Ched Evans verdict

[FreshwaterSelkie]

to continue the discussion as the previous thread closed.

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.

That is a good point. Surely if she was conscious and fully consenting she would have asked him why he stopped. Who wouldn't? Unless they were completely unaware of what was happening to them. I'm
Surprised this didn't come up in court actually.

The more I think about this case the angrier I get. He went into that hotel room with one motive and one motive only and I think he would have had sex with her whether she was enthusiastically consenting or completely unconscious. The whole thing stinks.

The evidence given (and unchallenged, as far as I can see) is that McDonald asked if Evans could join in and the victim consented. They both corroborated each other's account. The victim couldn't challenge it as her accepted evidence is that she can remember nothing at all of what happened.

To prove rape, the CPS woukd have required to demonstrate that:

That the victim was not consenting (because she was incapable through intoxication);

(ii) That Evans did not reasonably believe victim was consenting.

Evan's evidence was that Macdonald asked if he could join in and the victim agreed and that, further to this, she was an enthusiastic participant in what followed. Again, both Evans and Macdonald corroborated each other and the victim could not give any evidence to challenge this.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that Evans behaved in a pretty despicable way. However, this is a very unusual case as it is fairly rare for the victim in a rape case to remember nothing and be unable to challenge the evidence of the defendants. Further, every case does turn very much on its own facts - particularly rape cases where the determination of consent is obviously key.

There are a lot of good points on this thread but there is also a lot of mis-reporting of the facts and misapplication of the law which I think is perhaps unhelpful in respect of women deciding to report rapes and sexual assaults.

But according to the article it doesn't matter if she was traumatised (though I've not read that anywhere) - the issue was if they believed she gave consent. The fact that she was drunk doesn't matter it seems in this second case. Even if it was drink consent it still applies.

His attitude towards women isn't on trial though - only facts.

I'm not excusing by the way, just trying to understand the different verdicts

But what's the judgement of what belief is "reasonable"? I think it makes it dodgy, the only question should be "did she consent".

Even a screaming stranger rape - if he genuinely believes that her shouting no wasreallya yes, then "he, at that moment believed she was consenting". Iyswim?

Depressingly this has been used as a successful defence many times. Men claim that they thought the woman liked rough sex and therefore didn't mean it when they said no or fought back.

"fairly rare for the victim in a rape case to remember nothing"

Fairly rare in a case that gets to trial surely?

Fairly rare in a case that gets to trial surely?

I can only talk about reported cases and my own personal experience. I can't surmise on cases which don't go to trial. However, in terms of reported cases, it is fairly rare for a victim to remember nothing and be unable to challenge the defendant(s) account, yes.

Yes.

It's not that rare for women to be raped whilst asleep etc.

The reason it was brought to trial is because CE's own account showed behaviour that was consistent with rape. How on earth could he claim reasonable belief when he never once even spoke to the victim. He decided to have sex with her when he turned his taxi around (having received the "got a bird" text) - before he'd even met her.

Defendants in rape cases always claim the victim was enthusiastic and consenting. It's what they do. That doesn't mean their claims should be treated as credible. All the most credible evidence in this case (cctv, receptionist's account) was that she was too out of it to behave in the way CE claimed.

and had no memory of actually having sex with him either.

I have to admit that I have lost track of which other man had sex when.

However.

Man A was somebody she had known for years - their mothers lived on the same street. She actually slept with him a few times before she had sex with him as in apparently drunkenly fell asleep in his bed but had no memory of what had happened.

Man B was somebody she met on face book. They exchanged messages (which for all I know we're full of sex) then went to a party with him then had sex with him the next day and had sex with him on a few other occasions.

No evidence was presented to show that she was routinely picking up strangers in bars for one night stands. However, even if she was, CM appears to have been the one night stand. CE, from the information he gave, was just somebody who walked into the room.

Do we want our daughters to behave like this? Well, she appears to have had a massive problem with alcohol. However, as far as the sex with the witnesses are concerned, I suspect there are many, many 19 year olds from all walks of life having this kind of sex. Isn't that the kind of thing they do on 'Made in Chelsea ' pretty much every week?

