cleared - I Still Believe Her

[ChampagneCommunist]

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

A 16 page judgement is only a summary

To be more precise, it contains the judgement and the reasoning behind it in full but it only summarises the evidence.

So you maintain that they left the reason for granting the appeal out of the judgement entirely? How odd.

Summaries usually at least mention all rhe pertinent points, and 16 pages is ample space within which to do so.

I also think it's not good enough to say that the public shouldn't form an opinion based on what is in the press - they are.

Victims and potential victims (and presumably anyone is a potential rape victim) need to know why this case was different, why the two witness statements were used.

Atleast the press seem to be correcting the many people who vaguely think that these were character judgements that she was a slag who liked one night stands, but that might not be apparent on social media.

The message of this case matters.

I'm prepared to accept that my concerns are unfounded, but I need to know why.

prh47bridge

Thanks for posting, very interesting.

Surely they weren't paid? Surely that would be outright illegal?

No it would not be illegal. If it was the defence would be unable to call any expert witnesses. It would also stop the police and newspapers from offering rewards for information that leads to a conviction. It would be perjury if a witness was paid but denied having been paid. But as long as they are honest about being paid they can give evidence and the jury can decide how much weight to attach to their evidence.

In this case the witnesses denied that they have been paid or that they will be paid in future. The prosecution challenged them on this but was unable to advance any evidence of payment. Indeed, both witnesses first came forward before any reward was made available.

Merry - claiming that the appeal court judgement would have completely omitted to mention the key evidence on which the court's decision is based is a ludicrous position to take. I think you can be sure that the reasons set out in both the judgement and in the press (which are the same ones) are in fact the real reasons..

Vera Baird has written an article in he Guardian explaining why she finds the case concerning. Given that she was involved in drafting the 1999 Act, her views can be considered reasonably authoritative IMO.

If the judgement is only a summary, are there more detailed records elsewhere? Presumably future lawyers and judges will refer to this case.

It's actually allowed?

How on earth can it be?

How can that ever be justice, in any circumstances?

I am absolutely staggered by that.

So any man can pay other men to say they did something with a woman and that's fucking evidence?

This is even worse than I thought.

Can you link to Vera Baird's article Woman? I'd like to read it.

*Indeed, both witnesses first came forward before any reward was made available.

Not with the magic words, though.

"Some lawyers say this was a rare case and doubt that, as a precedent, it will affect many future cases. But other lawyers – and I am one of them – fear that rape trials could become inquisitions into the complainant’s sex life."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/17/courts-judge-rape-sexual-history-ched-evans-case

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/17/courts-judge-rape-sexual-history-ched-evans-case

Have now read this - haven't seen anyone explain why her concerns are misplaced.

So, basically he is free because the jury believed:

She was not drunk enough not to be able to consent

She has had similar sexual encounters and claimed to have forgotten them

It's possible she gave consent and then forgot due to alcohol induced amnesia.

I'm not saying that's ok, I just want to understand the argument.

It's an interesting definition of 'similar' isn't it?

Encounters A & B

• men she already knew
• she intentionally went home with them, with the intention of some level of sexual activity
• they spoke to each other beforehand
• they were not threesomes
• she didn't wake up having wet the bed
• she didn't wake up having been so drunk she had no idea how she'd got to where she was
• both parties spent the whole night together, no one legged it

Encounter C

• a man she'd never met
• she didn't go home with him at all, no sexual intentions at all
• he lier to get into the room, didnt speak to her before during or after, legged it out of the fire escape
• it was a threesome (given that legally I can't call it gangrape)
• she woke up having been so drunk she'd wet the bed and with no idea where she was

I'm struggling to see these as very similar encounters at all.

Yes basically, but ONLY I think because of the 'remembered' testimony of two witnesses who knew the Evans people and of the money being offered?

I think the argument was that having sex in a certain way shows consent. You wouldn't know that somebody would have sex in this way if you hadn't had sex with them.

That seemed to be the argument put before the court of appeal. Who knows what was said to the jury. Unless somebody explains further, the message given is that to avoid a charge of rape you just need to find somebody to confirm that the victim said a phrase that is so common that its almost something people say out of politeness.

the message given is that to avoid a charge of rape you just need to find somebody to confirm that the victim said a phrase that is so common that its almost something people say out of politeness

Yep, spot on.

That 'yes basically' being what I suppose the jury must have been led to believe.

as no-one seems to have made this point yet - it's quite clear from the comments of Ched Evans supporters on the internet that they would do anything to have him acquitted - and they wouldnt even need to be paid for it, it would be enough that he was again able to play for their football team.

I dont know if that was put to the jury - will a transcript ever be available to find out? It seems clear that it was not put to the appeal court judges and they also seem to have decided to ignore the naming of X, something linked to those close to Ched.

Personally I would not trust the evidence of witnesses who came forward after there was publicity to tell them what to say.

I also cant believe that in a judgement that they admit was made with some trepidation the appeal court would leave out anything significant.

Thanks . I thought so, having read some interview with one of the witnesses who said she'd forgotten having intimate encounters with him

oh and I do realise that one or both came forward before the reward was offered - but that doesnt mean they didnt see benefit to themselves from coming forward.

Look at the words of the witnesses before and after money offers were chucked at them.

as to paying expert witnesses being the same - an expert witness is paid regardless of the nature of their evidence, they arent offered an inducement to give evidence leading to an acquittal.

And although the witness denied being paid is it right that they were merely asked and answered ? The jury didn't see the offers online of £50k. just asked were you paid ? No? Ok then. It would sway your opinion if you SAW the reason for the question.
And if CMs testimony wasn't allowed what about his 'she's sick' comment to the receptionist DURING the 'sex' with CE?

If the judgement is only a summary, are there more detailed records elsewhere? Presumably future lawyers and judges will refer to this case

The judgement gives the legal reasoning in full. Future lawyers and judges will refer to that. It is unlikely they will need the full evidence. If they need that they will have to refer to the transcript (which is not usually publicly available).

So any man can pay other men to say they did something with a woman and that's fucking evidence

To repeat, the police and the press regularly put up rewards for people providing information leading to a conviction. The police also sometimes make offers to people in prison in return for giving evidence against others - one of the reasons alleged jailhouse confessions should be treated with suspicion. The jury will be encouraged to take any payment into account in determining how much weight (if any) to give the evidence. The presence or otherwise of corroborating evidence is also a factor. In this case there was some corroborating evidence for both the new witnesses.

the message given is that to avoid a charge of rape you just need to find somebody to confirm that the victim said a phrase that is so common that its almost something people say out of politeness

You have to convince a jury that the similarities between the accused's description of the alleged rape and the descriptions of consensual sex given by other partners of the victim are enough to say that the accused clearly knows how the victim behaves when having consensual sex. Do you really think that 12 ordinary men and women are going to decide that based on use of a common phrase?

Look at the words of the witnesses before and after money offers were chucked at them

There is no evidence that money offers were "chucked at them". There is no conflict between their original statements and their current statements. The only difference is that originally they were not asked about details of the victim's behaviour during their sexual encounters with her and did not volunteer that information. I am not saying I believe them but a jury heard all the evidence and decided they were credible, as did the Court of Appeal.

So, basically he is free because the jury believed:

We don't know exactly what the jury believed and never will. All we can say for sure is that either they concluded that she consented and was not too drunk to consent (which, on the evidence, would seem to be in line with R v Bree, a case which went to the Court of Appeal and is viewed as the leading authority on consent whilst intoxicated) or that Evans reasonably believed that she was not too drunk to consent. I think the latter is unlikely as, on the evidence, Evans does not appear to have spent enough time with her to form a reasonable belief.