UKC

Decent entertainment, though the reporting's been a bit disappointing. I'd like to know more about the legal manoeuvrings there must have been - for instance, if the complainant's identity is in theory so secret, how do these witnesses speaking to having had similar encounters with her in the past know it's the same woman? Still, perhaps that's a minority interest. I can wait for the BBC mini-series.

One thing we've definitely learned, though, and that is that when CE felt bitter the first time that he'd been convicted because he was a footballer and not in spite of it (the 'footballer defence' is normally considered a useful gambit, see e.g. Gerrard), he was right. Or at least that the present prosecution agrees with him. To give only one reference among very many:-

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/13/ched-evans-accused-of-callo...

"This wealthy, successful young footballer felt entitled to have her....."

I'm not convinced this kind of prejudicial rhetoric is an adornment to the law. Perhaps it's all part of the tradition of jury trials. I expect bear-baiting has similar conventions.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Your point about other witnesses is interesting, though maybe there aren't that many people with her profile in Rhyl? Maybe it wouldn't be so hard to put 2 and 2 together and approach the defence team?

I thought Evans' defence was quite sensible and plausible - it was childish and adolescent behaviour rather than malicious and pre-meditated; and his acknowledgement that he was drunk but not so much so that he didn't know what he was doing was also plausible.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

That quote was from the prosecution barrister - I'm not sure it's "prejudicial", it's what prosection barristers do.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Which was almost identical to his defence in the first trial. Only now he has had the opportunity to consider the impact of how he gave his initial evidence and comport and deliver it "better" and now they appear to have had the legal go-ahead to attack the victims sexual history and character.

It will be interesting to see the full details of why he has had this appeal allowed, as well as the legal basis behind why this defence (from what we have seen reported) has been allowed.

From what is reported this does not bode well for other/future alleged victims of rape.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Maybe it wouldn't be so hard to put 2 and 2 together and approach the defence team?

A foursome?
The man's incorrigible!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I read the title as "Ched Evans Electrical" and just thought it was good he was moving on with his life.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I presume the reporting is deliberately low key and non-prejudicial - we aren't told how the defense in this trial differs from the last one. Very odd that the main witness - Clayton McDonald - hasn't been called by either side, but in the original trial his evidence did contradict Evans in certain regards IIRC.

Very surprised that the new evidence put forward - the whole reason why the retrial was granted - is so weak. Maybe they were more convincing in court, but as reported it does seem dodgy that they should come forward after the trial and claim the victim had a habit of using a particular phrase. And that seems to be it.

I hadn't considered the anonymity aspect until you mentioned it, but offering a reward for more dirt on the victim, based on the fact that your supporters have already made her name public, it pretty dubious.

Slighty better news is that Gayle Newman, sentenced to far longer in a much more dubious case, has been granted a retrial.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>for instance, if the complainant's identity is in theory so secret, how do these witnesses speaking to having had similar encounters with her in the past know it's the same woman

This brings up a distinct possibility that many court cases in the past (and indeed still to come) may well have been biased regarding witnesses.
The defendant is always put out there for any other persons to bring forward their "witness statements" and "complaints of previous offences" so that the prosecution has more ammunition.
The alleged victim is always kept secret - therefore any evidence that would back up the defendant cannot be brought forward, and may well only be discovered years later. In effect it's no different from the prosecution team finding out evidence that could well acquit the accused, yet keep that evidence from the defence team - which is of course illegal nowadays.

In reply to fred99:

Worth bearing in mind anonymity is only automatic for sexual offences (not "many offences") and attacking the sexual character of the victim by reference to previous, non-illegal sexual relationships or behaviour was not supposed to be admissible.

If anyone has "concerns" that the defence might not be able to stick the boot into a complainant of rape,don't worry - the police and CPS will hand over medical records, social services records, criminal records, records of contacts with police, previous complaints etc etc etc ....

In reply to off-duty:

To clarify - when I said "many offences" I was referring to "numerous separate offences of such nature".

It is not what is out there in the legal world regarding "previous" that I was talking about at all, but other matters.

For instance, 18 or 19 year-old male meets female in night club, leaves with her, and "nature" takes its course.
For some reason this gets known about by friends/family, and it turns out the female is only 15. Now the fella doesn't know this at the time of the act, but it sure looks bad when the 15-year old turns up in court all sweetness and light, wearing her school uniform as instructed by the prosecution barrister.
The fact that she bonked 6 successive other blokes in the previous 6 Saturday night visits to the same night club would have one heck of an influence on the jury if brought up.

