Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

Sorry I can't link but it's on the BBC site.

I have a question - when there is a retrial based on 'New evidence', is that all the jury are expected to consider? Obviously all of the evidence has to be heard again, but are the jury supposed to take all the previously heard evidence as pointing to a guilty verdict, as that was what happened before and simply decide if the new evidence changes that? Or are they supposed to listen to the whole thing from scratch and decide that some of the previously heard evidence also points to a different verdict than before in their view as well?

If any of that makes sense?

No it's a fresh trial

Completely new trial and all matters to be considered by the new jury.

They're not told what the jury considered to be reliable, unreliable, indicative of guilt first time round. Nor is anyone as can be seen from the speculation and guessing at why Evans was convicted but not his co-accused last time round.

The appeals court has decided that there was an issue which made the conviction unsafe (at present the assumption is new evidence has come to light, but it could also be that perhaps evidence was put before the jury which the judge should not have allowed) and a retrial has been ordered and his conviction quashed.

He's essentially back to square one in terms of his presumption of innocence and the prosecution has to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.

No AyeAmarok - I think they should have weighed costs against benefits as they do day in, day out, when taking charging or retrial decisions. They often have to let cases go which might have been a result.

In this case case the benefits to wider society - and of course there are benefits - of a conviction are, I think, outweighed by the harm to her - another day in court, another cross-examination, more risk of being named online again - and the disbenefits of an acquittal - and I don't mean the costs, at least not mainly. It can't have been an easy choice.

Thanks Quimby

I thought it was the court of appeal ordered the retrial. Nothing to do with the cps. Ched has spent some loads on appeals and obviously is very keen to prevent people calling him a rapist.

The court ordered the retrial on the application of the CPS- if they had not applied there could have been no retrial.

This was an extremely significant case in terms of how society views rape. It put the law on consent under the spotlight. If they had simply quashed his rape conviction without there being a retrial, it would have sent a very damaging message about rape and consent and all the rape apologists would feel vindicated. They may well still do and CE may not be convicted this time. I think it's still important to have this retrial if they felt it necessary to quash the original conviction.

There was something which apparently made his conviction 'unsafe'. I assume evidence not taken into consideration which may have changed the outcome

I wonder if it was reliance on self- incrimination and blurting things out whilst not being under caution.

I find it really depressing just how fucking difficult it is to convict (and have it upheld) such a clear cut case involving such a stupid man. Smarter rapists will be laughing up their sleeves at this carry on knowing they'll never see the inside of a prison cell. They can't even convict a man who said he did it. It's infuriating.

Lass No, it was not that. Can't have been. That would not be "new evidence". What it was was not revealed after the appeal hearing so that the jury hear it first in court and not from the newspapers. No doubt we will all hear as much of as the media choose to report next week when the defence case is heard.

IMO, as footballers -as part of their contract- regularly have contact with young boys and girls, I believe that the CPS is correct in going for a re-trial.

-Turns around taxi after getting a text that his mate had 'got a bird'

-Lies to get a room key and enters uninvited by the woman in there.

-Literally a few seconds later puts his dick in her into someone who a couple of minutes later is described by the other person in the room as 'sick'.

'Are you gonna suck this cock or what?' No answer. 'No?'

Mid apparently enthusiastic 'shag', despite all his efforts to get into that room for some 'action', stops and legs it out the fire escape.

Yep, a perfectly normal evening of great sex between two consenting adults.

^ I totally agree with this. The evidence of the kebab shop guy, taxi driver and receptionist was that she was out of it. She was vacant, and 'not aware of the receptionist's presence' and kind of looked through him. Makes you wonder if she was even aware of CE entering the room - let alone having the capability of consenting to him.

But obviously - just because he's a footballer, and could have any girl he liked, such basic things like consent, are unimportant to CE. He could have any girl - ergo - he can have the girl who went to the room with his mate, which he had just lied his way into getting the key for. Before nipping out the fire escape.

On any footing they are beneath contempt. From what little I have read o can see how a jury distinguished between them.

I just await the new evidence which led to the conviction being quashed.

Ched Evans took the stand today. Just revolting.

This is prosecution evidence - and just before it rested its case ? From todays trial summary by Wales Online. The CPS hates a Judas ? me thinks

The prosecutor is reading a final piece of agreed evidence. The court heard a Ched Evans website was set up and in April 2013 a reward was posted. A post was published offering a reward of £50,000 for information that would lead to the acquittal of Ched Evans in the Court of Appeal

I'm being a dimwit again. What does that mean in relation to the prosecution's case cad?

I don't think you are being a dimwit Jen. I don't understand cadno's post either .

Oh glad it's not just me then

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ched-evans-rape-trial-footballer-12001362

This is the report of what happened today.

One thing I notice from reading that is that at no point does either CMcD or CE introduce CE.

So drunk woman, mid-rapey-sex, unknown and unexpected man enters room with a key without knocking, according to the evidence today CMcD then says "can my mate join in?".

So she doesn't even know he's a footballer. And given that a lot of his defence seems to be "I'm a rich footballer and girls love that" aka blanket consent from all women, she didn't apparently get told at any stage who the fuck he was!

I am glad I'm not on that jury. My tutting, eye rolling, "FFS"ing and unconcealed fury would not go down well.

The 'she consented, moved around, said fuck me harder' etc is a complete disconnect from Clayton McDonald telling the Receptionist "look out for the girl in room 14, she's sick" as he left.

When a defendant calls witnesses other than himself he has to give evidence first. So the "new evidence" whatever it may be is yet to come.

The first trial, I'm not sure most members of the public were aware of these details.

This re-trial, it's getting these details out there. I think a lot of people will be pretty shocked and revolted, notably the ones who thought that the complainant went to a hotel room with two footballers all together.

I wonder if the grounds for the re-trial is CE being able to put his case to the jury more clearly that he believed that he had the complainant's consent. Given that she can't remember ... then it's his word, blah blah.

Will the fragrant Clay be giving evidence?

That the complete stranger to the complainant, CE, did what he did, I've always thought merited a conspiracy to rape charge. But hey, what do I know?