Ched Evans verdict

[FreshwaterSelkie]

to continue the discussion as the previous thread closed.

They left the hotel because that was always the plan. Because that's what they've always done each previous time. They don't stay in the rooms, they have no interest in sharing a bed with or waking up with a strange woman and having to make conversation as if She were a human.

Totally agree Jen.

I've just realised as well, that he's been playing football all Summer. Before the verdict.

What did he get the standing ovation for?

Yay, this is how we treat women!! Well done lad!

Is standing fucking ovation?? this world is seriously fucked.

That makes me sick

Yes that makes sense. The fact that Evans sneaked in rather than knocked may suggest she never even knew he was in the room. Crudely evans replaced McDonald in doggy position because these scum find it funny and she was none the wiser, hence Evans initial statement saying he didn't exchange a single word with her, which he later changed.

Because he's the Men's Hero.

roseandmumandmore.com/2016/10/17/ched-evans-the-mens-hero

Society is fucked indeed.

I've thought that. It was dark, she was drunk, he sneaks in without a word, his mate gestures for him to have a go and it's from behind and she doesn't even know it's more than one man. :(

Queen I've always felt that at best, she hadn't realised that the person having sex with her had actually changed. I think if she wasn't terrified and screaming by a STRANGER entering her hotel room while she was naked, then she didn't realise what was happening because she was too drunk or drugged. Don't forget, she wasn't told his name, it was dark, she couldn't have known he was the "famous, rich footballer, Ched Evans, who can have any girl he wants". He was just a figure in a dark room. That's scary, and dangerous, that she didn't even register that shows she wasn't aware.

Makes sense. No point pulling a sober woman who sees your face and could sell the story to the papers. I vaguely recall the jury found him guilty on the basis this is what happened.

God this is so vile.

I think the fact that he walked home with a damaged ligament is hugely suspect. He's a professional sportsperson. Why would you risk inflaming an injury unless you were avoiding any trace of what time you got in?

In this trial, X was in the dock but not allowed the get her own lawyer.

Queen and Aye - it's called the Houdini

Fuckin hell

For some reason I hadnt realised until these recent posters said it that the girl was not facing them when this happened. I knew CE referred to her "getting herself into different positions" but I assumed she at least started out facing them and would have seen his face. (If conscious enough to) but it sounds like people are saying she wasn't facing them at all? That just seems to add a whole new depth to this if it's the case. I said it before but I can't stop saying it, this whole case stinks! Some serious money changed hands to secure that verdict last week. This case will haunt the British justice system in years to come. It has left a dark stain that will be our* shame when future generations learn about it. The things that appall us now about historical abuses? That's how they'll talk about this case in 30 years.

*our in this context means this generation. I don't mean us here and those others who agree it is a vile mess of a case.

It's the grimmest kind of tag team.

Just been over to NM to see the consensus over there. Most seem to believe her but there are one or two complete idiots who are very vocal about how convinced they are 'based on the evidence' that she consented.

I genuinely have no idea how anyone can say 100% that she was consenting unless they are looking at the case in a very biased light.

I genuinely have no idea how anyone can say 100% that she was consenting unless they are looking at the case in a very biased light.

But that's not the test, Delete. A jury needs to be 100% sure that she is not consenting for a guilty verdict.

I wonder if that is something that needs to change. Does anyone think that the burden of proof around rape and sexual assault needs to change? One possible configuration would be:

(i) It needs to be shown beyond reasonable doubt that sex has occurred;

(ii) but once that has been established, it need only be shown on the balance of probabilities that the sex was not consensual

This would ensure that fucking terrible sleazebags like CE and his mate would be on the wrong side of the argument every time. It would also persuade the sort of men inclined towards this kind of behaviour to think twice.

I'm reluctant to suggest anything that could be seen as diverging from 'innocent til proven guilty' but given the extreme difficulties with making a rape conviction stick, I think something drastic needs to change

I know that bear, I was referring to people online who seem to be 100% adamant that she was consenting despite there being no solid proof of this whilst forgetting that not guilty doesn't = innocent.

But I do agree with your post on the whole. Something does need to change especially when it comes to rape cases.

I think they need to strengthen up the definition of consent. It's not good enough someone can argue they had consent from a woman they never even spoke to

I agree it's ridiculous.

I think lie detector tests should be an option when it comes down to he said/she said. Although I don't think a case can rest simply on that. I look forward to the day these tests are perfected and admissible in court. Watch convictions soar when that happens.

Fela rapists shout consent all the time. In the most ridiculous situations. To be honest I'm not entirely sure she didn't consent. That's not based on her ex lovers testimony which I find highly suspect. But because people can make odd choices when drunk. The problem was her lack of memory which gave the defence a huge advantage. Her evidence never changed, but Evans did. Lawyers and judges see this as a huge sign when it comes to honesty and who is the more credible.

How about we say drunk consent is not consent in the eyes of the law. Anybody who has sex with a drunk person is taking that risk. The threshold for 'drunk' could be twice the drink drive limit maybe.

So one shot of Sambuca lowers inhibitions = fine

Half the bottle = raped

Something like that.

queen so you think her saying yeah when his mate asked if he could join in is an acceptable bar to Evans for getting consent?
I suppose I'm saying the onus should be on the person accused of rape to be able to illustrate what he did to ascertain consent.
To me it's a ridiculously low bar that we think a man can believe he had consent from someone he never spoke to, and that society accepts that there is no onus on that man to make sure.
It means the victim has to prove she definitely didn't want sex which is all sorts of wrong, especially where drink/drugs are involved.
Can't think of any other crime where the complainant has to prove they didn't want it to happen.