Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

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

So as macdonald left the room he considered the woman sick enough to need keeping an eye on yet not sick enough to ask his mate to take his penis out of her? Right. Lovely boys. Really.

'Some fat bird'

So is this the new evidence or was this previous sexual partner in the last trial? Surely this it's not acceptable to discuss a person's sexual history in relation to whether they have been the victim of a rape? He didn't speak to her...it was rape, even if she didn't remember it was rape...it's quite obvious from his testimony that it was rape. I can't believe how ridiculous this is.

So it was dark in the room, but by the light of a phone torch the guy outside could ascertain the sex was consensual? What a crock.

I will be shocked if he gets found not guilty, truly shocked and also angry.

His girlfriend is a complete idiot for standing by him through this.

Oh here we go. This must be the new evidence. Someone who had sex with her two weeks later is now being questioned...

Oh fuck, adjourned again!!!

So, if I'm reading the live steam correctly: she had sex with someone two weeks later, who said she sometimes got drunk but seemed to be able to consent? That witness denies receiving the £50,000. There's a short adjournment but I am looking forward to hearing what in earth makes this a) relevant and b) enough to trigger a retrial.

I'm wondering the same Spooky, I don't get it.

Christ, no-one could seriously have taken £50k in exchange for being a witness? Would they? That would rule them out as a credible witness surely? Am I mad in thinking that it is that perfectly fine?

she had sex with someone two weeks later, who said she sometimes got drunk but seemed to be able to consent?

So really what they're saying is "I might have raped her too"

Which live stream are you all looking at, mine only says he denied receiving money?

Aye I find myself in the slightly weird position of hoping that there is something more- something definitive (even though i believe completely that they are guilty), because otherwise they've done all this- put the victim through this- on the word of one man.

Charlie- I've got the mirror and sky feeds open- both slightly different

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 think it's just that there wasn't as much interest the first time round. It only became an interesting case after Clayton was cleared and Evans was convicted, and then with the hostility to the victim/appeal.

My local police force have changed all their social media branding to be about active consent, today, and are running a small campaign about how you need consent every time, for anything. I wonder if it's related.

I hope to god the new evidence isn't "Man who previously had sex with X said on occasion she would be drunk, but not seem too drunk, and ask what had happened the night before. All events were consensual."

Surely the hearsay of one man, who may well have been interested in the £50k reward even if he hasn't had it, isn't enough to order a retrial?

So from the sky feed the new 'witness' reckons she's asked him what happened last night when he didn't think she was all that drunk the night before and appeared consenting.

Thanks spooky btw, I had mirror and Wales online open

Fuck

Why is the witness anonymous?

What fucking judge quashed a conviction on THAT?! Seriously?

Aside from which, it's not even the fact she can't remember that makes me think it's rape. It's the fact he broke into the hotel room, wasn't introduced to her, didn't speak to her at any stage, stuck his uncondomed penis in her within moments (meanwhile his friend left and told someone she was sick), and legged it out the fire escape!

And that everyone who saw her that night (taxi, receptionist, takeaway shop man) has said that she seemed completely out of it.

I am so mad. There had better be more to this.

I am aware that judges can also be biased in favour of rapists. Just look at the Brock Turner case. I hope that's not what has happened here.

So mad.

Charlie it seems to be because he knows the victim and therefore it might identify her. Although seeing as her identity's been changed several times it seems quite overcautious.

You're right, Aye . There better be more. I fear that there isn't. What gets me is- he was interviewed at the time by police but they 'didn't ask the right questions'? How the fuck is that new evidence? How?

"
Surely the hearsay of one man, "

It's not hearsay but I'd agree that it seems to have next to no relevance to the alleged offence.

"Why is the witness anonymous?"

He's been reported as a friend of the complainant so I'd imagine it's to protect her identity.
If you report his name and say John smith who is friends with the complainant and had a sexual relationship two weeks after this date, the complainant becomes a lot more identifiable.

New "evidence" sounds like a 5-year-old's version of events

The exact same words quoted by CE? But no collusion?

If he hasn't received any cash, maybe someone close to him has...

If he hasn't received any cash, maybe someone close to him has

They can ask in court can't they? Did anyone receive payment for any information about this trial?