Ched Evans - Case goes to appeal

So what Evans did is OK in the 21st century, but a girl getting drunk and having sex is not and she should be castigated as a 'bike' and a 'vile and disgusting c**t'?

How on earth does your mind work?

 

She didn't need Evans to earn the tag ... her reputation goes before her.

 

The anonymous woman's reputation goes before her does it? I'm guessing you're going to tell me she drinks alcohol and has had numerous sexual partners, therefore making her a c**t, bike and vile and disgusting in your world. But then when worse accusations are levelled at a man it is fine because he's a 'lad' and people should get with the times.

 

My wife works locally, she really isn't

 

So what?

 

So an innocent bloke has just spent two and a half years in prison because she didn't stand up and say 'Sorry m'lud but truth be told I am the type to go along with such lewdness'

 

The two witnesses may have been married, or had girlfriends, or felt that the Evans conviction was unfair on the basis of what they had experienced themselves. There is a whole host of reasons why they waited to come forward.

As an ex cop, I would never feel comfortable when someone gets off such an offence, particularly where there is little more evidence than the victims own testimony - a "his word against hers" situation. There is always the likelyhood that one or the other is lying and it is often too difficult to be certain which one, even when it may be a bit more likely that the victim is telling the truth. It is a terrible situation when considered alongside what future rape victims will think before making an allegation.

But, it shows that I was right last year when I was adamant (on here) that a conviction based on such slim evidence was unsafe. Others said that because he was found guilty by a jury that heard all the evidence, then he must of done it. Not true, I know from experience that the justice system certainly gets it wrong.

I know UEA will come on now and explain that the jury would have got it right on the basis of what they heard, but that in this case, they didn't hear it all. But in reality, and I don't care what he says, the rules of evidence, pace, etc, very often mean that good evidence cannot be heard at all, and the court does not get to hear the true picture.

 

No, you are completely wrong. Ched Evans spent two and a half years in prison because a jury found that his actions that night suggested beyond reasonable doubt that he had had sex with a woman without her consent.

The complaint's sexual history should be totally irrelevant. Just because a person is sexually active or promiscuous it doesn't mean that their credibility as a victim of crime should be diminished. Nor does it mean that they are in anyway deserving of being treated with contempt, something which Evans clearly did regardless of whether he is guilty or not guilty of raping her and something which you are doing with your comments on here.

 

It should be noted that the Police were the ones who pushed the rape charge. The girl originally went to the police because she thought her handbag was stolen, not because she wanted to report a rape.

The worst thing Evans was guilty of is cheating on his girlfriend. While I find that personally distasteful, it's something a significant percentage of the population does on a regular basis and is hardly noteworthy.

Quite. The social media witch hunt conducted after his original release was absolutely disgusting in its breadth.

 

That's not the worst thing he is guilty of though really is it? People usually cheat on their girlfriends in far less seedy, opportunistic, contemptuous and immoral ways than he did.

 

There's nothing immoral whatsoever about the circumstances of the encounter provided it was consensual. What people agree to behind closed doors is entirely up to them.

 

The jury got it wrong .... Official

 

No they didn't. They acted on the evidence they had at the time. Since then new evidence has come to the fore, which is the entire reason why a retrial was ordered in the first place.

 

So are you now saying he was guilty but now he isn't?

 

If I was told by a mate that he had pulled a girl and taken her to a hotel and I then decided to travel to the hotel, lie to the receptionist to get into the room, watched for a bit without permission, got my mate to ask if I could join in and then had sex with a clearly inebriated young girl before leaving through a fire escape without even saying a word to her, leaving her alone where she would wake up in the morning with no idea of how she got there I would be extremely ashamed of myself. Immoral is putting it kindly.

 

No, of course I'm not as well you know.

 

But not guilty of rape if she consented and wasn't clearly inebriated.

 

Well obviously not if a jury has just found him not guilty.

 

Welcome to the Lads club. :]]

 

You're clearly a very weird, f**ked up individual with innumerable issues.

 

I'm really not, I'm faithfully married and have a (well behaved) daughter about the same age as the "victim" .... But I'm not suddenly going to judge other people on how they spend their recreation behind closed doors. That includes the girl, my only beef with her is for not standing up.

 

So you weren't judging her on how she spent her recreation behind closed doors when you called her 'the local bike'?

 

Now it's 1-1, will there be a decider?

Maybe the CPS could do what the defence did and throw money at potential 'witnesses'.

 

It's her reputation, she earned it herself and that's nothing to do with me ... I was simply just trying to dispel the notion she is beyond such behaviour.

 

The notion that no one else, least of all the girl in question, had suggested?

Her perceived 'reputation' has nothing to do with whether or not she was raped by Ched Evans.

 

Lol .... except 90% of the media and a good few of you if we trawl back enough.

 

The media (who have to be extremely careful to stay neutral due to contempt of court laws) and people who don't know her have suggested she wasn't sexually active or promiscuous have they? Any examples of this?

 

The strangest thing about the whole case is that the girl never cried rape in the first place.

 

here's just a snippet, tell me where did the 'terrified' come from?

 

Well that is completely irrelevant to what I asked, but OK.

In the evidence the girl gave she said she woke up scared and disorientated as she had no idea how she had got to the hotel room and who she had been with. Her friend then testified that the girl arrived at her house about an hour later and completely broke down in tears saying that she thought she had been drugged and attacked.

Now maybe you could answer my question instead of diverting and tell me where the media have suggested she was not sexually active/promiscuous?

 

They also waited to come forward until a monetary reward was offered. Might be a coincidence of course and it may be one of your suggestions that explains it instead.

Incidentally the conviction 'as was' was perfectly safe. Hence his initial appeal while incarcerated was refused. It's the appearance of the new witnesses which swung it. I don't think any serious criminal investigation ever turns up all of the evidence. It's physically not possible. After all, the law only mandates that all reasonable lines of enquiry are pursued by the police, not every possible line.

I don't know when your time in the police ended (maybe you'll say?) but I hazard a guess the rules around admissible evidence have come on leaps and bounds in the meantime. Was hearsay admissible in your day? It largely is now. Was evidence of bad character regularly admissible in your day? It is now. There are other examples of things which weren't put to juries in the early 90s which can be now. I imagine it was quite frustrating knowing things which couldn't be admitted into evidence because of arcane rules.

 

'Scared and disorientated' suddenly becomes terrified does it? ... I imagine her lost handbag was of more concern than her virtue.

Also you say she was "massively drunk" while she said she was quite used to the quantity of alcohol she'd drunk without blacking out previously but as for possible spiking her blood tests showed otherwise.

 

I imagine waking up naked in a place you don't recognise with no memory of the previous night's events with a lost handbag and the feeling of being drugged is pretty terrifying to be honest. Not much of a leap there.

And no they didn't - the blood tests were inconclusive.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where the media have suggested the girl not to be sexually promiscuous by the way. 90% of the media did it according to you so it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find an example.

 

You will be waiting a long time because I'm not bothered searching for them. Just drag up any early newspaper report of the time and you'll get your answer, they were full of calling the defence team wicked just for suggesting it.

 

Ok, I guess I'll just take your word for it then!