Now I hasten to add (and it's bad that I feel forced to), that I have never been in the situation above, but I have observed many young females in somewhat predatory mode, who didn't care that their youth could bring the object of their desires into serious trouble.
I have also heard them blaming just about anyone for their actions except for themselves.
Furthermore I'm glad that I'm over 60, as the age of young females nowadays is very difficult to assess.

In reply to fred99:

In your situation the defendant has the obvious defence in that it must be demonstrated that he did not reasonably believe that the complainant was under 16 in order to commit the offence.
In your circumstances they are in a nightclub - where entry and the serving of alcohol is restricted to over 18's.
(For the offence of sexual activity with a child )

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Sexual history in the way this is being used cannot be fairly admitted in these kind of cases.

The alleged victim may have any manner of history from being a Nun to the local secretary of the swingers club.

How is the fact that she enjoyed sex with others on previous occasions got any bearing on this occasion? Even the fact that she may have agreed to have sex with one chap that night does not mean she didn't feel forced into anything that happened later that night even if it was merely seconds later

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I think it does, but also another chap came forwards saying he had sex with her a few weeks later, after hooking up in a bar and the next morning had no memory and asked him had they had sex.. I think thats relevant.

In reply to balmybaldwin:
'How is the fact that she enjoyed sex with others on previous occasions got any bearing on this occasion? ' Well that's a good question, and goes to the heart of the issue.

There is NO question that whatever one's past activities they are not any sort of justification for rape; that is clear.

But, in a contested case like this where the two parties have different significantly different accounts of what took place, and where ultimately the jury is going to have to decide on the basis of probabilities, then surely the fact that the plaintiff had shown similar consensual behaviour in the past, and subsequently, has to be included when deciding which account is more credible than the other?.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




I would agree if these occasions we were talking about sex with the same man, we are not. That makes the circumstances vastly different.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Not vastly, no; comparable. That doesn't mean to say that she might not have been raped; just that Evans account is more consistent with her known behaviour than hers.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Why? was that bloke Ched Evans too?

Have you never woken up after a drunk night and asked a friend to confirm whether you did something silly even though you kind of know you did?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think you are missing my point. one of the fundamental influences on whether you consent to sex or not is the identity of the person.

Just because she has a "f@@@ buddy" relationship with a few people does not mean she would ever consent to sex with CE specifically.

Much the same as because I've slept with a few blondes when I'm drunk, does not mean that I want to sleep with any blonde when I'm drunk

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Yes, but then I wouldnt claim they raped me..

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Where the account that they are "contesting" appears to be that she has previously gone out, been drunk and had sex with someone, I anticipate dropping nearly every rape investigation that I have ever run.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

And you're missing mine. I don't *know* whether Evans raped her; or whether Evans thought she was consenting but in fact she wasn't.

All I *know* is how she has acted in the past; and how Evans has acted in the past (and no one has come forward to suggest that Evans was ever some sort of serial sexual predator); you feed that information in and the balance of probability is that Evans is innocent.

It's not perfect I know, and there is a possibility that a guilty man may 'get away with it'; but until we're all forced to wear bodycams 100% of the time then there will always be cases like this that can only be resolved by looking at probabilities.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


No, but as I recall, her evidence was along the lines of: "I'm pretty sure that my drink was spiked because I normally drink that much and have never had a memory loss, and as such, must have been so drunk that I wasn't able to consent".

If a witness comes forward who claims that in similar circumstances, she consented to sex, but had no memory afterwards, then that is relevant to the credibility of her testimony. As far as I understand it, then this would be admissible as evidence.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Having gone out, met someone and subsequently had sex with that person is considerably different from having gone out, met someone and then being told you have had sex with someone entirely different.

I appreciate that subtlety might be lost as the flood gates of victim blaming might well be opened by this appeal.

In reply to off-duty:

Yes I understand that. So what's your suggestion? Send him down, just in case?

From everything you've read do you really think what happened in that Premier inn was in anyway comparable to some of the terrible things I am sure that you have had to deal with?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Not Guilty!!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


As I've said - it'll be interesting to seethe grounds for admission of this "character" evidence as well as more generally why they have allowed a retrial.
I certainly wouldn't send him down "just in case"- I'd have a full trial with a jury about the incident. As we have had.



