Ched Evans verdict

[FreshwaterSelkie]

to continue the discussion as the previous thread closed.

Thanks Lass.

There wouldn't seem to be any grounds for that given two appeals failed and they were pursuing a particular line of defence about strangers.

Could someone clarify something for me please. I have read many of the last few pages of quotes but I'm still a bit confused.

The telegraph has an article, where it says that we have now gone back 30 years, in law. Because in 1999 law said someone previous sexual history couldn't be used in cases.

But in the CE case it was. Because his solicitors did what? Used a loophole? To show that she had done similar? I.e. Had sex and then forgotten. Previously?

So they started examining her previous sexual history.

But I thought that couldn't be done? Since the law change of 1999.

Please could someone explain how/why his solicitors were allowed to do this?

Oblomov16

Your questions are answered here

thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

Oblomov I think the idea is that although many would think a phrase like "Fuck me harder" is pretty banal, it could apparently also be considered so distinctive that if two men claim that a woman uttered the phrase (or similar, anything including 'harder' will do), it can't possibly be a coincidence, they must be telling the truth. Being 'confident' in bed and having sex 'doggie style' are also identifying characteristics. No two (or three) men could possibly describe a woman having sex like this unless they had witnessed her having sex like this.

Somebody who says 'Fuck me harder' and has sex 'doggie style' must be an enthusiastic participant and can't have been raped. In these apparently exceptional circumstances, evidence from previous sexual partners can be used.

You might worry that Ched's description of the event had already been made public by the time these valiant guardian's of the truth came forward with this detail. You could argue that coming forward after all other legal avenues had been exhausted was a bit too much of a coincidence, certainly given the 'energetic' way that CE's friends, relatives and internet supporters attempted to defend him and that it appears that these witnesses were approached by CE's supporters even before they were interviewed by private investigators. To say nothing of the £50,000 reward on offer.

However, without proof that they were lying the Appeals court felt they had to allow the new evidence. Apparently 'Chinny reckon' isn't a legal term.

What we mustn't do is worry that anybody could use this kind of defence again except in very exceptional circumstances.

YY merry. My feelings exactly.

Thank you children for your secret barrister link. A very good article that explained it very clearly.
And thank you so much to Merrymouse, for taking the time to write a long post explaining it so clearly for non law people, like me. Cheers.

The Secret Barrister reckons it's all okay, the law was adhered to, these genuinely were "exceptional circumstances" meriting disclosure of the victim's past sexual history, and women shouldn't worry because it won't happen to other victims. Helena Kennedy in contrast is worried. Two professional lawyers, different opinions on whether a worrying precedent has been set.

My feeling is (as Merrymouse has so beautifully explained) that the bar on what counts as "exceptional circumstances" has been set worrying low - that a common sexual position, a commonly used phrase were assumed to be so significant that it could not be mere chance that a woman had used them (or been alleged to have used them) on two or three separate occasions, therefore the situations must have been similar in all respects (including consent).

But is the argument that she was have sex "doggie style" with the first man and then CE continued that and she supposedly said go harder or whatever? She might in that case have been having consensual (in as much as you can 2 times over the drink drive limit) and not even have known CE had "taken his turn" if she wasn't looking at him, he wasn't introduced and didn't speak to her and it was dark.
Quite apart from the fact that I just don't believe the positions and "fuck me harder" thing at all.

And given that her previous behaviour has been taken into account, can I now turn up outside CE's house and film him having sex with his GF? He liked being filmed before? Can I lie my way into his hotel room the next time he's in one with his GF and penentrate him with something, cos he liked threesomes last time?

"must be an enthusiastic participant and can't have been raped"

Vera Baird QC helped draft the original legislation and she's concerned about it.

Is there a petition yet to get that law changed? I would like to sign one, and will create one if it doesn't exist already (although won't get a chance until this evening).

There is one, but it hasn't gone live yet. I'll grab the link......

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/169433/moderation-info

Thanks - I'll sign once it goes live.

From reading the above article it seems they had to return not guilty if -
they thought she was unable to give consent
-OR if they believed he thought she gave consent.

Therefore I have to say, controversial as it is, that I'm suprised it got past the first trial as there were no witnesses in that room, she didn't and still doesn't say she was raped - given that they both drank who's to say 100% that he didn't believe she didn't give consent? Genuine question.

