Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

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

Since when is "I think she is lying" a valid witness statement?

Exactly, by that logic surely any one of us/someone she knows could give a witness statement of "I think she is telling the truth" and that would hold up in a court room? It's utterly ridiculous.

Like everyone else I am so angry. Based on what we know, and of course I could be wrong but I get the impression that the victim was already very vulnerable even before that night in the hotel room. She was so young at the time. I feel so sad for her and what she's been through over the past 5 years.

Maybe he would incriminate himself if he gave evidence?

"If CE is telling the truth, why would he not call the one man who was there and can corroborate his story?

The only possible reason is because that man isn't prepared to testify for him. And that says a hell of a lot."

A little ray of hope in that the jury asked to see Clays statements, so they wanted to know what he said. And hopefully asking the same question.

I'm just stunned by the 'new' evidence that was presented and the 'old' evidence that wasn't. It just seems totally mad that based on this, the victim had to go through it all again, and then her supposed sexual history paraded in court as well. It makes no sense. And makes me very angry of course.

Two years ago CM said he felt CE was innocnent but there are no futher articles. CM is decribed as a life long freind of CE so it is strange he didnt give evidence. Either he is unreliable or is unwilling.

We're the men outside ever charged with anything? Surely peering through a window, shining a torch on the occupants and filming them having sex must be a crime?

What evidence wasnt presented this time?

Clayton Mcdonald didn't testify, and the jury were not allowed to see his statement.

I wonder if it was explained. I imagine the jury would expect to have heard from him he cant have not been mentioned at all.

Apparently not. The jury apparently asked to see his statement and were told no.

It's bizarre.

The only possible reason is because that man isn't prepared to testify for him. And that says a hell of a lot.*

if you are called to testify then that's what you have to do.Interesting though that neither the procecution or defence want tocall him.

I know you have to testify if called.

What I meant is that CM isn't prepared to testify in a way that is favourable for CE. That's the only reason the defence wouldn't have called him, because they will know how bad it looks.

Well if they such close friends he could understand his hesitation to have it brought up again but then again you do anything and he is one of only two key witness.
Once a verdict is given i think we will get more info about why the appeal was given.

It will have been the defence's choice, not CM's.

But the defence's decision will have been based on what they anticipated that CM would say. Clearly, calling CM was not going to help their case, for whatever reason.

but the prosecution haven't called him either?

No. It's bizarre.

However, the person whose credibility is most affected by CM's absence is CE. Maybe the prosecution like it that way?

Did the witness who stated that he believes that the victim is 'lying' state what he believes she is lying about?

I would be interested to hear the witness' reasons too Panda and also how he came to such a conclusion since he wasn't even there that night.

whilst the defence clearly want to skew everything in CE's favour understandably (that is their job) ,but surely the CPS role should be to present the facts fairly and impartially? The state should have no vested over and above presenting a fair case? (I am speaking generally ,not about this case in particular)

I'm still in shock at the message being sent by the "well, she was up for it with me, and then claimed she didn't remember it" angle being enough to trigger a new trial. Particularly from someone who changed his story, probably because of money. Jesus.

As JenLindley pointed out upthread, it's not consent if you already have your penis in a vagina before you hear the magic words. Urgh.

It's a glimmer of hope that the jury seem to be thinking about things, but I'm bracing myself for him to get acquitted. Anyone care to join me in a donation to Rape Crisis?

I'll have to go and read it all again, but I could have sworn it was CM she's supposed to have said fuck me harder too anyway.

To

I am just disgusted at this. How can this be the 'fresh 'evidence'? It's not evidence - it means fuck all in relation to the case. How was this allowed?

So the bit about CM referring to the girl in room 14 being 'sick' hasn't been heard in this trial then?

Following this closely. So fucking angry about it. Marking place to discuss verdict later.

I just can't believe after everything, this is the best they could come up with, and that the courts thought this was admissible evidence.

So a woman had sex before and, shock fucking horror, initiated and enjoyed herself. How does this having any bearing on Evan's assessment of her consent when he put his penis inside her?

So the bit about CM referring to the girl in room 14 being 'sick' hasn't been heard in this trial then?

I can't find it anywhere but the receptionist was giving evidence. Surely it would have come up. I hope so anyway. It has been said that Clayton came to reception when Ched was still in the room. They were in the room together for 15 min.

I'm staggered by the new evidence. The victim said 'fuck me harder to an unrelated man, and, allegedly, to Clayton McDonald, therefor Ched Evans can gain access to a locked room and have sex with her too. Is it now open season on women who have ever spoken during sex?