Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

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

Unless the receptionist did say it this time round and it just hasn't been reported? Seems unlikely? But the court transcripts aren't yet public are they, its just press reports isnt it?

Usually, the rule is that if a statement is to be used as evidence, the barristers need to be allowed to cross examine the witness on its contents (unless it's very non-contentious and they both agree it - highly unlikely in this instance).

Given that the witness wasn't cross examined, the statement will have probably been inadmissible, so the jury couldn't have been allowed to see it.

Oh, I see

But yes, in that case why the hell wasn't he brought to the stand????

I don't know whether it was part of the receptionist's evidence or CM's evidence first time around.

CM isn't a codefendent any more. He's been acquitted, and that can't be overturned. In this trial (unlike the last one), he's just an ordinary witness, not accused of anything.

Whatever the reason, this just highlights how little relevance 'the truth' has when it comes to what goes on in our criminal courts.

So after all the dirt digging, private investigators and harassing of this woman all they found out was l that she'd had sex before. No smoking gun texts or messages?

The jury may not be judging his morals, but the rest of us sure as shit can.

Section 41 provides a structured approach to the application of judicial discretion and sets out clearly when evidence of previous sexual history can be admitted in rape cases. In essence courts may only give leave if:

The evidence or questions rebut evidence led by the prosecution or
The evidence or questions relate to a relevant issue at trial and that issue is not one of consent.
If the issue is one of consent, the behaviour to which they relate is either alleged to have taken place at or about the same time as the alleged offence or is so similar to the complainant's behaviour at that time that it cannot reasonably be explained as coincidence

Is this still the law on the admissibility of previous sexual history?

So the bolded section is what CE and his defence team sought with their public request for information and reward offer. It took several attempts with each of the new witnesses to get them to say the magic words that would lead to

The court must also be satisfied that to refuse leave would result in the jury or the court reaching an unsafe conclusion on a relevant issue of trial

And of course it had nothing to do with the fifty thousand carrots being dangled in front of them. Oh no no, they are good upstanding men with no reason to lie.

Whereas they can stand up in court and say they think she is lying (about what, given that she has made no allegation, I have no idea), well, we must take them at their word.

I'm having a bit of trouble separating what was evidence/said in the first time trial and what was evidence/said at this trial.

But from what I can work out then If we are looking at this trial alone and pretending this is the only one that has happened (as the jury have to?) so all we have to go on is what happened in this trial then it's a complete shambles. It's a fucking piss take. So much evidence left out and kept from the jury. (Or so it feels like to me) or are the jury supposed to remember from what they read/heard about the previous trial? They aren't are they?

They're only allowed/supposed to consider what has been put forward at this trial. Nothing from previous proceedings

Other than this thread I've only read the summing up link of the first trial. Where/who said the room was totally dark?

From what I've read CE didn't seek consent at all, but CM asked if his mate could join in. Is that right? Was there any response reported from the woman when asked if his mate could join in?

Does CE maintain she didn't speak to him at all?

It's most depressing.

Clayton macdonald apparently asked her if his mate (no introductions were made) could join in and apparently she said "yeah" to CM.

I.e. forget everything you've heard before and listen to these three men say something about this woman's sexual conduct, one who has a vested interest as he is looking for acquittal, and two who have no vested interest but have coincidentally come forward and said something that backs up the first man, when the first man has offered £50,000 for such information.

The whole thing stinks. I never bothered reporting sexual assault when it happened to me, I wouldn't if I were unlucky enoughnfor it to happenmagain in future. Most sadly, and given the disgraceful way this woman has been treated, if it godforbid happemed to any daughter of mine, I'd not press to report if she wasn't keen to. The system is not on your side, nor is it neutral. It's stacked against you.

Why the fuck didn't the prosecution call 'Clay' (Clayton McDonald) as a witness?

This is a bloody miscarriage of justice but of course when CE gets off there's nothing anyone can do.

Evelynj, it came up when they were interviewing his brother (the teacher who thinks this kind of behaviour is mere immaturity), who said they couldn't see in the room while watching through the window as it was dark. Yet they could say she seemed to be leading the show and consenting

If the issue is one of consent, the behaviour to which they relate is either alleged to have taken place at or about the same time as the alleged offence or is so similar to the complainant's behaviour at that time that it cannot reasonably be explained as coincidence

Oh well how fucking convenient that they were able to find two men (one of whom had a family member who is a friend of Evans) who were able to provide testimonies that fitted this criteria almost perfectly. But not the first time they gave evidence, only once they had heard what Evans alleges she said to him.

And all while 50 grand is being dangled about.

Funny, the woman (who lets not forget has never received any money, apart from damages relating to her identity being plastered all over the internet) is apparently a 'money grabbing slag' for trying to ruin his life for the compo, but offering 50,000 quid to someone to provide evidence that will further ruin hers is absolutely fine.

I would crowd fund for the complainant to bring some private prosecutions.

This is so wrong.

Clayton macdonald apparently asked her if his mate (no introductions were made) could join in and apparently she said "yeah" to CM.

Which means that when he penetrated her, she didn't actually know who he was. Which rather blows his 'girls throw themselves at me cos im a rich footballer' defence out of the water, especially given the circumstances of how he ended up in the room.

It's fucking horrible. As a pp said, the whole system is institutionally misogynistic.

Spot on isit

Tbh anyone with half a brain can come up with these questions and get to these answers. it will completely destroy any lingering faith I have in the justice system if it turns out none of this was questioned. It's so fucking obvious!

Also wrt the defence barrister statement that the victim had consented two days before and two weeks after which meant obviously she had consented that night too. Unless the jury has been chosen from the local chimpanzee enclosure then there will have been people there sitting shaking their heads and inwardly screaming "NO NO NO!" When hearing that. It's very clearly not how it works. People know this. They know consent on one day with a different person does not equal consent on another day with a different person. I will be shocked if there was no-one in that jury getting very pissed off with that statement by the defence barrister.

I'm feeling so depressed about this. Im hoping against hope they find him guilty (again). I've bloody argued over every single rape myth going and people still think she was in the wrong. Poor woman

Same here rat

Been reading the thread and still don't know how he won this appeal. The whole thing makes my skin crawl, just disgusting and makes him look even worse than before. Unfortunately rather than deterring potential rapists I think that this case will just make rape survivors less likely to report

I know Chewing, I wonder if everyone is just hoping against hope that it's a second guilty verdict. And that's why it seems to be quiet?

Surely if it's not there'll be outrage.

I cannot understand at all why Clayton didn't have to give evidence. He was the only other person there. He saw what state she was in ("sick"). Why why WHY is that not relevant.

To me, it's pretty clear that she was so out of it she really hadn't a clue who was doing what to her or who was in the room. She had no idea who he was. He wasn't introduced. He didn't speak to her. The room was dark. She didn't scream when someone broke into her hotel room when she was naked - that is such an obvious sign that someone is too drunk to know what is going on.

I'm so upset about this case. Texted newspapers had better be really bloody vocal about it after the verdict, whatever way it goes. The whole thing is a disgrace.