Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

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

"The evidence of the defence"

That should read

I thought that was why the other guy got off, that he had reasonable belief because she went there with him. Even though the jury believed she was too drunk to actually consent. Evens was convicted because she didn't choose to go to the room with him. That was my understanding anyway.

So what's the new evidence?

Well no one knows why they came to their decision. It's assumed that's what the jury came to on their decision due to the surrounding facts.

But Evans still put forward evidence that the victim consented or at least displayed behaviour which would lead him to reasonably believe she was consenting.
The jury ultimately rejected that evidence, which they may well do again.
But Evans defence have to put these questions/statements to the witness so she has a chance to refute them in case Evans goes in to evidence and intends to put forward that same evidence again.

But as I say I don't think it's something that didn't come up in the first trial. His position throughout has been she consented.
Unfortunately for him the surrounding evidence and his own statement to the police meant the jury came to the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim didn't/couldn't consent and that he did not have any reasonable belief that she was consenting.

"So what's the new evidence"

From those updates so far nothing that I can see

Don't they have to put forward new evidence to get an appeal - they can't just rehash the same as at trial unless there were problems with how the trial was conducted legally?

No-one knows (yet) what the new evidence is, nor at what point in the trial it will be presented.

As this is a fresh trial, everything must be heard again. So yes, some days will seem familiar.

They have to show new evidence or problems with the original trial (wrongly admitted evidence for example)

Now it's a retrial they still have to reprove everything from scratch essentially. So they do have to cover the same ground in a sense,they don't just come in and argue the one point which got the original verdict quashed.
However you'd imagine if that was based on new evidence coming to light that would be presented or if it was based on wrongly admitted evidence then you'd essentially have the same trial but with that excluded. But there's nothing to stop the defence exploring other avenues or re-arguing the old points and hoping this jury takes a different view.
It's a fresh trial.

So angry that this poor woman has to go through all this again.

His actions after the rape/sex speak volumes. Nobody sneaks out through a fire escape of a hotel if they don't have a guilty conscience.

The receptionist evidence is awful. I'm glad he did what he could for that girl.

What a shower of absolute shite - the rapist, his relatives and his ridiculous girlfriend.

Just awful scummy people.

Ugh ugh ugh. Just what a load of skanks (the men not the victim). Its all so gross that Ched booked the room earlier under Macdonalds name and then came over with 2 of his mates when macDonald said he had a girl. So predatory. Gross.

'So predatory. Gross.'

I completely agree. Utterly sickening behaviour. On the phone in the taxi - 'Ive got a girl'. The taxi driver's evidence that she appeared 'docile' and seemed 'out of it'. What a pair of utter scumbags

This poor woman having to go through it all over again

As always its the actions of the man that gives away whether it is rape or not. Not the actions of the woman. Predatory describes it perfectly. That's probably part of the reason why the defence of rapists relies so heavily on the victims actions - to divert from the rapists actions.

As an aside I'm sure I read on here that about 75% of rapes are pre-planned i.e. the man/men go out with the intention of raping a woman (although they undoubtedly wouldn't call it that). This is certainly fitting that bill.

'Ive got a girl' Didn't matter who it was, did it? Just some interchangeable fuck toy.

I can't believe they're talking about her sexual history.

Yep. And her shoes ffs as an excuse for why she was wobbling.

I am dreading the public reaction if he gets found not guilty. As if there aren't enough rape apologists around as it is. The victim has been through enough.

His girlfriend is utterly deluded. Even if he is found not guilty he's still a disgusting cheat who treats women like play things.

Being questioned about it being 'not normal' to go to a hotel and do what he did, he's blamed it on being a footballer and all the girls throwing themselves at him. What a sick fucking apology for a human being he is.

I think the 1999 law stopping courts from questioning victims about their past sexual history was recently overturned. Another sign of how women's rights are going backwards if I'm right.

I just read the Guardian coverage on this assuming he'll get off.

And I thought, hang on a minute, he's sounding even worse than the last time. The prosecution is really bringing it out, about the 'got a girl' text, the room booking, the predatory nature of their behaviour.

'Got a girl'

Eurgh, sends shivers down my spine. Just vile.

Shocked to read that the law stopping courts from questioning victims over their past sexual history got over turned. I don't see how sexual history is in the least bit relevant in any case

Well, you see, if you agree to sleep with one man, you agree to sleep with all of them, in perpetuity. Sneaking out the fucking fire escape and he didn't do anything wrong?!

My gut feeling is that he'll get off though. And then that'll leave all the wankers free to post her name all over the fucking Internet. Again.

He may get off. But this retrial is publicising the very elements of the case that were not so well publicised the last time, that don't do Ched Evans or his deluded girlfriend, her father and their supporters any favours.

I really feel for her. Whether he's found guilty or not she's been through enough.

And even if he is found not guilty it doesn't necessarily mean he's innocent.