No. But I can foresee a large number of credible cases having even less chance of success if their lawful, normal, pre offence sexual history is considered to have a significant bearing on events during a rape.

In reply to Tricky Dicky:

Not unexpected.

In reply to off-duty:

Yes I can see that, and no I can't see a solution. Each case on its merits I suppose - or maybe consider not allowing such cases to be tried by jury?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Was just about to post that the only thing that was proven is that trial by jury is useless in cases involving famous or rich defendants (and conversely, poor and badly represented defendants).

CB

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I don't really understand how he was convicted in the first place. Maybe she was too drunk to consent, but I can't see how anyone could reach the conclusion that they were sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
The previous guilty verdict was related to interpretation around the rules for assuming consent rather than specifically was consent given.... it was the fact that the other bloke had spent the evening with her and had reasonable grounds to assume consent (of an person who's inebriation would render her legally not able to consent) whereas CE turned up and had sex without having met/spent time with the victim.

It all seems a bit of a mute point with the new verdict, but I'm also very interested to understand how these character witnesses were found without violating the confidentiality order and therefore how admissibility of evidence was decided

In reply to cb294:

Agreed. if CE wasn't who he is there's no way this retrial would have come about (as it did following campaigning).

However there is an argument to say if it wasn't CE then it might not have been prosecuted.... (See the Jeremy Vine woman being prosecuted for something cyclists report everyday with just as good evidential footage)

In reply to balmybaldwin:



The restrictions specifically refer to publishing or broadcasting the alleged victims ID. There is nothing that prevents the defence from approaching specific individuals or groups with that information in order to try and identify witnesses.

In reply to balmybaldwin:
The main thing is justice prevailed, slowly at huge cost to him and the country.. I have limited sympathy as it was his behavior which got him in this avoidable mess but it's a lesson to young males everywhere. Hopefully he can resume his career now.

In reply to off-duty:



I agree but she seemed to be seemingly not that drunk yet with no memory.

I don't think there's any point in victim blaming, it's a warning for all concerned and Evans should now work with youth warning people about such behavior and consent issues, as it's ruined his career, and was avoidable.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Jury Verdict..... NOT Guilty!

In reply to Roadrunner5:

She'll fully to blame

In reply to Indy:

In English please.

Ps it is 1-1 at the moment, is there any chance of extra time or a 2nd replay?

In reply to Indy:


I take it you are trolling?

In reply to balmybaldwin:


The 'victim blaming' excuse is used to absolve people's culpability when bad things happen. Not going to re-hash her behavior here but stick a fork into a plug socket and your very likely to be electrocuted.

In reply to Indy:

So how does that make it all the plug socket's fault?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Precisely!

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Exactly as per the evidence given at the first trial. From the reports there appear to have been no change in the evidence relating to the facts of what occurred on that night.


The reason I highlight victim blaming is that the "additional" evidence appears to focus on the defendants previous character/sexual behaviour. Non-criminal, effectively "normal" behaviour.
Given the fact that there are several fairly high hurdles to surmount before we can get a defendants CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS admitted, let alone trying to get non-criminal behaviour introduced - if this represents a means by which defendants for rape can now find an avenue to attack the character of the complainant (as well as being "protected" by the requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt) - then this marks a big step backwards in rape investigation and prosecution.

The sliding scale of better "X" many guilty men go free rather than 1 innocent man be convicted has just got significantly larger.

This blogpost actually explains the legal detail a bit better - and it looks like I may have worried unneccessarily about the character evidence:-

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-ev...

In reply to Indy:


Yes. How very dare she go out and get drunk and amorous with a football player. Obviously that makes her fair game for anyone else that wanders along.

In reply to off-duty:

You forgot her "fu*k me harder!"

Not going to go back into all the antics that went on but I stand by what I wrote.

In reply to Indy:

What you wrote is that the victim had put herself in that situation and as a result suffered the consequences.

The relevance of the "F@@k me harder" evidence is that it implies she had given drunken consent. An entirely different scenario. Perhaps you just need to reconsider your analogies.

In reply to Indy:


That doesn't mean he isn't guilty, though

(re this and some of your other comments - are you drunk or something?)

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Were you saying the reverse when he was convicted?

In reply to Indy:

The reverse isn't really the same - you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt someone's guilty. You just need to prove someone might be innocent.

