Ched Evans allowed back

[juliascurr]

www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/ched-evans-sheffield-united-striker-to-return-to-club-after-rape-sentence-despite-petition-garnering-60000-signatures-against-him-9666380.html

really bad news

And the lack of comment about another man, who has also 'done his research' siccing the knuckle draggers on a random, innocent woman and her child is pretty telling as well.

How many women have to go into hiding to make these people happy, do we think?

At least he's bothered to analyse the case based on material out there - there has been vanishingly few other such attempts.

Bollocks has there, cadno.

Most of us on this thread have read the crimeline document that is a dispassionate summing up of the case and a point by point discussion as to why the request for an appeal was being declined.

And Fatbloke1 hasn't posted many times - advanced search will tell you which post talked about spiking.

”All that research... yet you don't appear to know that the CPS case wasn't based on drink spiking, or on the complainant being unconscious?”

Yes, all that research.........how much have you done by the way?

House......I can call you house can’t I?
You have completely misunderstood the point I was making, or you have chosen not to understand it! Firstly, it was you that said;

“It isn't just her saying "I can't remember, I must have been too drunk to consent".

From that, I took it that you were trying to say that the complainant had actually said that she must have been too drunk to consent. I merely pointed out that she never said that at all. It was the prosecutions case that she was too drunk to consent, but not hers.

What she actually said was;

"I can't remember, that is the reason I think I was spiked, because I can't remember how I got between both places or what happened there"

She said that in an interview with the police, a video recording of which was shown in court by the prosecution.

Then during cross examination, the prosecution barrister repeatedly put it to CM that the complainant was “unconscious, or nearly unconscious” and CM repeatedly denied it

Did you not know that?

So, the prosecution’s case, was that the complainant was SO drunk, that she did not have the capacity to consent to sex with either CM or CE. But that doesn't mean they didn't try to slip in the idea that her drink might have been spiked or that she might have been unconscious, so that the jury would hear it, even though they then produced no further evidence to back up either claim.

"Most of us on this thread have read the crimeline document that is a dispassionate summing up of the case and a point by point discussion as to why the request for an appeal was being declined."

The crimeline document is only part of the story. It only gives a summary of the original trial proceedings and addresses itself specifically to the grounds CE's legal team were offering for his appeal application. As such it leaves a lot out.

To get a better picture, you need to trawl through all the press reports of the trial itself or even better, get a copy of the full trial transcript - I'm working on that one.

How to you obtain a copy of the trial transcript ?

fatbloke none of what you have posted above really makes any difference. Your interpretation of what you've read and understood is just that - your interpretation. None of that is necessarily inconsistent with the woman being too drunk to consent to sex when she was in the hotel room (which is the relevant time). The defence evidence referred to the fact that the woman had drank a lot, particularly in the last hour before leaving the club. In that situation, she is likely to have gotten drunker as more time passed, not less drunk.

The LCJ described this as a classic case for a jury and, refusing leave to appeal on the basis of "lurking doubt" said:

"We can see no possible basis which would justify us to interfere with the verdict of the jury which heard all the evidence and reflected on it following a careful summing up by the judge."

There is a very good reason why judges are loathe to interfere on matters properly decided by the jury. All the part-time Rumpoles can draw their own conclusions based on carefully selected "evidence" put forward by the convicted rapist but they weren't in the court room and didn't hear the evidence, the cross-examinations nor the summing up and directions as to the law given by the judge.

You're not being objective here, you're just being speculative.

"The jury got it wrong, do you think juries get it 100% right all the time" - I've seen lots of arguments along those lines - it's a very weak argument.

Yes, juries do get it wrong sometimes - but they are (in general) more likely to err on the side of caution - ie. not sending a person to jail if there is reasonable doubt in their minds. Juries don't (in general) like sending men to jail for rape when there is that element of doubt.

CE is no Gerry Conlon. He was not fitted up by the police because he's footballer (another popular argument), the police acted on the statements of the 3 people involved, plus other witness statements, and other evidence that has only been seen in court, like the full cctv images - and decided that a crime was committed. The CPS agreed, so did the jury (in Evans's case), and so have a number of appeal judges.

Bloke1 thinks that the judge misdirected the jury (as does CE) but 2 sets of appeal judges have ruled that this was not the case.

