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

Jolly good, thanks.

Why the fuck are you all still talking to this idiot?

Again bloke what is your angle? Do you think she is lying?

"Again bloke what is your angle? Do you think she is lying?"

Gut feeling? No, I don't think she was lying.

But I'm not convinced that she was raped either.

Clayton McDonald and Ched Evans are guilty of being arseholes, as are Ched's brother and Jack Higgins, for convincing themselves that it would be funny to film their mates, having sex through a hotel window.

But however distasteful I might find their behaviour that night - being an arsehole is not a crime!

You don't think it's rape? But you don't think she's lying?

"You don't think it's rape? But you don't think she's lying?"

Correct.

The complainant did not go to the police and say she had been raped.

She said she had lost her handbag and that she had woken up that morning in a strange bed, with no memory of how she'd got there or who she had been with. She thought her drink might have been spiked.

To that extent, she was probably telling the truth, although I think she was mistaken about the spiking.

It was the police that then made inquiries and joined up the dots. I suspect that they put 2 and 2 together and got 6. From then onward, it was the police and the CPS that were in the driving seat.

You think someone who is so drunk she can't remember what has happened to her can properly consent?

As I understand the reportage, Ched Evans was convicted by what he said himself when interviewed, i.e. he incriminated himself and, though he didn't believe what he did was rape, it was by the law of the land, ergo a jury convicted him.

I think I'm just trying to understand how bloke is defining rape, because I'm not sure it's the same way as the police/judge/jury.

I was under the impression also that it was CE's own testimony that lead to the conviction.

I'm interested in how Fatbloke defines sex.

Fatbloke1

I think there's a lot of maybes about the door - and it doesn't seem to help the CPS or the defence really. Clearly its motion activated. Maybe somebody left the hotel or maybe someone walks past the hotel - although I can't imagine there'd be that hardly any pedestrian traffic at 4:10am casually passing by - maybe the KFC is open but the pub Morfa Rhuddlan would surely have been closed hours ago (see google maps). You'll also see from the CCTV footage when CM and the complainant approach the door, that the inner door is activated before they are two steps away from it. Maybe the door was first activated by the taxi driving off. Also, even if there were someone else passing, maybe they didn't recall enough of the incident to warrant calling them to give evidence.

As far CM running after the taxi, you'll see that he doesn't follow the taxi but walks off to the right - the reason for this is that (if you look on google map at the Premier Hotel in Rhuddlan) is that the taxi basically will have to leave the car park and then very likely drive back past the hotel - CM seems to be off in the hope of intercepting it.

The bit that interests me is the duration it takes the complainant to walk un-aided across the foyer to retrieve her food and back again. Clearly she manages it without falling over -is there hint of a stumble at 4:11.01 (just as she moves onto a different surface)?. The foyer doesn't look that long to me but she takes about 5/6 seconds to cover it - but it does seem to that she's quite slow. Certainly she's not falling down drunk in an almost unconscious kinda of way. Difficult to believe she's that drunk that she recalls nothing passed 3.00am when she left the nightclub. Having said that, other substances she might have ingested, possibly unwittlingly, might account for that.

creepy shudder

FFS

Is it just me who is sick of these 2 blokes sitting there self-importantly discussing the evidence (except it's only partial evidence) as if their opinion matters at all? The jury examined the evidence- all of it, not jsut the bit Ched Evans' family thought they should see - and found the man guilty of rape. He was refused an appeal twice. But 2 blokes find nothing inappropriate or incongruous about sitting there pretending to trawl through evidence long after it's relevant on the feminist section of Mumsnet, who are on record as supporting I Believe Her and not tolerating rape myths.

And she's not a fucking complainant, she's a rape victim.

yup

there is something very weird about poring over Google maps ad infinitum, relentlessly poring over "evidence" and then trying to metaphorically bludgeon some random women over the head with it via the Internet

Not just you basil these posters are fucking grim.

Yup. It's pretty dismal.

There are male posters who seem to be just drawn to threads about rape, particularly with a view to dismissing women's experiences and feelings. I rarely see them post elsewhere.

And they are concentrating almost 100% on the behaviour of the victim. And isn't that what we all campaign against?

It's actually quite reprehensible.

Let's talk about Ched Evans. He had never met the victim, she was just "a bird" or a "girl" as in the "got a girl" text from CM.

On the strength of that text he turns his taxi around, lies to the porter to get the key. He turns up in the room, without knocking and (apparently) unannounced. He then, having never met the woman in the room, who was having sex with his friend, sees fit to ask his friend (not her - according to the police statements) if he can join in/get involved/have a go.

He then leaves via the fire escape - just a short time after CM goes into reception and tells the porter the woman in room 14 is "sick" and he should keep an eye on her.

CE 'Had a go' on the woman who was in a hotel room with someone else, and was extremely drunk. Two independent witnesses testified to that. A woman who has repeatedly said she has no memory of events, and woke up without her bag, clothes, in a urine socked bed, with no recollection of how she got there.

Yeah - there's a prosecution case for CE being predatory rapist. For sure. The jury agreed. It's more than bad manners or bad behaviour.

And before any dullard says "why could she consent to CM and not CE?" (yet again) the CPS agreed with the police that there was also a case against CM.

However, the judge directed that the jury should consider both cases separately. The jury obviously felt there was reasonable doubt in CM's case - that simply wasn't there in CE's case - possibly in the fact that CM had reasonable belief in her consent, and an independent witness to back that up (the night porter).

Is it just me who is sick of these 2 blokes sitting there self-importantly discussing the evidence (except it's only partial evidence) as if their opinion matters at all?

No. Definitely not just you.