Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

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

Shame he handed her over to his friend to rape her. Him being so considerate and everything.

At which point, they acted in concert. They both should have charged with conspiracy as well, and I hope that's still possible.

If this new evidence were a social media msg the victim had sent, wouldn't the defence have had to question her about it already while she was on the stand?

Or are they able to recall her to the stand?

I would have thought so.

I honestly don't know where this is heading.

Maybe the defence will call a new witness who will give the evidence? And then they will recall the victim to be cross examined about it?

Will the prosecution know what the new evidence is, or are they in the dark too?

I think there has to be disclosure.

These days the defence has to set out a 'defence statement' during the management stage of the proceedings, setting out the basis of its case - and the defence has to divulge the identity of its witnesses. It's been a long time since I did criminal defence work and then only in the magistrates court

The defence can't just spring a witness on the prosecution. If they know of the witness it should be disclosed.

They also shouldn't be planning to recall the victim - they have an opportunity to cross examine her and are meant to use that.

Hi Lass, I don't know what the situation is in Scotland - fairly much the same I'd have thought, but in E&W, the CPS has to disclose to the defence, such evidence that undermines its own (i.e. the CPS's) case. In theory anyway, blood out of a stone, springs to mind in reality.

The defence doesn't have this duty of course.

I have no idea what the 'new evidence' is going to be, but I am sure we'll find out soon. I don't think this trial is going well for CE though - the public are hearing unpleasant details which weren't publicised last time around. The fact that one of them was heard saying "Are you going to suck this cock or what? ... No?" really doesn't support his claim that she was enthusiastic and compus mentis.

I agree he's not coming across well at all and it seems like public opinion finally is shifting too. I've been seeing more comments on social media against CE this time round, and people calling out those who are clearly unaware of the facts, unlike before when there were far more rape apologists trying to defend him.

The two defence witnesses this morning don't seem to have helped his case. Going by what the taxi driver said it sounded like there was a definite plan, the two other guys went straight over to look through the window. Also yesterday CE said he didn't know what would be going on in the room when he went there, but his brother has just said he told him that they were having sex having watched through the window, and then CE said I'll go in and have a look.

Why are they asking CE's brother (a teacher, FFS? Who hires someone like that to be a teacher) about the sex between the victim and Clayton McDonald? And whether he, as someone peeping through the window [grim] thought she was enjoying it?

It's not relevant as apparently that was sex and not rape and CMcD is not on trial here.

He didn't see his brother engaging in the rape because CE text him telling to go home before he did it.

I still maintain that the whole thing sounds much worse so far.

Sorry, I mean it's not relevant because she may well have been "enjoying" the sex with CMcD and having the best time of her life. But that's still not blanket consent for someone else who is a stranger to have a go.

And she was having such a great time with CMcD that he then left a few minutes later telling reception that she was "sick" and needed an eye kept on her. Yeah.

Did Clayton macdonald leave and speak to the receptionist before CE had left the room?

He said he looked in and saw them having consensual sex. How the fuck could anyone who wasn't one of the participants even think they could comment on whether or not sex was consensual. Just highlights again that none of them have a fucking clue what consent is.

Jen it sounded like they both left at the same time. So both knew immediately after they'd finished with her that she was sick enough to warn reception to keep an eye on her. But not during.

Yes Jen, from what I remember, CMcD was having sex when CE entered the room. Then CMcD said "can my mate join/have a go", then CMcD went into the bathroom and got dressed and then left the hotel room. When he got to reception he told the receptionist or night porter to keep an eye on her as she was sick. He then waited outside for CE's guilty conscience about cheating on his girlfriend to kick in, apparently 10-15 minutes, and then CE snuck out the fire escape and they walked home together.

From the Sky live feed:

Pros suggests the girl didn't know that it was CE having sex with her. CE denies, says she knew
@SiobhanRobbins
3h
Pros:" you didn't speak to her at all throughout the whole episode" CE: agrees he didn't speak to her, it wasn't a time for talking

How the fuck do you know someone knows who you are (I couldn't pick many footballers out of a lineup) without talking to them? And this :

Pros asks did CE ask if he could have unprotected sex with X?CE says didn't ask

Urgh. Makes me sick that men can think like this.

Spooky that's so bad that the jury MUST be all thinking the same as us.

Come on jury, please don't make me despair of all of humanity. This sounds more and more like a black and white case of rape with everything he says.

I don't remember reading any of the depressingly awful alleged dialogue during coverage of the original trial. Has court reporting changed, or did it just not emerge last time?

I'm really hoping this is going to turn out to be a "be careful what you wish for" scenario for CE!

"The prosecutor is asking Mr Roberts about the light levels in the hotel room.

He said: “The room into which you were looking was very dark, wasn’t it?”

The witness confirmed there were no lights on and Clayton McDonald used the torch on his phone.

The court heard Evans put his finger to his lips, as if telling his brother to keep quiet and Mr McDonald then closed the curtains."

The court heard his friend described the woman as “some fat bird” as they filmed the pair in the hotel room.
The prosecutor said: “To you both, she was just ‘some fat bird’ you were entitled to film having sex?”
Mr Roberts said he did not agree.

"The prosecutor is now asking why Mr Roberts and his friend filmed Clayton McDonald and the complainant having sex.

He said: “You would no doubt agree that sexual relations between people are deeply intimate, aren’t they?
“If somebody was going to film you having sex, you would want to give them your permission, wouldn’t you?

“Did you stop to think how embarrassing it would be for the woman having sex?”

Mr Roberts said: “At the time no, but obviously I realise that now.”

The court heard his friend described the woman as “some fat bird” as they filmed the pair in the hotel room.

The prosecutor said: “To you both, she was just ‘some fat bird’ you were entitled to film having sex?”

Mr Roberts said he did not agree."

Nice.