Ched Evans verdict

[FreshwaterSelkie]

to continue the discussion as the previous thread closed.

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

I thought two guys were outside the window, filming. CE admitted he put a finger to his lips as a sign to be quiet. I wonder what happened to that film.

Also, CE said he didn't speak to her, if he didn't ask her if it was alright how in anyway could she have consented?

womenwithaltitude, it is already pretty much forbidden, at least on paper, to introduce the victim's sexual history. it can only happen in very restricted circumstances .

For example let's say the defendant's story is that "she consented - in fact she initiated things by tying me up with shoelaces. Then she smacked my arse with a wet otter". It then comes to light that the victim had a predilection for that conduct, and there was no way the defendant could've known this. Obviously that lends weight to his story, and I can see why that information should be admissible. It's a very specific exclusion, and I gather it's rarely used.

However it's seems ridiculous that this should've been allowed in the CE trial. the fact the victim sometimes liked sex from behind, and sometimes expressed a wish for that sex to be more vigorous, seems utterly commonplace and mundane. I'm not a criminal lawyer but it seems to me that this should carry no probative value at all.

It looks and smells to me that CE's lawyers have used this route, via a spineless appeal court judge, to allow evidence of the victim's promiscuity in via the back door. This, for me, is where the fuck up, travesty and scandal lie. The original conviction was sound.

I can see how the jury in the second trial felt there was reasonable doubt as to what really happened, but that was because the whole thing had turned into a fucking circus by that point, with bribes and all sorts of shit flying around.

Also, CE said he didn't speak to her, if he didn't ask her if it was alright how in anyway could she have consented?

because McDonald said, 'can my mate have a go' and she nodded, apparently. Even if that happened, it doesn't make it not rape, if she was so out of it on drink/date rape drugs that she was unfit to consent.

Last, with apologies for the bombardment, does anyone think it's a bit of a coincidence that the victim was apparently affected by something resembling a date rape drug, following which she was raped? Is no-one else at all wondering this.

For the avoidance of doubt I'm not for a moment suggesting that either McDonald or CE were responsible for he being drugged. It's just a musing

dancingbear I went out with a friend around 15 years ago, we met some footballers (I have no idea who they are, I just know which team they played for) and I believe we were both given a date rape drug. A friend of an ex took me home and made sure I got in the house, but I remember stumbling up the stairs and everything starting to move very slowly, like I was there but not really.

I was lucky, and looking back she was raped - at the time I thought because she had gone back to his hotel she was happy to have sex, the next day she said she couldn't remember. It seems very similar to this case, I wonder how prevalent date rape is in the footballing community and how often it isn't reported. It's easier to cheat on your wife/girlfriend if the other person doesn't remember?

In fairness, I used to knock around with footballers in my younger years (old school friends and their mates; they made it, I didn't). My experience is that professional footballers, on average, tend to be a bit smarter and more circumspect than other men of the same age.

At the end of the day, they're professional athletes in a super-competitive field, and if you go out on the piss and/or act like a twunt every weekend, then by your mid-twenties, that tends to catch up with you in one way or another. The ones who make a career out of the game tend to have their heads screwed on (obviously there's exceptions)

There was another thread yesterday with some posters from the legal thread (lawyers/solicitors), who said they expect the evidence given was much more detailed than that given in the media. That it would have took a lot more than liking it from behind to get a not guilty on appeal. Especially given 7 of the jury were apparently women.

Just because we don't know the details doesn't mean there aren't any. Only the summary has been released

But a summary is not an adequate summary if it doesn't make sense without more details.

Buttercup. The official appeal judgement explains what reasoning the judges made to allow the appeal in the first place. There is nothing else. It is very clear. They felt that the evidence of the two other men had to be heard and so they had to quash the conviction, knowing that the CPS would bring a retrial.

Yes it did come down to the description of the victim using the words "fuck me harder" and directing the sex with the other two men and putting herself in the doggy style position. They had a legal argument about whether it met the criteria of not being able to be explainable as a coincidence. They decided it couldn't be and so allowed the evidence via section 41.3 of the relevant Act as an exception to the ban on sexual history evidence.

There was nothing else. That was the "fresh evidence".

The same legal commentators who said there must have been more than "she likes it from behind" to quash the original conviction?

Also, what Merry said. Why don't you think a published official summary would contain the salient facts?

When he got his conviction quashed, I hoped and prayed that the 'new evidence' wouldn't be trashing the victim - but I was not a bit surprised that it was. That's all it was. They might as well have said 'she's clearly a slut that goes out drinking and has casual sex'. If the victim had been a 16 year virgin, they would have convicted.

CE's own testimony shows he acted in a predatory way that night, and it was quite clear to me that he didn't give even a cursory thought as to whether she could or was consenting. CE's and CM's own accounts on this supposed 'asking if he could join in' differed in their police interviews iirc - an important piece of information also kept from this jury.

The whole thing was a travesty - the jury were denied the evidence of the one person who was in that room with them. They even asked to see it. That is not justice, or fair.

Buttercups - They are wrong. The judgemrnt may be a summary but it sets out the reasons for the decision very clearly. There is no way that the basis for the decision would have been completely omitted from the judgement.

it is already pretty much forbidden, at least on paper, to introduce the victim's sexual history. it can only happen in very restricted circumstances

Except research shows it is commonly used. Applications are made in a quarter of cases. A third of applications are granted.

One of those posters has given me serious legal advice before (privately) and he's dismissed it at as a full review of evidence. It's a summary only - he deals with that sort of stuff every day? I think it was the gofund thread

I read a very interesting paper last night (think it was by a legal student for an assessment) about the history of the section 41 ban on sexual history and what kind of things can be exempted and the arguments for and against. It's not particularly reassuring, especially in the light of such a high profile judgement. I may start a thread to discuss it later.

The point is Buttercup they say what the reasoning was for allowing the appeal. It's possible we're talking about different summary documents here.

It's jot a 'full review of evidence', but the summary does say what the reasons were for granting the appeal. It's there in black and white and it's very very clear.

^ not, not jot

There is no point in a summary that doesn't make sense. I can only speak in layman's terms, but if you read a summary and think "oh, there must have been more to it, probably you had to be there", the summary hasn't done it's job.

I've just been through the gofund thread, and I see no such post Buttercups, Was it on a different CE thread?

It was prh47's posts I think. No idea which thread.

And their reason for claiming that the judgement didn't contain info on he basis for the decision was 'it can't possibly have been that flimsy' (to paraphrase).

Except the suggestion that the summary specifically omitted the basis for the decision is simply not credible. The judges will have known the scrutiny their decision would be subject to So the reason really was that flimsy.

Prh47 has posted in the "in the news" thread

YY Woman. It really was that flimsy, as are many of the other cases which have allowed this evidence, as described in the paper I read last night. I just need to swap to different device and I'll post it.

venus I would be really interested in a thread about the legislation and to read the paper. I have neither legal experience or knowledge to contribute unfortunately but going to get reading.

I cannot believe it was intended to work as it has in this case and from what WWA said it's not uncommon. That it happened at appeal level suggests it is the actual legislation that is the problem rather than application. Either way its inadequate.

The policy documents and any papers produced, parliamentary discussion (if there was much) etc at the time it was drafted would be fascinating to compare with the real examples of application.

Sorry to be expressing sentjments probably posted repeatedly in MN, I haven't read all the other threads, I'm a bit behind everyone else.