Initially with the first trial, I thought it was cut and dry -if too drunk for consent, then no consent was given (so guilty) but that article says they had to return not guilty if he believed she gave consent?

So in this trial emphasis wasn't on whether she gave consent but rather if he believed she did. In which case, those witnesses in terms of terminology are relevant. If he believed it, then that was all he needed to prove?

I'm not justifying all the other behaviour, filming, turning up out the blue etc - all terrinle behaviour but that not wasn't on trial so in legal sense irrelevant.

But by his own admission he didn't even speak to her - not before, not during and not aftet. So what was his 'reasonable belief' based on?

The receptionist testified as to how out of it she was.

I find it surprising that a man could claim that he stopped having sex with a fully conscious, enthusiastic woman and she wouldn't say anything, or ask why he stopped. Yet that is what he claims. He says she was wildly shouting 'fuck me harder', but that she and he both said absolutely nothing when he stopped and walked out.

It's just not credible. The fact that he didn't need to say anything when he stopped indicated that she was out of it and not really aware what was happening in the first place (imo anyway).

As I said (here? Somewhere else? I forget...) I find the "he, at that moment believed she was consenting" rule problematic. If a man (cough footballer cough) genuinely believes he is gods gift to women and no woman could possibly say no to his perfect-ness, does that make him legally incapable of rape?
Even a screaming stranger rape - if he genuinely believes that her shouting no was really a yes, then "he, at that moment believed she was consenting". Iyswim?

This case is just awful on every level. Agree with pp, how did it ever get this far? She went to the police station re a lost/stolen hand bag. She was TOLD that she'd had sex with CE and she said she didn't remember that. She remembered nothing. it later transpired that she had done similar with another man the month before? - and had no memory of actually having sex with him either.

Now, as an aside, nothing to do with a rape case, but that's not good is it? None of us would want our dd's to have sex and then know nothing about it. Whether that's through drink, or some sort of memory issue, or whatever medical reason, that's just not good. Doesn't deserve rape, because nothing does. But in life generally, for our daughters, for safety, that really shouldn't happen to anyone.

But she never claimed rape. She wasn't traumatised by the thought that CE and cMcD both forced her into something she didnt want to do. She didn't feel that. Because she remembered nothing about it. Did the CPS push this and run with it all. Did she really want this?

Its just a mess. Poor her.

"From reading the above article it seems they had to return not guilty if -
they thought she was unable to give consent
-OR if they believed he thought she gave consent."

I think the unpleasant truth is that he probably didn't care if she had given consent - what mattered was that his mate had said it was ok for him to 'have a go' on the woman HE had 'got'. Awful, horrible attitude but it seems ingrained in some men.

Horrible verdict and really depressing. The only good thing is that some of the papers seem to have dimly realised this wasn't a fine moment for UK justice or for women and girls everywhere.

But she never claimed rape. She wasn't traumatised by the thought that CE and cMcD both forced her into something she didnt want to do. She didn't feel that. Because she remembered nothing about it.

Wrt are you talking about? The evidence is that she showed up at a friends house the next day, crying and shaking because she didn't know what had happened. Sounds like trauma to me.

Odfod

^ wtf, not wrt

You don't have to remember being raped to be traumatised by the knowledge that two men did what they wanted with your body while you were too out of it to stop them.

This should go without saying, but clearly not.

given that they both drank who's to say 100% that he didn't believe she didn't give consent? Genuine question

In most rape cases only two people are present and you could argue that it's one person's word against another. That is why other circumstances are taken into account and why CM wasn't convicted at the first trial and CE was.

It's certainly true that the accused is given the benefit of the doubt and isn't so much proved innocent as proved not to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The jury and the appeal judges could all have thought it more than likely that CE committed rape, but could still fail to find him guilty.

It's not whether he had belief. It's whether his belief was reasonable.
It's really depressing that people think that a man can reasonably believed he has consent from an extremely drunk woman he's never spoken to.
Interestingly in Macdonalds original testimony no one asked her if she wanted sex with ched. Ched asked MacDonald if he could "have a go".
The more I read about this case the more depressed I get. So many people think the answer is to tell girls not to get drunk, seemingly forgetting about drink spiking. Yet no one seems to think we should expect young men not to shag drunk women. Because if she's too drunk to consent, that's her look out. Yuck.