Perhaps they're part of the shadowy Feminazi at the top of the legal system, who spend their time screaming, bawling and fitting innocent young men up for rape, House?

Bloke1 thinks that the judge misdirected the jury (as does CE) but 2 sets of appeal judges have ruled that this was not the case.

Judges and juries do sometimes make mistakes but I'm going to go with the LCJ over randombloke1 on this one.

Perhaps the jury were the Feminazi too? The Feminazi have loooooong tentacles. They're everywhere - controlling every aspect of our lives.

"Yes, the complainant speculated that her drink may have been spiked. But that wasn't the prosecution's case."

But it WAS included in the prosecutions evidence

The fact is that there is a whole raft of evidence about her state that you have not seen or heard."

But you have seen it I suppose?

"All you have seen is the selected highlights of the defence case that CE's team have put online".

As I have made perfectly clear, I have trawled through many sources, not just the Ched Evans Website. Did you not take that on board?

"The porters statement isn't online in its entirety."

No it isnt. However, this is what the Daily Post reported on 14th April 2012;

A HOTEL receptionist told a court he heard sounds of people having sex coming from a room where two footballers are accused of raping a nineteen-year-old girl.
Gavin Burrough, formerly a night receptionist at the Premier Inn, Rhuddlan, told Caernarfon crown court that Wales footballer Ched Evans, 23, had asked for a key to the room during the early hours of a Bank Holiday Monday.
Shortly before that, Port Vale footballer Clayton McDonald, also 23, had arrived in a taxi with an “extremely drunk” woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons.
Both men deny raping the 19-year-old. Mr Burrough told the jury he was working on reception on the night of the alleged rape.
At around 4am, on Monday May 30, 2011 he saw a taxi pull out and a man, later identified as McDonald, and a woman get out. He said: “She was extremely drunk. She was not very steady on her feet. She had a blank expression.”
The pair went into a hotel room and around 10-15 minutes later Evans arrived in a taxi, asking for the keys to room 14, while two friends waited outside. Evans told the receptionist he had “booked the room for a friend”, who’d since gone home.
Mr Burrough later saw Evans’ two friends outside the open window of room 14, and the court has heard claims one of them filmed the alleged rape on a mobile phone.
The receptionist later carried out a check outside room 14, and said he could hear sounds of “squealing and panting” coming from inside.
It was clear that people were was having sex in the room, he said, adding that he heard the voice of one man ask the woman to perform a sexual act on him.
Around a quarter of an hour later McDonald returned to the reception asking for a taxi number.

This is not repeat NOT on the Ched Evans website. There are other reports which are also NOT on the Ched Evans website and for all your banging on about me not being there - the above report comes from a reporter who was!

"Neither is the taxi driver's. And you didn't see either of them being cross examined."

Neither did you!

"And you can fuck off with the patronising "I can call you House, can't I" bullshit, btw."

Thus far, I have resisted the temptation to use offensive language towards you in this discussion - do you think you might do the same in future?

So what is it in particular in the Daily Post report that makes you think that the victim consented to sex with Evans, Fatbloke? Or that she was even capable of consent? She was extremely drunk, with a blank expression and not very steady on her feet. CM left the room reporting to the porter that the victim was 'sick' and that he should keep an eye on her.

The Prosecution described CE's behaviour on that night as predatory. I agree that it was - and that was from his own admission.

What is your angle here bloke ? Do you think that the woman was lying?

And your patronizing is offensive in itself.

Yes Hoppy, pretty obvious really.

Fatbloke's posts are v patronising. He thinks he knows something that other posters don't, and he thinks he's read more about the case than anyone else - although how he thinks he knows that is beyond me.

Sabrina, he's a man and we're just screaming bawling women.

We can't read evidence or do research like he can cos he's so objective y'see, not like us with our unobjective screaming and bawling.

So obviously he knows he's read more about the case than us. S'obvious doncha know.

Basil

Fatbloke1

I watched the CCTV on the CE Website of the purported complainant and CM entering the hotel and of her going out back out to collect the pizza. She certainly doesn't look extremely drunk from that. However, I wonder why they decided to edit approx 30 seconds out of the video from 4:09 onwards. Did they think people would get bored? One second she's in frame, in the next shot she's disappeared. Begs the question as to what happens in that period - does she fall over ?

BTW Don't worry about the others, dissent is often poorly tolerated on this part of mumsnet