Ched Evans verdict

[FreshwaterSelkie]

to continue the discussion as the previous thread closed.

We should have trials where it is clear that witnesses haven't been bribed.

We should have trials where it is absolutely clear what the judge was thinking when evidence from other sexual partners was allowed to be introduced.

At the moment that is not the case here.

We should have trials where the defence don't act in a way that encourages abuse of the victim. That certainly isn't the case here.

I don't think jail without a day in court is the way to go, no. That would be ridiculous. I am surprised at the grounds on which this re-trial was granted though.

The way things have gone, I do feel they might as well change the definition of rape if there is no way in hell most accusations can be proven. So why bother giving the victim the impression that the law is there to protect her. Just say she asked for it. That's literally all you need to do. There will always be doubt that the woman is telling the truth, and all the defendant has to do is convince the jury that their doubt is reasonable and, boom, acquittal. She asked me to go harder, she liked it rough, she had sex with me before, she had sex with someone else before, she had sex with someone after, she clearly likes sex, what proof is there that she didn't like it, have capacity to ask for it and ask for it on this occasion? You can invent whatever narrative you like.

I know men can be raped too, but I've only referred to women above because, let's face it, there is a whole lot moe sympathy for male rape victims and there is not a culture of doubting their claims.

And I say none of this as a legal expert or someone wanting a lively pub debate where we all play devil's advocate, I say this as someone who has been raped, and know that the men who raped me knew what they were doing, and knew they would never be punished for it, because that's how tnings are.

'Should we abolish trials for men accused of rape, and just jail them?'

What kind of question is this? I can't tell if it's sarcastic.

At the very least we should not bring up the woman's sexual history and there should be strong penalties (which are pursued) for media and social media identification.

There should be stronger rules about cross-examination and juries on rape cases should get training in the laws around rape and consent before they sit in court.

I do wonder what would happen if we abolished trials for rape and just believed victims. Not suggesting jail as a punishment either - people tend to get more violent in jail after all. Some kind of intensive consent coaching course. Jail would be reserved for very violent or repeat offenders.

After all a woman can only 'cry rape' if you're alone with her. It's inherently dangerous for women to be alone with men, it might balance things out a bit for us if it was inherently dangerous for men too.

I feel Homer fancies him/herself as a great wit.

'On the night in question, Evans was out with McDonald and another footballer, Javan Vidal, who would later receive a suspended prison sentence for knocking a woman to the ground and kicking her that night. Evans had become separated from his friends when he received a text from McDonald which read “I got a bird"'

Blimey. All round group of top lads.

And he was on his way to the police station to support this Javan, but changed his mind and asked the taxi to turn around so he could stick his dick into a woman who he had never met. Top, top lad.

"Drunken Javan Vidal, 22, of Lee Crescent, Stretford, was shown on the footage repeatedly hurling blonde Amy Temple, 22, to the ground and kicking her after she had butted him to the face.., Another man allegedly made a remark to Temple, who had been drinking. She head-butted Vidal who then threw her to the ground and as other men tried to drag him away he followed her down the street, knocked her to the ground several times and kicked her. At one stage Vidal appeared to try to push her into the path of a taxi but the driver avoided her. "

I wonder who the "other man" was.

From another article:
"Andy Hutchinson, for Temple, said she, too, had been drinking and had responded to comments of a sexual nature."

They just have utter contempt for women, the lot of them who were out that night.

Javan Vidal, who would later receive a suspended prison sentence for knocking a woman to the ground and kicking her that night.

Mustn't have been able to find two other men to say the victim deliberately fell infront of their feet on separate occasions. Maybe they didn't offer as much as £50k.

@Venus. No, I just don't want women who have been raped to have to go through a trial.

If we believe women when they say they've been raped, then that means believing the men are guilty; and so what is the point of the trial?

If course that is irrelevant to the Ched case anyway Homer because the woman in question never claimed to have been raped. She claimed to not remember. It was Ched originally caused the police to believe he was a rapist. If jurors don't even believe a man when inhis interview he said he behaved in a way that had all the hallmarks of a rape incident, the chances of people believing female victims are low to nil.

Well, it seems to me, that in another case - lets say punching someone in the face - that if you say I punched you in the face, I say I punched you in the face, and you say that you didn't want me to punch you in the face, despite the fact that you're an amateur MMA fighter, and regularly get punched in the face for fun as part of your hobby, I would still be prosecuted, still through court, but I doubt the jury would have any problem convicting me. I expect that if I hit you when you were fall down drunk, that that would be considered a worse offence even.

