UKC

... Here we go again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36099522

Not sure where this leaves all those who took the view that the courts are 'always' correct so he must be guilty.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




Well to be fair, he still might be, eh?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Not sure that those people are at the forefront of my mind.

I am more concerned about either an apparent miscarriage of justice or for a rape victim being expected to re-live the ordeal once again through another trial.

Maybe best to let the full legal process run its course first.

The prurient interest of armchair commentators is of little relevance surely?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




We'd now think he must be innocent. Easy.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Well exactly, I don't see the issue. In the absence of knowing the full details of either the original trial or the appeal, I personally have no problem accepting the judgement of the court.

In reply to andy:

Indeed. We shall see. The whole business must be really very sad and depressing for all concerned.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

If it wasn't inappropriate in this context I would have given you a 'like'.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

New evidence. Had that evidence* been available at the original trial, the verdict might have been different, hence the retrial. I'd say the system worked.


* I have no idea what the new evidence is

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The horrible thing is the outcome could legitimately be that the victim believes she had been raped whilst Evans could have simultaneously reasonably believed that she was capable of giving consent, even if she wasn't.

A nightmare of a case to try.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:



Yeah..

It really depends on what the new evidence was.

But whatever the outcome now it means he has lost his career, as I doubt any team will touch him until he's been cleared. I think he should be free to play now personally. He's had his conviction quashed, he's innocent until proven guilty again.

I don't think the system worked, supposedly the defense was pretty atrocious so convinced that was he was going to be cleared.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I disagree. Not because I think he's guilty - as I said, I accept the decision of the court. However he is facing a trial for a serious crime - if I were in his position, in such a public facing role, I'm not sure I would expect to just continue employment as if nothing happened. Whoever employs him has to consider the effect it has on their club's reputation. That might not be fair, but it is the reality.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Well, he's certainly been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a horrible human being, but unfortunately those weren't the charges. He should be free to play, but I'd be protesting if my team (and bear in mind that's a desperate Aston Villa) went anywhere near him.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Well if that were a crime I suspect that prison football teams would feature highly in the Premiership.

In reply to planetmarshall:

I thought Johnson should have been sued by Sunderland. He claimed innocence, so they stood by him paying him 60k a week, then at the end, after earning millions he admitted guilt. He knew he was guilty.

Ched has always maintained his innocence and has been out of the game for 5 years now. He's got at most a few years left.

Whether he's a horrible human being is a non-issue.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Ive always thought the law was very strange in this case and it hinges on a very thin point as the other guy was cleared.

I wonder if the young lady in question has said something or tried to sell her story since that contradicts what she said at the trial.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


It might be for you, but football clubs should represent their fans as much as vice versa. I doubt I'm alone in not wanting to be in the position of cheering on someone who I find odious, guilty of a crime or not.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Then you shouldn't look into most of your players..

If he's just cheated on his missus and has had a threesome then hes pretty much the run of the mill soccer player.

No doubt you had no issue with Steve G smashing someones nose in with an elblow when he was playing forengland? Ashley Cole's issues? Rooney shagging hookers? Terry cheating on his wife with a team mates ex? Giggs constant cheating? Not to mention the numerous roasting sessions by many players... Collymore beating Ulrika when he was a villa player..

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

As far as i'm aware, he wasn't sentenced to a life of unemployment.

In reply to JMGLondon:


He wasn't tho was he there are plenty of jobs he could do.

In reply to JMGLondon:


And if you look at my response, I said he should be free to play. Clubs, however, should be free to employ or not employ players as they see fit.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


well he is in for a retrial. From what I recall mine and most others objections were those declaring him innocent based mostly on his own website.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



And allowed his supporters, girlfriend and family to harass the victim and even reveal her (legally protected) identity and whereabouts more than once, only publicly asking them to stop prior to his appeal going in.


Yes, there are a lot of historical cases of footballers being scumbags - what's your point? That football's woefully low ethical standards should be maintained?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

That why he is any different?

If he didn't rape her how can you say be supporting Titus bramble?

Or any other footballer who roasted a woman?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Where the hell did I say I was supporting Titus Bramble or anyone else? This thread is about Ched Evans.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

You said you wouldn't support him and wouldn't want him in your team.

There is a very very high chance your team contains people just like him, assuming he is just guilty of being a cheat who had a threesome.

In reply to TMM:


It is if you believe in the principal of innocent until proven guilt. A man who has just been deem innocent (until the re-trial at least), has for the last year or so been marked as guilty.

