Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

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

The judge can't stop the defence from putting their case. We may think their case is bullshit and relies on rape myths, but that doesn't mean the judge can stop them.

I agree, like I said I got carried away and now I feel stupid

As you were...

The one thing that really helped me in preparing for my rapist's trial was understanding that our criminal process is not about 'truth and justice'. In fact, the truth has very little to do with any of it.

A lot of what gets said is bullshit, and that's just part of how the system works. The judge can't prevent the defence team from parroting the defendant's lies just because it's bullshit.

Lots of women don't enjoy oral sex so that's a stupid statement to make, not to mention in cases of rape/assault then of course it's not going to be an enjoyable experience for the victim.

Yes, but its the Defence case that the complainant specifically asked for oral sex - and that the defendant then complies with her request. This isn't a complex case - I thought you said you were obsessed with this case ?

Stop it cadno. There is no need to be mean.

And don't worry about feeling stupid imwithspud. If you aren't familiar with rape trials/the justice system it can be confusing and easy to make a mistake.

I'm not familiar with them either btw.

That is obvious.

I know what you mean spud. It is bollocks to suggest because he gave her oral sex, she must have consented.
However the job of the defence is to represent what her client is instructing her. This is what he said. It actually shows how strongly he buys into the rape myths.
I hope when the judge sums up she recaps the rape myths as per cps guidance.

Most people aren't familiar with the trial process tbh. It's not unusual.

You do know its possible to know how the justice system works and think it's bollocks, Cad? Maybe you could stop being quite so patronising?

felascloak said-
"I know what you mean spud. It is bollocks to suggest because he gave her oral sex, she must have consented. "

Have I misread it or aren't they saying she asked him for oral sex not just that he gave it?
I presume that is what they are saying indicates consent.

Is there really a chance that CE will will have his name cleared just because his victim had other sexual partners before and after?

If the victims partners are allowed to go to court and have their opinions given weight, then they should also bring in the accused other sexual partners too. CE activity with other women beforehand would be more relevant than his victims.

CE seems to genuinely believe what he did wasn't rape, worryingly, he's not the only one too. Consent isn't hard to grasp, with women, it's like they think it's a yes, until they are told no or pushed off which makes no sense as in the rest of their lives, they understand you can do or take something from someone without checking they agree to it.

You can't do, Sorry for typo

I am trying to understand the process but it is confusing especially for some people, who may take a bit longer to grasp things than others for a variety of reasons. I have already explained that I've made an idiot of myself and that I let my emotions get the better of me, there's no need to be so bloody rude, cad.

I won't be commenting on the thread anymore but I will still be following as I find all your views insightful. Fx'd for the verdict the majority of us here want and believe is right.

Childrenofthestones

Have I misread it or aren't they saying she asked him for oral sex not just that he gave it?

Yes, that's right.

imwithspud - the problem isn't with you .

No, there are plenty of people with misconceptions about how criminal trials work. (E.g someone upthread didn't realise the limitations on the anonymity in law afforded to sexual offence victims) It doesn't make you silly or stupid - I didn't realise I wouldn't be fully anonymous until I went through the process myself, for example.

If cadno tried to talk about something you knew a lot about, I bet he'd misunderstand plenty of things that you could mock.

imwithspud Sorry I didn't mean to upset you - what I was getting at was that there are two competing versions of the truth being put to the jury. What the defendant's barrister is telling the jury, is what her client says happened. I dare say its true that some women like oral sex more than others. But, says the defence, on this occasion the complainant asked for and received it from CE.

The Prosecution's case is that the complainant was too drunk to have done any such thing with any level of proper capacity.

OMG

She consented two weeks before, she consented two weeks after, she consented on this night

fuck

Surely there must be serious new evidence that hasn't been reported, for this to be happening?

Some of the comments one twitter are horrible. Steve Brokestein thinks the case is so the CPS can change the law on rape ( not sexist at all of course) and that she should have a polograph test ( no coincidence he also defends trump) while others think Jess Ennis - Hill retiring and Charlie Webster having been in a coma is Karma.

Personally, if I were on the jury, I would give far more weight to some of the witness statements than others.

The receptionist, taxi driver, kebab shop owner etc.are all independent. I'd consider their accounts to be key because they are the ones who saw the complainant and were able to take a view on how drunk she was. The receptionist in particular, heard some of what happened inside the room - he testified that he was sufficiently worried that he listened at the door. That's unusual and says a lot about her state when he saw her.

CE's account (a) must be viewed in light of the fact that he isn't independent and (b) is undermined (imo) by the fact that he has not called the one person who could corroborate his account - CM.

The previous/subsequent partners I would view as irrelevant. They weren't there that night and have no way of knowing whether the complainant was more or less drunk than she was with them. Anyone can come on the stand and say 'I think X is lying' - it's meaningless.

The jury will need to consider all of that, and hopefully they will use their common sense when weighing up which evidence they should place most trust in.

Have I misread it or aren't they saying she asked him for oral sex not just that he gave it?
That's what the defence closing said but in evidence (according to news report ) he actually said:The defendant said the woman asked Mr McDonald to perform oral sex on her, but he did not, so Evans did instead.

So she may have thought he was McDonald, the man she actually asked for oral sex.

Cannot believe the defence barrister actually said "The complainant] liked to engage in sex at that time. She did so two days before, she did so two weeks after.

“It was consensual two days before, it was consensual two weeks after and it was consensual on the night in question.”

Fucking hell. If you enjoy consensual sex anyone can assume you are up for it at any time. Nice.

[The complainant] liked to engage in sex at that time. She did so two days before, she did so two weeks after.

You could say this about many, many women. Most women have sex.

It doesn't mean we are unrapeable though.

Macdonald and Evans looks quite different you have to be quite drunk to get them confused even in poor light.