But when he was convicted I thought it was strange that a jury could reach the view that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

So, I genuinely have no idea whether he's guilty, but I think there's reasonable doubt and, therefore, the jury reached the right decision.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

That's my view.

There was just so much doubt and unknowns in a case. It was a lesson for many males for sure.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
Just reading what the various news outlets are saying and its pretty much a hatchet job on Evans (special mention to The Guardian) and making out the accuser to be some sort of Sunday school girl with pigtails that was dragged into bushes in the dead of night.

The huge imbalance between the rights of men and those of women in this is quite outragious.

In reply to Indy:

I think the imbalance runs the other way than you do. By the nature of the crime it's very difficult to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt. Many, many, more men will rape and get away with it than will be convicted falsely. Unfortunately that's probably how it needs to be if you think sending an innocent man to jail is far worse than allowing a guilty man to go free.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


You're happy to see innocent people being incarcerated in the presence of doubt, whilst guilty parties go free?
You're on dodgy ground there fella!

In reply to Lusk:

I think you may have mis-read this.

In reply to Lusk:



you've not understood what I wrote, fella

In reply to balmybaldwin:

cheers balmy

In reply to off-duty:


She's entitled to get as drunk as she likes and get amorous with as many footballers as she likes. But if she gets so drunk that she can't remember giving consent, whilst the defendent claims she did, the jury are in a very tricky situation, and I think I would have gone for reasonable doubt. That's why, IMHO, the previous behaviour was relevant in this case.

I couldn't give a toss if the defendent is a footballer or rich (actually, they'd both be likely to mildly prejudice against him), but the original verdict troubled me, and also troubled some eminent legal minds.

Unpleasant as it all is, you only have to watch any of the 'young pissed brits abroad' programmes to know that this sort of thing happens, consensually with both sexes. What actually happened, we will never know, but past behaviour may provide a pointer, if we have little else to go on.

In reply to captain paranoia:


All of which is a fairly reasonable argument. It's not the same as saying "Get drunk, accept the consequences".


And left some eminent legal minds entirely untroubled. Hence no challenge relating to the legality or otherwise of the verdict.


Key word above - "consensually". As highlighted in the blog above - it was specific sexual behaviour that was deemed admissible, rather than general behaviour. Though it must be said as soon as that door was opened, it became a very steep hill for the prosecution to climb, as inevitably that recounting that specific behaviour enables the "leakage" of more general commentary on the complainant's previous sexual behaviour.

In reply to captain paranoia:


I don't think it's that relevant really - seems reasonable doubt regardless

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

In one sense it's not relevant; strictly if the complainant lacked the capacity to consent on this occasion it doesn't matter whether she had consented to precisely similar sex every night and twice on Sundays for the entirety of her adult life, nor indeed whether she would have consented on the present occasion had she had capacity. I dare say juries don't work like that, but still in theory that must be right.

If the defence were saying that C was not telling the truth when she said she couldn't remember anything, one can see it would be relevant to that. And I suppose it goes to the defendant's reasonable belief defence - to evaluate that you have to consider his evidence, and that gains credibility if his account of the complainant's behaviour matches other accounts of her behaviour in a similar situation.

And the evidence that on other occasions she had been unable, or said she was unable, to remember consensual sexual activity from the night before just has to be admissible. And however you analyse it, if the prosecution case is that she met a stranger, had sex with him while she was too drunk to consent to it, and then couldn't remember it in the morning, it's going to be a pretty serious blow to that case if there is credible evidence to the effect that on multiple previous occasions she had met someone (on the first occasion a stranger), had sexual activity with them after consuming at least as much alcohol, been unable to remember it in the morning and continued to interact with that person without anyone making an allegation of rape. That evidence couldn't possibly not have been admitted (assuming it to have been at all credible).

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

In general, how much control does a complainant have over whether a case is pursued or not?

jcm

In reply to Chris the Tall:

>Very odd that the main witness - Clayton McDonald - hasn't been called by either side, but in the original trial his evidence did contradict Evans in certain regards IIRC.

Isn't it? One wouldn't expect the prosecution to call him, but I'm very surprised the defence didn't. The contradiction (about who suggest Evans join in) never struck me as important.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

And the evidence that on other occasions she had been unable, or said she was unable, to remember consensual sexual activity from the night before just has to be admissible.