I'd say his ordeal is every bit as important as the rape victim, who under retrial may actually turn out not to be a victim at all.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Lets hope that the law (ie the retrial) considers all the facts and reaches the right verdict, whatever that may be.

My queasiness, apart from the sordidness of the whole sorry affair, is would this avenue be available to someone not bankrolled by daddy-in-laws millions?

In reply to Babika:

Part of my queasiness is - would any of this ever have seen the light of day had Evans not been so rich and high profile? Would the police have taken up her case so enthusiastically?

And a second point - I wonder (I really don't know) how easy it is for an accuser to withdraw his or her accusations after having had second thoughts , without then being accused of wasting police time etc.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Anecdotal evidence for many years is that rape victims don't come forward and the numbers reaching court don't reflect reality, partly because of police attitudes, so you may have a point.

In reply to Babika:



Thats the issue in the US

The defence costs, people take plea deals because they cannot afford to fight their cases.

Its horrific.

There is almost no chance he would have been successful without the money. However I'm not sure the police would have pursued this had it not been a famous footballer

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I wouldn't and I don't.


I've mentioned above that it's not him having a threesome that irks me about Ched Evans. And as you mention it, my team does have people who shouldn't be representing the club: Gabby (Flabby) Agbonlahor - team captain overweight to the point where he's been dropped from the team and twice suspended for going out partying after defeats in a season where we've been fighting (and have lost) against relegation. I don't want him playing for Villa. Collymore should have been sacked for hitting Ulrika Johnson (although I was 17 and "not into football" at the time).

Clubs sell the football along with a history, image and ethos to appeal to supporters (read "customers") and sponsors alike. We can pretend that it's only the playing side of football that matters, but that would be to ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

In reply to Babika:


Unfortunately that view of police attitudes usually comes from people who haven't had any contact with police officers who actually do this work, bolstered by anecdotal accounts of (usually high profile ) f@@k ups. The more that view is propagated unchallenged the more it is reinforced.

What also doesn't help encourage victims is routine victim blaming - as per the crowds, not discouraged by Evans, following his last trial.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


A female whose account is she was so intoxicated she doesn't know what happens.
A suspect who "pulls her" and takes her back to the room for sex.
Witnesses that say a second suspect also had sex with her in a threesome.

The police would certainly have taken that to CPS for a charging decision.
After that it's down to them. Not the police.

In reply to off-duty:

You're right on both counts of course, though whether Evans could have done anything credible or effective to discourage such behaviour without getting into all sorts of legal complications, or even implicitly implying guilt I'm not so sure.

In reply to off-duty:

I did say "partly" because of police attitudes....
There are many, many reasons why rape victims do not come forward but surely you must acknowledge that the perception of police attitudes, whether borne out by fact or not, is one of the reasons.

(Writing as someone who worked for the police for 11 years)

In reply to Babika:



The "perception of police attitudes" is very different to "police attitudes" - which was my point.


If you've worked for the police you might be better placed to have clarified what police attitudes ACTUALLY are, rather than the perception.
Dependant on what role you worked for the police and how recently, of course.

In reply to off-duty:






I thought the argument was the police had not thoroughly investigated it before passing it on.. witnesses missed, CCTV not seized.

In reply to off-duty:






I'm not sure I agree with this though.

TBH most Saturday mornings girls and guys wake up regretting sleeping with someone.

I'm not sure if you remove Evans from it would it have been a rape trial by the other guy.

We'll find out soon enough as the next trial will presumably happen quite quickly.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


In general that's true, but in the present case, since the complainant can't actually remember anything of the relevant events, it's difficult to see how she can have any view at all as to whether she was raped or not.

jcm

In reply to Andy Hardy:


It depends what you mean by the system. As to the court system, the test for letting in new evidence is, I believe, that it's credible, might have affected the result and couldn't reasonably have been brought at the first trial (this isn't an accurate statement, but it's something like that, I think). It's certainly hard to see how any court system can do perfect justice in circumstances where new evidence of that type comes to light after the first trial.

On the other hand, one of the main complaints of Team Evans was that the complainant had deleted her Facebook and other social media posts for a period after the attack. They seem to think (with what justification I have no idea) that the police could have got those, but the police refused to assist them in doing so. If (and I've no idea either) the new evidence is some of those missing posts, then one might well think that the system more broadly should have done better in uncovering them, whether because the police should have had and should have used the power to get them, or because the police ought to, but do not, have the power to do so.

jcm

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


The retrial will be worse. Hard to see how there can be a fair trial, I'd have thought. I wonder if CE will be allowed to bring the new expert evidence he wanted to bring when he was before the Court of Appeal the first time, and they wouldn't let him.

