Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

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

Reading through that link to a previous unsuccessful appeal, I don't think we've heard the actual fresh evidence which lead to the retrial yet.

They have covered her sexual history - I know that wasn't allowed in the last one.

If there is going to be another big reveal, they are running out of time to do it. I think that this was it.

I have a bad feeling about the case and it's outcome now. They are stopping so low. I feel so bad for her :(

He just looks like a twit I have to say. Really dim and stupid and arrogant.

The new witness said that 'i believe she is lying'. Let's just put aside for one moment that this man has no fucking idea if she is lying' given he was not there that night.

What exactly is she lying about? So this man is saying she did remember having sex but then decided for whatever reason to 'lie' and what? Accuse them of rape? Except thats notnwhat she did is it?

The fact is, she went to the police to report a missing handbag after waking up in a Premier Inn. So let's say she did remember having sex the night before. Is this witness saying that the next morning she concocted some sort of foolproof guaranteed to end in conviction plan to get Evans and MacDonald done for rape? Which involved not actually ever accusing them of rape, but instead going to the police about her handbag (which conveniently she had left behind in the kebab shop) and then hoping that the men would incriminate themselves instead?

What is she lying about? She doesn't remember. And if she did remember and just wanted 'compo' or whatever, why didn't she just accuse them of rape?

Plus he said she was lying, presumably about not being able to remeber, but his 'evidence' for this is that he had sex with her and she didn't remember that either. Basically saying she was consenting at the time to back up Evans. But then surely that just shows (if anything, his 'evidence' is completely irrelevant) that she isnt lying, because she had memory loss with him too.

What a load of old.bollocks.

I have asked partners to fuck me harder.

Doesn't mean that someone who lies to get the keys to where I am staying, then doesn'teven bother to speak to me before fucking me, isn't raping me.

This whole thing is so depressing. But nice to have some clarity on the fact their is presumed consent for any sexual encounter for a footballer

Sorry, my last post makes no sense but i think that's because Ched's defence makes no sense either!

There is one more witness tomorrow apparently. It's got to be better than today's offering. That poor girl.

I'm assuming they'll call CM - has he been on the stand yet?

JenLindley no it isn't. A journalist doing the same thing would be heavily criticised.

I hope that the jury are smart enough to actually look at the evidence, and ignore these smear attempts. I'm not that hopeful though... the average member of the population believes a whole host of rape myths.

Yes, i keep thinking he will be found not guilty this time round, largely because I feel like it would be nigh on impossible to get 24 members of the public together who don't believe in a load of rape myths. But maybe i haven't giveb thus jury enough credit, we shall see.

There are only 12 of them. But hopefully enough of them can see through the bullshit about her sexual history and assess the facts of what happened that night.

I can't believe he got a retrial for this? (That said I understand zero about law)

The defense witness has been asked if they are aware of the £50,000 reward to clear Ched's name.

I'm really anxious about this case. If he gets acquitted it's going to send completely the wrong message, surely the jury can see this case for what it is.

And let's remember that just because he gets acquitted it doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it, just that there isn't enough evidence to convict. Sadly many members of the general population will take it to mean that the victim lied and will start spouting nonsense about how she should be charged etc etc.

A very depressing thought indeed.

So sorry if I'm being thick, but if the evidence today is 'it', and it's the same evidence that was previously part of an unsuccessful appeal

The third ground of appeal relates to fresh evidence. A civilian witness produced a statement which indicated that from time to time he had heard the complainant say that, having taken a lot of drink, she had no recollection of the previous night. That takes the applicant's case no further. It reinforces (if it is to be taken into account at all) that lacking memory after too much drinking was not asserted on this occasion for the first and only time. It was something which happened on other occasions. The matter is taken no further. Mr Fish rightly did not seek to rely on that evidence

How did it eventually result in his conviction being unsafe? Did they just keep going back with the same evidence until they got a different result? I'd assumed they must have come up with something more.

Witness in Ched Evans retrial accused of lying to earn £50,000 reward www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/11/witness-in-ched-evans-retrial-accused-of-lying-to-land-50000-reward?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

This is a travesty

I don't think we have heard the fresh evidence yet

Well I'm fascinated to hear just what it might be because what we've heard so far isn't exactly showing CE in a positive light.

I'm not following it closely. I wonder if the " could have any woman I want" remark will damn him.

I think that must be the new evidence because anything more directly related to her would've come up during her testimony (ie if she sent a text or whatever)
I can't believe it was allowed. He bought it up after the previous trial, it could so easily be fabricated. It's such a bad precedent to set.

Yes - she would have been asked about anything directly relating to her.

If that is all there is, they really are scraping the barrel and he shouldn't have had his conviction quashed. Because it's irrelevant.

I think it will all damn him. All the coverage shows him to be a vile, disgusting, subhuman piece of shit. There was obviously a plan, his mates went straight to the right window to peer in. It was dark in the room, he cannot possibly have determined what condition she was in. He's admitted he never even spoke to her. It's all in all of the papers.

I'm perplexed as to what this witness evidence is supposed to show? Why bother putting him on the stand? Unless it's just an attempt to discredit her because she dares to be sexually active? I mean, it isn't as if the supposed repeated phrase spoken during supposedly consensual sex is that unusual or surprising!

I think they're hoping to imply that having sex two weeks later shows she isn't a 'proper' rape victim. And that at least one person who knows her doesn't believe her.

If the jury are influenced by rape myths it could work.

They have covered her sexual history - I know that wasn't allowed in the last one.

I'd be more interested in hearing CE's sexual history tbh. It has more relevance to this case than the victim's.