Ched Evans verdict

[FreshwaterSelkie]

to continue the discussion as the previous thread closed.

I had no idea trauma reenactment is a thing. It helps me tremendously to know that.

Just going back a bit, I hadn't known about the Javan Vidal assault. Interesting how they describe her state of inebriation but not theirs. They would undoubtedly have been drinking.

Should women be warned of the increased risk of violence from men when they drink? In fact forget that as that would put women in the position of having to avoid men. The message should go to men to stop drinking. How often do we see that message: Don't put others in danger by drinking too much.

Alcohol is a massive factor in rape - amongst the perpetrators. They lose their inhibitions and you see what they are truly like beneath the thin veneer of respectability. Because they are always like that, they can just hide it better when sober.

And yy to the not traumatised enough narrative. It plays back to just not being the perfect enough victim.

Yep. Nothing else to add but my agreement.

I know what you mean pink, I don't think you should panic and get it deleted

It's well known that many rape victims often have consensual sex relatively soon (in the eyes of society) after being raped.

If with someone they know and/or love e.g a long term partner or a friend; it's a way to 're-set' in some psychological way 'sex', that it's a trusting and affectionate act with someone you like and feel safe with.

If with a one night stand and/or with a stranger it's a way of reclaiming your body and in many ways your pysche - you are consenting and that's your decision and yours alone - you are exercising autonomy over your body.

And also putting yourself into dangerous situations - 'coming on' to people you would normally cross the road to avoid because it's a kind of test; this time you'll be in control - this time you'll fight or whatever you think you 'should' have done when you were raped. This time will be different and you won't be raped.

All of these things are common. Rape Crisis and counselling centres understand it. A lot of Police officers do too. MH services usually understand it.

Society (and therefore the people on a Jury) often don't.

I've spoken elsewhere about the man who wanted to pay me to "take his virginity".
After my rape, I considered it and very nearly went through with it.

Beyond- I'm not sure what point you are making?

Re "putting yourself in dangerous situations"

This was the original statement after CE was first convicted:

'Ched Evans took advantage of a vulnerable young woman who was in no fit state to consent to sexual activity. He did so knowingly and with a total disregard for her physical or emotional well-being.
'It is a myth that being vulnerable through alcohol consumption means that a victim is somehow responsible for being raped. The law is clear: being vulnerable through drink or drugs does not imply consent.
'Rape is an extremely damaging offence, but it can also be one of the most misunderstood and difficult to prosecute.
'The Crown Prosecution Service, in partnership with the police and other agencies, is working hard to help combat and dispel the myths and stereotypes that exist around the issue of rape.
'We want victims to feel that they can report an offence to the police, confident in the knowledge that their complaint will be taken seriously and they will be treated with respect.'

That is until 2 witnesses come forward, and the victim's sexual history is brought into evidence, and then find him not guilty.

Can't get over this verdict.

Can't get over this verdict, me neither Carrie. That final paragraph of the original statement bothers me as well - she made no complaint, the police did, yet she is being blamed (by some) which adds to the unfairness.

The gofundme is currently over 6.5k, its good to have a place/means for people to pledge their support and publicly stand by the fact that this isn't justice.

I asked for my earlier posts to be deleted as I worried they were in bad taste given the context of the thread, and I also felt I had overshared somewhat. But just in case anyone thinks I said something terrible it was only about this trial/verdict being very triggering, feeling a need for physical closeness and feeling loved to counter that for me, and possibly other people have experienced this.

To be fair, her sexual history was only brought up in relation to the language she apparently used which had a direct affect on this case. Surely people understand why it was seen as relevant?

They were likely advised to return not guilty if there was a shred of doubt- which it appears there was. As much as I think his behaviour was disposable, I'm not sure I'd convict if I was on the jury for such a serious crime based on what seems to be weak evidence (not perceived) and no actual complaint.

Disposable - dispicable

Oh fucking HELL.

I'm off to bang my head against a brick wall somewhere.

On the plus side, the GFM just breached £7k :)

can't get over this verdict
Same.

I too, cannot wrap my head around the decision to allow the victim's sexual history to be brought into it. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument tbh.
I, like a pp, have had "all sorts of sex" but that really means absolutely fuck all unless consent is considered to be the default setting of all women who have ever had or enjoyed sex.

I suppose "new evidence" that might be valid in this case would have been if there was a recording of the woman asking for, or clearly agreeing to, CE joining them to have sex.

But what appears to have happened is he snuck into the room

I think the main worry is that the bar for sexual history being admitted isn't really very high. Just some common behaviour being described by self interested "witnesses" that some judges decided couldn't possibly be a coincidence. I agree with that FWIW, I don't think it was a coincidence. I know very well what I think.

But leaving this verdict aside, I'm not at all reassured by claims that it was a singular occurrence and will happen very rarely in future. Every defence team will try to admit sexual history now if there is the slightest chance they can get it allowed. And the judiciary may be more likely to allow it on equally flimsy grounds, where in recent times they may have been more wary. Whatever legal pundits may opine, this case has set a dangerous precedent. It's all about the rape myths, that's the important thing, discrediting the victim in the eyes of the jury. Making sure "reasonable doubt" is weighted towards men accused of rape in that "reasonable" is grounded in those rape myths. That's my take on it anyway.

The whole reasonable belief in consent thing hugely bothers me. Isn't it supposed to be grounded in the way a normal, reasonable person would behave?

So the jury believe that his conduct that night was within the grounds of normal reasonable behaviour?

Surely not? Have I misunderstood?

I was watching The Wright Stuff this morning and they were discussing the use of victims sexual history in rape trials. Despite the fact that they clearly hadn't researched this case properly (Mr Wright saying that she was involved in a 3 some for a start), and one stupid woman phoning in claiming sexual history should be used in rape trials because so many women 'cry wolf', i was shocked to discover that sexual history of the victim is used in 37% of rape trials. I just cannot fathom how that is okay. It should be banned completely.

It doesn't surprise me at all.

My dp actually expected that number to be far higher. He is as disgusted at how this retrial played out as I am. I fear that our dd's have no hope in the future if God forbid they ever find themselves as victims of sexual assault or rape in the future

A very close friend of mine was raped and almost beaten to death. They brought up her sexual history. It was horrific to see her on trial instead of him.