It's not terribly obvious what purpose the new trial serves, either. The guy's served the sentence he was given and lost his football career, rightly or wrongly. Nothing changes really whether he's convicted or acquitted. An acquittal won't bring his career back, he won't get compensation for the lost money and the time in jail, and on the other hand if he is convicted, will that really make anything any better in the world?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

If he is acquitted he could still have a few playing years left, could he not? Who would be brave enough to campaign publicly against someone the court decided was wholly innocent (if that indeed is the outcome.)

And it just *may* be that he would prefer to have his conviction quashed than have his children grow up thinking they were the children of a convicted rapist.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

>And allowed his supporters, girlfriend and family to harass the victim and even reveal her (legally protected) identity and whereabouts more than once, only publicly asking them to stop prior to his appeal going in.

I'd be inclined to cut the guy a bit of slack. First of all, obviously he can't really control his supporters. He could have issued a public appeal, I grant you, and maybe he should have done.

It's worth remembering though that on his own account he met a woman who spoke perfectly clearly to him and participated enthusiastically in sex. There's nothing to contradict that account.

He then got convicted of rape (absurdly, in my opinion) and punished way beyond the norm (also absurdly, in my view). Not that my view matters, except that it demonstrates that reasonable people can hold that view, so it's reasonable to suppose CE does. According to the CA, it was reasonable for the jury to find that he ought to have taken more steps to determine whether a grown woman who could clearly walk, talk coherently and, on his own uncontradicted account, direct what sexual acts she wanted him to perform, was in law capable of consenting to sex.

It's easy to understand how he might have been royally pissed off with the complainant and the legal system.

Add to that the fact that he believed, rightly or wrongly, that his defence had been undermined by the complainant destroying evidence and the state refusing to support him (for whatever reason) in recovering it. Again, one can see how a chap in his position might that vexing.

He then finds that he isn't even allowed to issue an appeal for anyone who saw these tweets or posts or whatever, because that would involve naming the complainant. Probably a tad irritating as well.

If I was him, I can't honestly say that from my prison cell, where I was sitting after being on the wrong end of an unsafe conviction and contemplating the loss of my life's passion and ambitions, I would have made it a priority to protect the anonymity of the complainant. No doubt that would have been very wrong of me, but I think it would be understandable.

jcm

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Yes, but then the CPS isn't proceeding with the retrial to give CE the satisfaction of proving himself innocent.

As to who's going to campaign against him, presumably Monkeypuzzle is. And I dare say that harpy whose name escapes me, who persecuted him the first time just after he came out of prison. will crack on regardless.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
By "system" I mean the process of appealing. That's not to say it was a quick process, but you can't have everything.

Do you know if the court of appeal could have overturned the conviction without ordering a retrial?

In reply to David Martin:

>who under retrial may actually turn out not to be a victim at all.

She's a woman who was drunk and had sex which she can't remember but now regrets. She hadn't drunk any more than most of us do at one time or another, some of us fairly often, but unfortunately she suffered an extensive memory loss, very rare in someone who has only drunk what she did. Whether the jury thinks she was so drunk the sex shouldn't have happened, or just a little bit less drunk than that, really can't affect how much sympathy one has for her in the slightest, I'd have thought. It's obviously an unfortunate thing to have happened, either way.

This case really doesn't do the law much credit in my opinion. I can't really imagine how the jury is supposed to draw a line between 'too drunk to be fair game', and 'just drunk enough to be fair game', which, however crudely put, is really what it comes down to. It must be a fairly random decision, and for one to lead to total ruin for the accused and the sainted 'victim' status for the complainant, and the other total vindication for the accused and - well, some other status for the complainant, is really a bit silly.

Not that it's easy to say what would be a better system. Some lesser charge of behaving in an ungentlemanly fashion, pleaded guilty to and leading to some intermediate consequences, would have done better justice to the situation and been better for the complainant as well, but it's not easy to see what system might safely produce such a result.

jcm

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Yes, I believe so. And of course the CPS could have declared they didn't intend to pursue a retrial. They may yet, I suppose.

jcm

In reply to Babika:


There may be no right verdict. We're never going to know what happened in the room itself. The question is going to be whether a woman was yey drunk, or just a little bit less than yey drunk, over a brief period of time six years ago. Who can possibly say?


