Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

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

cadno had the girl snorted ketamine and injected heroine beforehand, exactly what could expert opinion derive from this?

It's still an issue of consent, regardless of what she took. She wasn't able to to give consent because of the state she was in. CE took it as a given that pissed up girl = up for it. Wrong on all levels.

All this digging about for substance abuse, sexual partners etc is a red herring and a fucking shameful attempt to discredit a person who's already been through the grinder.

Did I read in the original transcripts that the complainant had vomited on the bedsheets?

I've vomited once after drink because I'd had too much.

I think she had wet the bed.

As you do when you are 'not that drunk'

Still keeping the faith, Cadno. How gallant of you.

Thanks .

Her sexual history is not relevant per se, except in as much as the evidence of her using the same phrase. I'd agree that it's not vanishingly rare for women to say, "fuck me harder", but its for the jury to weigh up this evidence using their own experiences to do so.

She had urinated on the bedsheets, I haven't read she had vomited.

its for the jury to weigh up this evidence using their own experiences to do so.

Juries are instructed to use their own experiences to decide whether evidence presented in court is valid? I don't remember being told to do that when I was on jury service.

Rhonda - how else are they expected to decide on the facts - flip a coin ?

Juries are told about the "reasonable man" bit arent they?

Blood test results

One person drinks 10 pints, isnt falling over drunk or slurring as they are large and used to it. Next person has a drink, is small and not used to it and is wobbly and throws up.

Would the results show up as person 2 being drunker than person 1. Or is it just the level thats measured so person 1 looks drunker at least on paper?

Suburban - that's the whole point of having a jury.

What I read yesterday said they estimated she would have been 2.5 times over the legal driving limit I think. It was hours after that they tested her. I think wetting the bed is a good indication of being completely out of it. People respond differently to drink anyway, I could not get 'out of it' because I am physically sick if I get past slightly tipsy.

This is why expert witnesses are brought in to give their 'expert' opinions on the data.

Rhonda - how else are they expected to decide on the facts - flip a coin?

Juries are expected to decide on the facts. They're expected to decide on the evidence .

*are not expected to decide on the facts

Jury's are the arbiters of facts tbf

Juries make findings of fact (i.e determine/decide the facts) based on the evidence. The jury is a trier of fact.

That's the definition of a jury trial.

YY to looking at the perpetrators sexual history. Again, if you want to know whether it is rape look at the behaviour of the alleged rapist, not the victim. Gives it away Every. Single. Time.

I wonder why no-one is looking at his sexual history. It feels far more relevant to this case. He is coming across as quite predatory and it wouldn't be surprising if he had done this before and got away with it. His complete lack of regard for her is quite chilling.

It seems from what is reported that he doesn't actually know what consent is.

I really don't see what these 'witnesses' that weren't even there that night have to do with what happened in that hotel room. All it shows is that she's had sex before and since the incident, big whoop. It has no bearing on what happened that night it's bloody disgusting that this is allowed. I'm so mad.

Yes me too spud. I want to do something. This isn't an OK defence and I thought it wasn't allowed any more.

Oh goodie.

Another witness that she was previously in an ongoing sexual relationship with is now on the stand telling about how she directed things during sex with him and told him to "go harder".

HOW. IS. THIS. RELEVANT.

Cannot believe this shite is allowed.

I too am perplexed about why this is relevant. Can women who have had sex, enjoyed sex and have been sexually confident not be raped?

This is why victims don't report.

I'm praying that the jury see right through this charade. This is not okay.

I thought I had read the new evidence was going to be about a text she had sent duriung the period she was supposed to be 'out of it'?

How the fuck was this allowed?? How on earth did they get retrial based on this shit? This is appalling. Who do I write to to voice my disgust?