Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

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

The mirror are doing "live" updates

As you all know, this is an ongoing trial - so can we ask folks to avoid speculation, please? Else we will have to zap the thread.

Thank you for deleting those posts - sorry about that.

I'm following the live updates. That poor girl.

You're brave Felas and anyone else following it .

I only wondered what the new evidence was that led to the retrial.

Deleted for that? Someone's a bit sensitive...

"Does he go back to prison if he's convicted? "
AFAIK a conviction would probably mean no more jail time, given the time he has already served on his quashed conviction. But I assume a conviction would mean going on the sex offenders register, and make the difference it did before when it came to peoples perceptions of employing someone accused of rape, compared to employing someone who had been convicted of rape. So the verdict in this new trial does matter!

And I think she has already had people after her, and I'm quite amazed she is able to stand up to having to do it all again.

It's hard reading actually, the defence are using all kinds of things to suggest she consented and can't remember. Such as saying she managed to spell a text correctly. I thought that's not that surprising in the days of autocorrect but there you go.
Poor girl getting grilled about things she doesn't remember.
Some of the testimony about what the manager heard is a bit disturbing too.

The updates today have me raging - detailed questioning about her sexual encounters before and after the alleged rape (what do they have to do with what happened that night)?

Who could be a defence lawyer?

What would have happened if she had refused to attend court?

I think if it was me I would have refused to go to court and sod the consequences.

She's very brave.

The updates are infuriating, saying she 'took the lead' with the other bloke, asking about other relationships. It's so fucked up that they can go there.

"I was under the impression that he'd served his sentence and been released so he wouldn't go back, but I can't recall where I read that"

That's not quite right. He had not completed the sentence handed down with the first conviction, only the custodial part and some of the time on licence.

If he is convicted, he will resume where he left off, and will be back on licence until the sentence is served.

toads she would be in contempt of court and worst case could be arrested and prosecuted.
It is horrific for her.

What updates are you following?
Sorry just scanned the mirror and could only find reference to the prosecution asking questions regarding sexual past in their examination in chief
"Prosecutor Simon Medland QC is asking the alleged victim about previous relationships."

"The updates are infuriating, saying she 'took the lead' with the other bloke, asking about other relationships. It's so fucked up that they can go there."

I wonder if here they are trying to imply that 'taking the lead' is something so unusual that someone wouldn't make it up about someone? Except of course, fantasizing about someone 'taking the lead' is quite common amongst chaps, so I've heard. But yes, disturbing that she has to answer questions about her previous sexual encounters and sexual behaviour.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ched-evans-rape-trial-live-8981295

Sorry misread this
"But defence barrister Judith Khan QC suggested the woman “took the lead” when having consensual sex with two other men - one shortly before the alleged rape and the other shortly afterwards."
As being about Evans and McDonald, but is it about two other men independent of that night?

Their other update about the prosecutors reexamination made me think it was in reference to Evans and McDonald

"The prosecutor said: “It has been suggested that you were having consensual sex with Mr McDonald, you were taking the lead, you were asked if Ched Evans could join in and you agreed. Is that right?”

The woman said those claims were not correct."

"Defence barrister Judith Khan asked the alleged victim about other relationships.

Ms Khan put it to the complainant that she was “taking the lead” during her consensual sex with Clayton McDonald.

The woman said she could not remember."

"Defence barrister Judith Khan put it to the complainant that when she was having sex with Mr McDonald after they returned to the hotel room together he asked if his friend Ched Evans could “join in” the intercourse and she agreed.

The complainant said she did not remember that happening.

Ms Khan suggested the woman had “lost her inhibitions” due to drink.

The defence barrister said: “You had sex with Mr Evans and it was consensual. Do you remember that at all?”

The complainant said she did not."

Thanks felas , that's the one I was reading.
As I said I don't find the staccato nature of the live updates very clear regarding some points.

They are dragging up her previous sexual history - which I thought they had stopped allowing. SO is this the new evidence? Did that come out in the last trial? I'm not a legal expert, but isn't sexual history only admissible if they've applied for 'bad character' ? How is 'slept with a few guys in Rhyl' evidence of bad character?

It's despicable - it doesn't matter if she'd slept with every man in Rhyl - it doesn't mean she consented on that night, or was capable of consent.

Today's BBC report: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37560871

This doesn't seem to be covering anything new so far.

I wonder if here they are trying to imply that 'taking the lead' is something so unusual that someone wouldn't make it up about someone?

To me it has an air of slut shaming. Women should be passive in sex kind of thing.

I'd imagine it's more to show that even if one were to accept her intoxication/memory blackout as fact then her taking the lead would still provide a defence of reasonable belief for the accused.

But if there was reasonable belief of her consent surely that would have come up last time?

The evidence last time was that she did consent wasn't it?

Enthusiastic participation/taking the lead as seems to be being put forward by the defence (and o believe was the last time) would be evidence of consent or (from the defence point of view) even if the jury accept the victim was too intoxicated to consent would be evidence that the accused believed the victim to be confronting.

I don't think that's changed at any point, he's always claimed that she consented to him joining in.