Maybe, maybe not. But presumably if not that's a criticism of the legal aid system, rather than an argument to say that CE shouldn't have been allowed a retrial given that there really is (in the opinion of the CA) new evidence which is at least compelling, (although presumably not actually decisive).

jcm

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I think his conviction's been quashed now, actually. So all a retrial can give him is the satisfaction of being able to say that a jury kept it quashed. And he'll always be a convicted rapist in the sense of being someone who was once convicted of rape.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

In this instance I'm in complete agreement with you.

My own mind was running along the same lines i.e. how do you draw a line and is there perhaps another way to deal with such cases where the reality is that it isn't black and white.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


So we're back to not a criminal = must be totally okay?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


He need not be totally OK, just a bit of a c**t like many footballers...

Its hard to argue the guy having (if he was) a willing threesome is any worse than Giggs shagging his brothers missus.. or Gerrard breaking a guys nose.. or Rooney shagging hookers.. or the many many more who are pretty reprehensible.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

As I recall, she went back with and agreed to have sex with the other guy because she already knew him. The staff at the hotel said she was very drunk.

That doesn't make her fair game for his mate. It also doesn't mean its right for other people to be watching through the windows.

In reply to marsbar:

>As I recall, she went back with and agreed to have sex with the other guy because she already knew him.

Well, in that case you recall incorrectly. At least, she'd known him for about fifteen minutes.

And moreover, if she had indeed 'agreed to have sex with the first guy then there could have been no question of convicting Evans, because the entire basis of that conviction was that she wasn't in a state to agree to anything.

>The staff at the hotel said she was very drunk.

The single night porter, who saw her for fifteen seconds, but yes. But being 'very drunk' is not the test. The question is whether the complainant is so drunk that she is incapable of choosing to have sex. If being 'very drunk' is going to mean that people can no longer choose to have sex without their partner getting convicted of rape, then society is going to need to change radically.

>That doesn't make her fair game for his mate.

Obviously. But that isn't the question. The question is whether there was sufficiently overwhelming evidence that she was actually incapable of choosing to have sex because she was too drunk.

In my opinion, it's very hard to see how the jury, faced with a complainant who is clearly capable of buying and eating a pizza, flagging down and getting into a taxi, choosing to urinate in a doorway rather than the road, realising she'd forgotten her handbag and sending her companion back to look for it, voluntarily walking on high heels into a hotel room, and so forth, can possibly have concluded beyond reasonable doubt that actually she was so drunk that any choice she might make to have sex was invalid so that her partner should be convicted of rape. The question only has to be formulated properly to see the answer.

jcm

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Well, as I say, I don't really see what he's done wrong, if we suppose that his uncontradicted account of events is true. He hasn't behaved perfectly, but no worse than many others. I certainly can't see that what you complain about necessarily makes him 'odious'.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously and Roadrunner:

Far be it from anyone to actually read what I wrote, but I did say that it's his complicit silence whilst his family and friends hounded someone who was subject to legal protection. I know jcm thinks that that's fine because Evans must have been upset, but we disagree on that.

In reply to marsbar:


Absolutely. Evans agreed with you, because when he noticed he closed the curtains. Bad move from his point of view, really, since a couple more friendly eyewitnesses might have done him some good.

But anyway, you're illustrating perfectly why he was convicted when he shouldn't have been. The only question to be decided was a simple quasi-medical one - was the complainant this drunk, or that drunk? What Evans did or didn't do, let alone his mates, doesn't affect that. But you can't separate the two, and not could the jury.

It's the glory of the jury system - nothing compels the jury to follow the law. I'm on board with that myself when they're acquitting Clive Ponting because they think he did the right thing, but not so much when they're putting people in prison when the statutory elements of the test are not proven because they think he's a Bad Man.

It's always worth reminding everyone that if Evans had just chosen to remain silent until a solicitor arrived he could never even have been tried, because there would not have been any evidence that sex occurred. The court system at one level is a game, and sometimes you lose because you play it badly.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yep, Clive Ponting is one of the few examples I can think of where the jury system has delivered the correct verdict despite the law saying the opposite. A long time ago now, though...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



I agree it is very hard.
The people best placed to make that decision probably being the jury who have the advantage of hearing first hand accounts of all those involved, rather than cherry-picking partial details of evidence, largely those pieces that were trumpeted by the "Free Ched Evans " campaign.