How about we treat rape like that? If you are proven to have sex with a woman who says that you raped her, then, just as if it were a punch, you are proven to be guilty.

Why on earth does it matter whether he thinks he had consent? We have the person giving the consent right in front of us, just ask her!

Or, actually, punching in the face doesn't convey the risk of STD/pregnancy, which obviously have life long effects that a punch in the face might not (as dangerous as a punch in the face is)

How about if I tattooed you, while drunk using my needle gun, which you have no idea who else has been tattooed by. Shouldn't I have to prove that I had permission to tattoo, rather than the tattooee having to prove that I didn't?

That Belgian girl with the stars all over her face was believed until the tattooist was able to produce evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that she had asked to be tattooed. Treat rape like that. I need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you had permission, not you that I didn't.

I think a victim giving video evidence should be enough

I agree that the onus should be on the accused rapist to prove that he didn't rape, rather the victim having to prove that he did. Much easier to prove that he was given consent, if he was.

Victims should be interviewed separately, on camera. Not in Court, and each Counsel should interview separately. None of this silly combatorial stuff "I put it to you that you said yes!!!" strutting about, finger pointing, bully boy rubbish. You

One thing that I have no doubt about is that the use of sexual history evidence in rape trials should be totally banned. This trial has shown that the notion that there can be 'exceptional circumstances' that warrant the use of sexual history evience in court is utter bollocks.

Has a petition been started to demand this? I'd like to sign it if do.

^ if so

I still think CE's sexual history should have been allowed. I mean, we know he has cheated on his GF before, we know he has had threesomes with his mate before, we know him and his mates are all very comfortable with videoing each other and strange women having sex without permission and we know at least one of his mates (who he was going to support) is a convicted woman beater. Pretty sure they would have found something that supported the prosecutions case that this was rape. Appeals by the prosecution for his former sexual partners to come forward in exchange for £50k would have been allowed wouldn't they?

We know that his friend convicted of beating a woman and trying to throw her in front of a taxi that same night did so in retaliation to her headbutting him (she was also convicted of affray). And we know that this woman headbutted him when he intervened in an altercation between her when A.N. Other man, when Mr Other made comments of a sexual nature to her. Mr Other was one of Javan's friends. I wonder which one.

But none of this context was relevant. Only how the victim conducted her consensual sex life.

An unpleasant thought that I have nicked off someone on Facebook...

"What's worrying, is that at the very extreme end of the scale... an angry, psychotic ex boyfriend could arrange for someone to rape his ex girlfriend, then act as witness in a trial to discredit her. Nice one Ched... the unsavoury gift that keeps on giving."

Jen - you're right. The sexual behaviour of an accused rapist is relevant. But the sexual behaviour of a complainant is not. I would very much like to see a change in the law over this.

Even where a man has previous sexual offence convictions, which are extremely relevant to the trial, (as my rapist did) the jury might not be informed. The jury were only told about my rapist's previous indecent assault/ABH conviction after they'd found him guilty - how can that be right?

(Conversely, my non-criminal sexual history was raised in court. The fact that mine was considered fair game but his criminal history was deemed off limits shows how rotten it is.)

Given the huge disparity in funds for investigating the details surrounding this case, none of that information would have been found even if the prosecution felt it relevant. CE's defence had what looks like a bottomless pit of cash to keep digging until the evidence fit any narrative that got an acquittal.

The amount of time/effort/money it would take to piece together CE & his cronies actions/history would have been huge - I've no doubt if the money was there & there was the available staff support, there would be plenty found on CE & his friends/family over a 5/6 year period. But which CPS has that sort of time/ resource available for every case they deal with?

Those with money more often than not find a way to 'buy' so- called justice. £5M seems to be the going price in CE's case.

woman I wonder if your sexual history had involved a criminal conviction would that have meant none of it could be used? Or is it just that he was the accused and you weren't?

If you are a victim in a rape trial, your entire private life is up for grabs by the defence:

• sexual history (if the judge grants permission, which they often do)
• medical records
• counselling notes
• SS records, if there are any
• etc...

In my case, the defence wrote to all my friends, asking to meet with them trying to dig dirt. (To be clear - none of these friends had witnessed the incident or ever met the rapist)

In my case, my sexual history was so minimal that it probably worked in favour of the prosecution. But it shouldn't have been relevant at all. I shouldn't have had to describe exactly what I had and hadn't done before because it made no difference to whether the accused was guilty.

Completely agree ninja. However, with threats to seek compensation and sue his lawyers he also seems to be planning to use those funds to dig a deeper hole.