The fact that she'd wet the bed (another objective fact, unlike CE's claims) is also testament to how out of it she was.

How on earth could he claim reasonable belief when he never once even spoke to the victim

His evidence was that Macdonald asked the victim if Evans could join in and she agreed. She asked him to give her oral sex and then proceeded to have enthusiastic penetrative sex with him. None of this could be challenged as the victim couldn't remember anything.

On that basis, the jury decided that Evans reasonably believed she was consenting.

I don't know about everyone else, but I've had alcohol induced amnesia a few times in my life - however I only wet the bed once. And that was the time I tripped over a bin bag (last thing I remember), chipped one of my front teeth on the floor, which also went through my lip, and had to have emergency dental work the next day. That, ime, is piss-the-bed-drunk.

I wonder how many "lads" thought twice about picking up a very drunk woman after the first trial. I wonder how many of them have gone back to their old behaviours now.

But gobbolino, that was the evidence at the first trial.

The difference at this trial was that the evidence from the two witnesses gave more strength to his claim that she had enthusiastic sex.

originally, based on just his word, he was convicted.

Oh I forgot. My sister and DH had to carry me home. I passed out on the floor of my flat and was sick where I lay. They had to put me in the shower and get the worst of the sick out of my hair before putting me to bed.

Lucky I wasn't out alone.

He's had a lot more time to practise his story. And the jury also weren't told about CM telling the receptionist that the girl was 'sick' this time.

I think it's untrue to say that his account couldn't be challenged because she couldn't remember, as there are plenty of other facts and account which are not consistent with his account. (CM describing the girl as 'sick' is a big one imo). Just because the jury didn't get to hear it, doesn't mean that there wasn't evidence to contradict him.

The jury convicted on the evidence at the second trial. That's what I'm commenting on.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that I think Evans is not a rapist etc. None if us know - unfortunately the only people who truly know what went on in the room are Evans and Macdonald (although he did leave before Evans). Whether the evidence they gave was truthful or not, none of us know for sure.

I'm just trying to clarify what happened and why in case someone who is thinking of reporting is reading.

But how drunk she was and how that impacted on consent was accepted by the jury in macdonalds case so I guess they couldn't pick and choose. She accepted she was waywas out of it but they also accepted he believed she gave consent dispite how drunk she was.

So presumably, given his and macdonalds account, the 2 witnesses in terms of lanyard used etc, they determined that he too may have thought he gave consent? They can't use the fact she was out of it, sick etc against Evans when they didn't use it against consent in macdonalds case. Since she offered no comment the only evidence regarding perceived consent cake from the defence

I'm just trying to clarify what happened and why in case someone who is thinking of reporting is reading

But it's not clear, even if sober, what about another rape would make a guilty verdict more likely.

I understand gobbolino. I don't think knowing the whys will help someone thinking of reporting though. All they will see is that someone who was blatantly guilty enough that their own testimony convicted them on their first trial, is now 'free' because of reasonable doubt. And I don't know any rape victim who can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did not consent.

Sorry typos - they accepted
Lanyard - language
Cake - came

His contemporaneous account of what happened in the room could not be challenged as the witness could not remember anything. Macdonald generally corroborated his account in as far as he was there. Evidence about wetting the bed etc could be put to Evans. Presumably he would say that he didn't know if he wasn't there when the victim did wet the bed.

However, from reading the transcripts, the wetting the bed evidence came from the victim. The police did not take the sheets as evidence so there is no corroboration of that. Further, wetting the bed is not a killer blow as it is possible to give consent whilst drunk.

No - it's more likely that the jury in the first trial thought she was too drunk but that clayton had 'reasonable belief' because she'd got into a taxi etc. with him. It seems clear that they thought she was too drunk, otherwise they wouldn't have convicted CE.

Sorry - the victim could not remember anything

If a victim can dispute the account of a defendant, it does make a conviction more likely.