In reply to off-duty:
That would rather depend on the calibre and conscientiousness of the jury, and the advocacy skills of the prosecution vis a vis the defence, wouldn't you say? Bit of a lottery, in fact.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


No, the two questions to be decided were:
a) Did the defendant believe the complainant had consented to have sex with him and if so;
b) Was this belief reasonable?

my understanding is that there is an onus on the defendant to explain what steps he took to establish consent[1] which I guess gets tricky if you've dishonestly obtained a hotel room key to have sex with a drunk person you've never met before.

[1] http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Nevertheless the persons best placed to make the sort of judgements jcm is making are still the jury.

In reply to off-duty:

Without wishing to labour the point, they may well be in the best position, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they use that position to best advantage.

(And actually, they may not: from my time on Jury service doing a couple of cases, not a huge sample I know, we didn't have access to some information which would have been helpful in coming to a judgement.)

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



I wasn't suggesting they made the correct decision.
I was suggesting they had access to all the material that was legally judged to be relevant, as well as first hand accounts from those involved.
This is in contrast to internet debators who can cherry pick evidence from partial and often biased third hand accounts.

My suspicion is that Evans may well have come across extremely badly in the box - something that may affect the unchallenged acceptance of his account that jcm appears to favour.

In reply to off-duty:

Actually I cherry-picked all those 'partial pieces of evidence' from the Court of Appeal's judgment. But you knew that, right? You're just sounding off because you don't like the idea the system you work in might have made a mistake.

>The people best placed to make that decision probably being the jury who have the advantage of hearing first hand accounts of all those involved

Well, no. First of all, of course, the jury didn't have the advantage of a first-hand account from the complainant herself, because she unhappily had no memory of the events at all, despite clearly being in a condition to walk and talk at the time.

Secondly, the jury are the second-best-placed people. The best was McDonald, who was with her for an hour or so and then had sex with her - an extremely good way in itself of telling whether someone is capable of choosing to have sex. And it was inherent in the jury's decision to acquit McDonald, as the Court of Appeal explained, that not only did he genuinely believe after all that that the complainant was capable of choosing to have sex, but that he would have reasonably believed it even had he been sober. Somehow the jury managed to hold in its collective head two thoughts, the first being that McDonald reasonably thought the complainant was not too drunk, and the second that, despite his obvious advantages over them, they were sure beyond reasonable doubt that his honest, sober and reasonable view was wrong. It only has to be said to see that the jury's decisions can't stand together.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The system I'm involved with makes mistakes all the time. Usually by acquitting the guilty because the case can't be proved.

I agree those involved have the best knowledge. That includes the complainant - despite her lack of memory her account of events that evening could be examined and her credibility and reliability viewed.
In the absence of telepathy (and not being the investigating officers or prosecution with access to all disclosure) then the next best placed are the jury.
Certainly better placed than us.
But you knew that didn't you.

We've wrangled before about the legality / logic of a guilty and non guilty verdict. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

In reply to off-duty:

You're rambling.

First, not convicting someone who was in fact guilty because sufficient evidence cannot be gathered is not a mistake by the system; it's merely the human condition.

Second, the complainant's credibility and reliability don't have anything to do with it. She couldn't remember anything.

Third, Evans evidence doesn't have anything to do with it either. You can disbelieve it entirely and it still doesn't alter the fact that the prosecution need to prove, beyond doubt, that the complainant was so drunk she couldn't choose to have sex.

Fourth, we have not agreed to disagree about the irreconcilability of the jury's verdict, except in the sense that you have stuck your fingers in your ears and refused to engage with it (just as the CA did, to be fair).

With every word you say you demonstrate why Evans was convicted when he shouldn't have been. If serving policemen think such irrelevant things are important, goodness knows what the jury was taking into account.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

That's a pretty misleading account of Ched's testimony, a testimony that probably didn't do him any favours. Most people would not class walking a in a room and watching someone have sex with your friend, as having 'met' that person. There is then a contradiction in the evidence given by Evans and Mcdonald.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

probably guilty, probably reasonable doubt

In reply to robhorton:

You're hopelessly confused.

The first thing (assuming D accepts he had sex with C) is for the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was no consent.

Unless that can be proven, it doesn't matter what the defendant did or didn't believe or what steps he took, because the prosecution simply haven't got off the ground.

The prosecution can prove actual consent in two ways.

The most usual one is the complainant saying she didn't consent, or alternatively (if she was out of it) that she can't remember or is sure she wouldn't have consented. This complainant couldn't do the first as she didn't remember, and didn't do the second.

So the prosecution was thrown back on the second way, which is to show that C was too drunk for any factual consent she may or may not have given to count.

