Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

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

Wel there is loads of anger from women. There are 750 posts on this thread alone and there have been many threads about this. Twitter is awash with angry and upset women.

What women's groups were you thinking of Chewingthecrud? And what can they do before a verdict is given? We've only just found out what the extra evidence in fact entailed, for example.

I am actually getting more disgusted by it all the more i think of it. The fact his girlfriend is supporting him makes it easier for him while she suffers.

Plus aren't their laws about publicly speculating or trying to influence of a trial?

Influence the outcome...

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.

Yes, that's a good point. According to Evans own testimony she didn't really even react when he walked in on her naked and having sex. Im sure he and his defence would say that's because she is such a 'slag' that she just didn't care, but surely even the most ahem, promiscuous person would at least say 'who is that', or squeal a bit or something if a bloke they had never met before unexpectedly walked in on them having sex.

That is of course only if they were compus mentus at the time.

Yes, although it is starting to seem like a foregone conclusion, we do need to remember that this is still an ongoing trial so there can't be too much outcry about it yet.

There are no foregone conclusions in trial by jury. Ask - to choose a very, very different case - Clive Ponting.

My concern is that the jury - whatever the judge says - may decide that "he shouldn't be tried twice for the same offence" and acquit for that reason. If he is acquitted we will never know why.

Yes, juries can do surprising things.

Just another point, even if she said yeah to his mate joining in,is it right that CE came into the room & then CM left? Immediately, or after how long? I don't think its splitting hairs to say there's a difference between another person 'joining in', which I would interpret as a threesome & effectively swapping places with another man & then leaving the room where CM is no longer 'joining in' himself.

CE was also aware that two others were outside watching and filming, which no one has mentioned asking her consent for. He gestured at them to keep quiet. Those men went straight over to the correct window when they arrived at the hotel. How did they know if there wasn't a plan, he must have told them the room number.

Yes the whole brother and friends watching through the window thing is just bizarre and disgusting.

I am a vegetarian

And the trump business is on the politics thread

Ignore the troll. It'll be deleted soon - I reported their comment and the pm they sent me as well.

I don't want to eat a dachshund though, they're tiny and cute!

Evans on the other hand is a boil on the arse of humanity.

woman

A pm

Thats because you have the word 'woman' in your name

The poster isnt very bright and has not reaslised i am not a reindeer

One thing. If the room was in darkness how did CE brother and the other guy watching through the window both see anything and get pleasure from it.
That confuses me.
Could be a verdict today. Sadly i think there is little chance of guilty verdict. Best thing is to ignore the twitter trolls except unless you think the comments are dimissial from their job worthy then see if their profile gives any hints of their jobs, any organisations or political parties they members of etc, and then report the comments to them.

The difference makes me very angry indeed. It seems as if they don't know what true consenters either. Given that they clean junk and consent is still consent and lack of memory doesn't equal lack of consent. I hope the jury can see through this bullshit.

Sorry, should be "defence" not difference. "Consent is" not consented.

They claim drunk consent is still consent.

I worry that they won't, because so many people do think like that regardless of what the law says. They might as well change the law to say it's only rape if you hold a teetotal virgin at knifepoint

Legally, drunk consent is still consent - provided that person still has the capacity to give consent.

I might have a few glasses of wine - enough that I can't legally drive - and still have the capacity to consent to sex. Or I could have lots of wine and lack capacity as I'm not able to make that sort of decision any more.

It's capacity that is the key question, and the point at which someone is thought to have lost capacity (which could be due to alcohol, illness, drugs, level of consciousness...).

Personally I believe that a victim who has been described by independent witnesses as vacant, uncomprehending, unable to see or respond to those around her etc. very definitely lacked capacity to consent to sex.

I think the above is reasonable btw - most people who drink have had sex with their partners after sharing a bottle of wine, and there's nothing criminal about that.

It's when one partner has clearly lost the capacity to consent (or to communicate non consent etc.) and participate as an equal that the issue arises. It doesn't have to be drunkenness - being asleep, or very ill would gave the same effect and would be just as much rape as this case is.

The thing that's weird is why CM wasn't called by either side. I can see why the defence didn't call him, but not why the prosecution didn't. His account is pretty essential for a fair trial.

I think there was good reason to NOT call him, and I think if the prosecution don't then the defence can't or something - please legal people could you clarify that.

Anyway the evidence for CE was that he didn't speak, at the first trial he said CM asked and CM said CE said "Can I have a go?" or something similar.

The evidence the jury at this trial heard was that nothing was said by CE, that the victim asked CM to do something and CE did it and therefore she may well have been unaware he was even in the room.