Ched Evans verdict

[FreshwaterSelkie]

to continue the discussion as the previous thread closed.

Andrew you are looking at this from a very male centric perspective. Can you try and look at this from a woman's perspective, a rape victims perspective?

Elendon I think you're spot on about money being a significant factor .

I was close to tears when the news of this broke. It's horrific. I am going to donate to Rape Crisis on the back of this case, it's not much but I feel like I need to do something.

My heart goes out to the woman, I hope she has a good support network around her to help her get through it. She will be very vulnerable right now.

I don't see that Andrew is posting from a "male" perspective at all btw. Anyway I have no objection to that. I think it's a hell of a task to go through a civil case as well and the woman here didn't bring this case anyway, in a manner of speaking.

I wonder what the legalities are in terms of comparing what was said by the defendant at two different trials?

That section 41 or whatever it is needs to be repealed urgently.

As for the reward, is it different from a reward being offered leading to a successful prosecution?

If the CPS obtained 'evidence' in the way that CE's team did, they would be totally condemned. For a start, even if you ignore the bribe, the new evidence was provided by people who knew what CE had claimed the girl had said - so it was contaminated.

As a prosecution witness, you are forbidden to talk about the case with other witnesses, and you are not allowed to know the contents of their statements - precisely so that witnesses can't be accused of coaching each other on what to say or changing their evidence to make it fit. But that is exactly what has happened here.

I can't believe the judge didn't allow the prosecution to inform the jury about the attempt the bribe the receptionist.

When I was waiting for my rapist to stand trial I did think about whether I'd be prepared to pursue a civil case if he was found not guilty. I knew it was a possibility and I could have afforded it. It would have been about being heard and believed rather than about the money - the money wasn't relevant at all.

I don't think I would have done it, although I can't be sure. The trial experience is awful, not something I'd want to repeat.

I can understand why some victims might want to do it, just as I can understand why others might not.

Precisely Woman. To dismiss a civil case as not achieving anything is not looking at it from a victims perspective. (Not all victims obviously).

to be clear I totally get why someone would bring a civil case and now I've re-read Andrew's comments there is an implication of money being important, which I can't agree with.

I have no idea if Andrew is male or female though.

Andrew is male. Looking at it as being about finance is definitely a male perspective, not really understanding why victims would want to do it, but I don't think that's a reason not to post - we all have different perspectives that we're posting from.

If I won the euromillions lottery roll over jackpot I would start a fund to pursue civil claims against rapists.

This re-trial isn't entirely about CE. It's about the quality of the prosecution legal team and their ability to prepare with a massive case load because of cuts and the jury. I always believe that it's the juries (I. E. society) that are key, so keep posting about rape myths, keep discussing rape trials and keep thrashing out all the legal stuff because you are talking to potential future jurors. Get your thoughts straight on here & take them out onto other areas of MN and out into the wider world.

is anyone in any feminist groups that are planning any protests? I'm reading in my group that it's a possibility.

To be fair, it sounds like the prosecution did their best. They weren't allowed to tell the jury about Massey offering bribes to key witnesses (anyone who claims that the message deny wasn't strictly speaking a bribe is being obtuse - it's obvious what that message meant). They obviously weren't allowed to menroom CM's evidence that the victim was 'sick' when he left her. They were totally fucked from the moment the defence were allowed to bring up sexual history because our society is so bloody shit when it comes to rape.

^ mention not menroom

Plea of guilty to being male.

If a victim brings a civil claim for some it will be about money - if he has any to pay with - for others it won't. Obviously if he has none it will not be about money. I understand that.

But - as lawyer, not I hope man - I want to say something about how it would work.

You sue him: that's assuming you know where he lives and can serve him: I know that most rapists are known tot he victim but some are not and the police/CPS won't share the address with you. You apply for anonymity and you should get it; unless one or the other of you is well-known you will probably not be illegally outed.

He ignores it. You get judgment in default for damages to be assessed, and it comes before a judge who will decide that he just pay £x. he won't; he can't; he hasn't got it. If he is savvy he goes bankrupt and then he will never have to pay it in the future. In any event the debt is only due for six years from the judgment; after that even if he gets rich (like the lottery man) he is in the clear from you.

And unless he is well-known nobody will be interested. Not the media, at least. Your friends and family might be; so might your social-media contacts (but if you out yourslef bang goes your anonymity, in practice if not in law) but not for long.

I can't say whether it would be worthwhile but that's not because I am not a woman: it's because I am not the woman concerned in any particular case.

And of course there is always the possibility that he will deny it and put you through a trial. If he acts in person then unlike in the criminal courts he can cross-examine you in person - and that's a grim thought but it is true. And there is always the possibility that the judge will not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities and will dismiss the claim - and if he had lawyers you will be ordered to pay his costs. It could happen.

I know that this is "naught for your comfort" but that is how it is.

As for the CE case: she is out of time. Three years from the event extendible only for very good reason. In the lottery case the fact that he had nothing to pay with at the time was good reason - but CE was probably far better off in 2011 than he is now.

I think the difference in reward money in prosecution vs in defence, is on the burden of proof being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is supposed to be harder to find prosecution witnesses. If that makes sense?

Fuck! No words really. What's the point in even fighting when a clear rapist who admitted to not gaining consent, breaking into a hotel and raping a woman can buy his way to freedom. Where does that leave us, women who have been dealt a clear hand by society and law that men can abuse and take at will?

She just wasn't a 'white' enough victim.

Another rape trial where the victims actions were deemed more important than the perpetrators. That's the shift that's got to be made. What the victim does never constitutes rape. It's the actions of the perpetrators. And CE didn't give a shit about who she was or what she thought. He just wanted someone to fuck. He didn't care whether she consented.

Andrew, as a lawyer, what's your view on the allowing of this new evidence?

I am not a fan of our current system of jury selection either. I would honestly prefer professional jurors with knowledge of the law, but I'd be interested to know if you think I've misunderstood anything here.

Not an 'mra' ..not a 'rape apologist'. Just a normal guy who was curious as to how self described feminists reacted to this verdict and sadly I can't say I'm surprised by the enbarassing posts i've read.

And what are some of you clicking report for exactly? Because you want to defame and be able to call a man who is not guilty of anything a rapist without any repurcussions? Shame on you. If you can't discuss something rationally then maybe you are the problem.

Gh05 are you breathing a sigh of relief today?

I agree Firstshiny. That's why this verdict is so utterly demoralising. I've convinced people to think more about rape and consent and had some success in challenging rape myths on the back of this case. It felt like a small victory for the rights of rape victims (of which I am one) and women generally when he was found guilty. And I think it changed a few opinions. But today it feels like that has been set back massively and the ignorant victim blaming misogynists have been vindicated, and the message it sends to women is appalling . It's really upset me on quite a visceral level, although none of it is surprising.

Do fuck off you sad little troll.

Yeah you are coming across as dead rational Gh05. Voice of reason and all.

At least criticism of what has happened in the trial has made the news. The headline on BBC news focused on lawyers complaining about decision.
Chesterfield FC said they were delighted by the news. Who is delighted after a rape trial.

Sorry but have any of you actually got something constructive or logical to say?

You are setting yourselves up to be sued by calling a man who has been cleared of rape by a jury a rapist. That is very wrong of you and I don't care how you try to spin it.

Gh05 there's been a massive amount of intelligent discussion about this and the previous trial, alongside in depth analysis of the finer points of law around rape. Are you new?

Perhaps have a little read around the previous threads about rape trials on here if you need any pointers on how not to be a rapist. I wouldn't follow the CE example, myself.