Evidently in order to convict the jury must have believed that had been proven, despite (for example) C's own evidence, corroborated by the medical evidence, that she had drunk less than she often drank, and only enough to put her 2.5 times over the drink-drive limit.

Only then does the question of reasonable belief come into play. Obviously, the jury went on to find that CE had not taken sufficient steps and did not reasonably believe C was in a state to choose to have sex.

The fly in the ointment is that somehow they also found that McDonald had a sober, reasonable and genuine belief that C was in a fit state to choose to have sex, but that they were sure he was wrong.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Then surely the converse is also true? Convicting the innocent because the jury was made up of humans? Fortunately the system has that covered and CE appealed. He lost the first one (based on the original evidence) but now has new evidence so was given leave to appeal again. He now has another day in court to have his new evidence heard, time will tell if it's sufficient to convince the new jury he's innocent.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Really?? 'Met' strikes me as a pretty neutral term. But call it what you will.

You're demonstrating again what went wrong. None of the in-room evidence matters. The prosecution has no evidence to prove whether or not there was consent in fact, and the defence doesn't need to. The only thing that matters is the complainant's physical condition. The fact that posters are finding this so hard to grasp strongly suggests what went wrong.

jcm

In reply to Andy Hardy

Not being able to convict because, for instance, no one saw the critical events is a different category of error from a jury convicting irrationally where the elements of the offence are not proven. The former could not be avoided even by perfect humans operating in a perfect system, the latter could.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yes really. Voyeurs can't claim to have 'met' people as a result of their activities, you seem to have an odd attitude to how people use language.


Then why did you mention it? I was replying to your text which was incorrect, and made no point other than that. You're the one who's rambling, not off-duty

In reply to off-duty:

Do you know how a retrial works? Is the jury supposed not to know that the first jury convicted, or what?

And is evidence a free for all - can either side call any evidence they like? What happens if a witness' story is different - presumably at least then the first trial has to be referred to.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Shit happens. You seem to be getting lots of exercise from flogging this dead horse. Nothing you or off-duty or me or anone else posting on here says will make a blind bit of difference, unless by a gazzilion to one chance 12 of us wind up on the new jury.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

You've lost me. I didn't mention the in room evidence other than to point out that it didn't go to the critical matter.

jcm

In reply to Andy Hardy:

My God, man, which of anybody's postings on here on any subject do you suppose makes any difference to anything?!

I'm interested in the law and discussing when and how it makes mistakes, that's all. If you're not, don't talk about it.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

You are 'lost' but you can't blame that on me. 22:04 Thurs and it's quoted in my reply at 10:46 Fri. 'Worth remembering' apparently.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Oh, I see. Well, I referred to that to point out to someone why it might be less judgmental not to call Evans 'odious' for failing to stop his supporters behaving badly. That doesn't mean it was relevant to the matters the jury had to decide.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Ok. You were wrong IMO, he never met the woman in the sense most people would understand, that is, exchange greetings and have brief conversation.


I haven't commented on that yet but I must admit I find that curious. If he'd just walked in the room and got straight down to it, would that not be different to had he walked in, asked if he could watch, had a brief conversation, then asked if he could join in? If in strict terms it should not be relevant, I think it is obvious that the strange and different accounts Evans and Mcdonald gave would influence a jury, I'm sure good defence and prosecution lawyers know that.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
My mistake. I assumed you were trying to make people change their minds about the original conviction.
edited to add - rather than the law in general

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I don't know about that! If I went to a party and someone asked me if I'd 'met' x, and the last time I'd seen x she'd been asking me to 'f*ck me harder', I think I'd be inclined to reply 'Yes, we've met.'

Still, we all know what CE's evidence was; summarise it as you like.

I'm quite sure that in practice this stuff affects juries and that barristers know that. Doesn't mean it's right, nor that the Court of Appeal shouldn't know better.

jcm

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Well, I kind of am. I can rant on the general or the particular. You just have to start me up.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I wouldn't have sex with someone I hadn't met in the conventional sense, so I can't comment. Asking for trouble. I do know someone who goes to those kind of parties.... he's told me that all have a fairly sober introduction and chat before the drinks flow and the action starts.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

This risks descending into personal abuse, and to be frank I get enough of that when I'm getting paid.


As is disliking a defendant and convicting him. Or believing him guilty, perhaps unreasonably. Except in that case it's also "a mistake in the system".
Such mistakes also include resounding evidence that the jury still decide "isn't enough" - again far more common in my experience.


Do the jury believe her when she says she can't remember ? You appear confident that she was compos mentis and Ched's account was preferanle to hers. The jury have at least had the opportunity to see and hear her.


Yes. On the basis of the evidence that is presented including the various accounts that are presented. His belief in her state of capacity may have some bearing.




We'll have to disagree to disagree then. I remember having quite extensive discussion about it at the time. Discussion that I am not sure I have the will to resurrect.

As for the relevance of my profession, I note the wide ranging nature of your argument, including personal digs, slanted to your opinion and suitably expressive. An advocate at work.

In reply to off-duty:

Do you think the police acted correctly originally?

There are many complaints that they only looked at evidence to convict him, not establish what actually happened... not checking her social media.. not checking all the CCTV.. not finding other witnesses.. much of the complaints came back to the original police investigation.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



I'm not aware of the detail of these complaints, or perhaps more importantly the information they are founded on.
If that job came across my desk then part of our obligation as investigators is to investigate all sides of the allegation.
This will include anything that is brought up by the defendant.
Usually it includes ridiculously intrusive trawls of the victims medical (and other ) history.
I'm not sure around social media - if it was flagged up then yes it could have been looked at (if feasible) - otherwise I'm not so sure. Isv it reasonable to review a victims social media accounts throughout an investigation? And if those accounts are set to private? I've heard allegations the victims accounts were deleted - these makes retrieving them exceedingly difficult.

And the majority of the evidence above is directed at the character of the victim. None is admissable, or often obtainable from suspects. Can we expect Evans social media chat with his mates to be disclosed ?

In reply to off-duty:

I thought they normally do.

They certainly go through texts and phone records in the US, don't they in the UK

TBH if he knew 100% that he was innocent and has lost his career and served time I'd use any means possible. I suspect we'll find out more in time.

Being from Sheffield I'd heard from pretty high profile people that they judges would almost certainly quash his appeal. They were absolutely convinced. Saying that they said his first court case would be an acquittal and said it was such an open and shut case that they don't think the defense did a good job at all, like the police they'd not got hold of CCTV or used all the witnesses.

I think its reasonable to review their social media especially if there are allegations like there was in this case about what she had supposedly said on twitter/facebook, namely the 'when I win big' alleged comment. I think that is serious enough to be investigated.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Not sure what your referring to?


Yes. Suspect and victim. Social media content isn't usually stored on the phone as I understand.



I've been absolutely convinced about jobs I've been officer in the case for, and still got it wrong. "High profile " and "privy to the details of the allegations " are not the same thing.
To be honest it's a bit pointless speculating what evidence should have, and now has, been produced. It's been embargoed for a reason and it should come out at trial.



Lots of allegations afterwards certainly. I wonder how many actually came forward to the cops with screenshots though - compared to "my mate says she spoke to her mate who's friends with her on Facebook and....."
If the victims Facebook is private - practically it's pretty hard to access. Privacy, regulation of investigatory powers act etc.
Given the scrutiny we appear happy to place in the victim - can we do the same to the suspect , history of sexual activity for example.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

>like the police they'd not got hold of CCTV or used all the witnesses.

There was certainly a fair bit of CCTV at the trial. I don't know what 'missing' CCTV you have in mind. The famous bit they've shown on their website must have been available at trial, I'd have thought, because otherwise I don't see how they'd have been threatened with contempt of court for using it.

I must say the famous 'when I win big' tweet couldn't possibly have been less impressive, unless there was a lot more to it than they have on the website.

It seems to me the big mistake the defence made was to attack the claimant's credibility. The result was that they didn't have the right expert evidence, and I suspect it was there that they lost the jury's sympathy too. It's hard to see how they can have hoped to persuade the jury about that, and once you lose a battle, even if it wasn't relevant, that colours the rest of a trial, even in front of a judge and I'm sure more so in front of a jury . It looks a terrible decision from a distance in retrospect, but it's easy from the stands after the event, of course.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

Twitters not hard to access.. her tweets are on the web..

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Do you think they could have attacked her credibility?

I don't think that was an option... she's alleged rape x times therefore she can't be raped?? I Think that argument rightly dies.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I only vaguely know about the social media allegations. If the suggestion is that the police should be actively monitoring a person's social media account as soon as an allegation is made - I'm not convinced.
If something is brought to their attention - then I would expect it to be examined. I don't know who has made the claim, who it was made to, and when during this whole process the tweets were made.
If the tweets have been deleted (or are private ) - there is an issue relating to finding them and provenancing them.

Worth bearing in mind that as usual in social media comments can be be viewed in isolation which in context are equivalent to overheard chats between mates.
Saying something crass, stupid or misinterpretable to a friend is something everyone is guilty of - even. I suspect, Chef Evans.

Again - this level of intrusion on the victim is not matched by a similar level of intrusion on the defendant.

In reply to off-duty:
If their was an allegation that Evans had said something then I think that's fair enough...

The tweets are visible on line still, sent during the trial..

You again seem to be starting this from the basis that he's probably guilty..

In reply to Roadrunner5:




I'm not sure why a degree of reluctance to attack the character of a victim is seen as "starting this from basis he's probably guilty".
As I've said before - duty of investigator is to investigate all sides.
In sexual assault investigations this often involves digging around into victims history in a pretty unfair manner, which isn't balanced by digging into the previous non-criminal behaviour of the defendant. Reasonably enough "bad character" type attacks are limited to criminal acts.

You refer to tweets being sent during the trial - again I've no idea if they are public or private, directed to the world or part of a conversation, before she gave evidence or after, or what the content is. Context as usual is important.
Not sure exactly how the police should have brought this into evidence, post charge - especially if it isn't in contempt of court, or suggesting she had committed perjury.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

As fa as I know they attacked her credibility by suggesting that her evidence she couldn't remember anything shouldn;t be believed. That was why they had an expert who said that loss of memory having drunk only what the complainant had drunk was incredibly rare. Whereas as it turned out what they needed was an expert who would say that loss of memory didn't necessarily indicate an earlier significant loss of capacity. The Court of Appeal turned down their request for a retrial with that evidence in (not surprisingly really) on the basis, among other things, that it was obvious to everyone, which isn't, I would say, something which everyone would agree with.

Obviously Team Evans has darker suspicions along the lines you've mentioned, but I don't think they expressed themseves at the trial.

I don't know, in general, the extent to which previous rape allegations are admissible. In fairness you would think they should be in principle - if a hypothetical complainant has made ten allegations of rape against different men in the last year, should the jury really not know that? - but these things are controversial, of course.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

In principle it must be right that if person A wants the state to put person B in prison, person A needs to co-operate fully with the state and person B has the right against self-incrimination, though, mustn't it?

I didn't think the tweets in question were sent during the trial, though I could be wrong. As I understood it the complaint was that her Facebook pages or whatever had been deleted from very shortly after the event itself.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I agree to an extent but "co-operate fully" is a moveable line. Should you have to disclose your medical and other records almost as a matter of course? Is it reasonable that if you made an allegation we should now download and monitor your entire social media history?
Additionally I'm not sure that a suspect has any right not to self incriminate - they are entitled to refuse to co-operate with consequences ranging from nothing to the "dastardly" right of the judge to suggest to the jury that they might draw "an inference" ....



That's as I understood it - Iain may know different.
It will be interesting to see exactly what this "new evidence " is - it may not relate to social media at all.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Lot's of reasons why someone might accusing someone else of a crime might not want to fully cooperate. I don't think so. If there's evidence to prosecute, taking any non-cooperation into consideration, the prosecution should go ahead.

In reply to off-duty:
I thought they were sent during the trial.. I'll have a look the date should be on the tweets

In reply to Roadrunner5:

You're confusing two things, I think. There's the win-big tweets, and then there's the deleted stuff. I don't know when the win-big tweets were made.

Offduty, I'm sure this is obvious, but why do the police look at the complainant's medical records?

jcm

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Looking at the cached version of Ched Evans "official website" the info they have put in the public domain pretty much scupper any chance of a fair trial now, I would have thought.

Had the victim published a site like that the defence would probably win an argument to get the case thrown out.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Not in all cases, but often the CPS request them. In a typical he said/ she said case where the issue is consent then short term medical history can corroborate/negate injuries. Where there is some historical incidents - visits to GPs can be important.
Where the victim is on medication or diagnosed with a range of issues - depression, stress, anxiety etc - the CPS often want to see the history of that and what might have been said in appointments.
We've often argued this with them - but they make the charging decisions and can insist on evidence they feel they require to make that decision.
We can and do redact the material for relevance, but when we have a mass of paperwork and uncover something in that often lengthy history that may undermine our case or assist the prosecution - we have a duty to disclose it.

(Edit to add - the rationale isn't obvious at all to be fair - hence frequent arguments, but when the option is get it or it's a refuse charge.... )

This might explain it better -
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/disclosure_and_...