Especially when those occasions were a few days before and after the Ched incident.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Usually a fairly large amount. It would be very unusual to compel a victim of rape to give evidence at court. I have, on very odd occasions, been involved in jobs where we have had to summons and bring a victim to court for rape allegations - more to do with their chaotic lifestyle and general disengagement with the legal process than a specific unwillingness to give evidence.
This generally then involves a fairly long discussion around the process ahead and whether they are willing to go ahead with it.

In this case, I would guess that the victim has been prepared to give evidence again. Primary evidence would have been her video interview from the initial report. Cross exam probably via video link.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I don't think the evidence about her previous lack of memory was admissible, or rather that wasn't the reason the other sexual history was admitted.

From the blog I linked before it appears the evidence was admitted due to specific words and behaviour she had alleged to have taken part in previously, consensually. This was judged by appeal court to be sufficiently similar that it supported CE account and was admissible.

Obviously with the surrounding (and irrelevant) circumstances introduced when the witness recounted their accounts, there was almost no chance of a prosecution succeeding.

I don't think the fact that she couldn't remember is relevant enough to be admissible, andvwuite rightly, meeting up with and having sex with one person and not being able to recollect details, is quite different from the same event but discovering you have had sex with an entirely different third person.
In addition it directly attacks the character of the complainant in a way that is simply not allowed to attack that of the defendant.

In reply to FactorXXX:



I disagree. The fact that someone has had consenting sex with other people days before and after a rape is not relevant to whether a rape has been committed.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

http://trib.al/OVcQ8Qt

This article includes some interesting stuff that couldn't be raised before the verdict was delivered

It seems the 'not exactly a virgin' defence that we heard in the 80s is back

In reply to Chris the Tall:

>It seems the 'not exactly a virgin' defence that we heard in the 80s is back.

Rubbish. That wasn't the reason this evidence was admitted at all. Rape groups should know better than the sort of self-defeating scaremongering we've heard from the likes of WAR.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:


No, but the fact she couldn't remember it must be. In fact the simple fact that she frequently couldn't remember events when she'd drunk alcohol would be relevant.

Let's face it, if the prosecution case is that C went out and drank yey much and that made her incapable of consenting to sex, evidence that she regularly went out and drank yey much and then consented to sex is obviously going to be relevant to deciding whether she was in fact incapable of doing so on the night in question.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

>It's not the same as saying "Get drunk, accept the consequences".

Well, the one consequence you absolutely have to accept is that if you get incapably drunk and can't remember anything, and during that period you have sex with someone, it's likely to be a lot harder to prove that that was against your will than if you could remember events. There's nothing the law can sensibly do about that.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

>Usually a fairly large amount.

Yessssss. Well, in that case people who think this case should never have gone to court are probably entitled to indulge in a spot of victim-blaming, aren't they?

This second trial has been a ludicrous waste of court time and public money, and as you said the outcome was more or less inevitable in view of the additional evidence. A two week trial, QCs on both sides engaged for a month, and it took the jury an hour or so to decide, with anyone who followed the thing however remotely knowing the outcome the moment this new evidence was reported. And for what? Sure, if he'd been convicted again he'd still have been on licence for a while, but apart from that, nothing would have changed. And if WAR are right, lots of other rape victims will have been put off coming forward. It's been folly.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

In these other cases did someone turn up she'd not met before and get stuck in too (I honestly haven't gone searching for testimony yet)? because without that I'm not sure it's relevant

Many people go out, get drunk and wake up next to a girl/boy they met the night before and ask 'oh god did we have sex last night?' without full recollection of events

Not many get the answer 'yeah, and I text my mate so he had a go too'

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:





Sorry I have to totally disagree with you.
I probably didn't make it clear. The decision to
go to trial is entirely one for the CPS.
In this case that decision appears reasonable.

Had the victim turned round and said that she did not want to and would not give evidence, then they may have considered summonsing her, but likely not.
There will undoubtedly have been a duscusdion between the CPS, police and victim about what a retrial would involve and the victim has agreed to give her evidence again.
A decision that would not have been easy.

Victim blaming is unwarranted and to be honest whether you intended it or not the dismissive tone in relation to it is pretty insulting to someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong.

The decision to go to retrial will have been a CPS decision that they had a realistic prospect of conviction, my guess would be that they had hoped that the "backdoor" sexual character attacks could have been minimised or turned to prosecution advantage. There is some discussion around whether it was necessary to run it given he had served his sentence, but it us ultimately about the conviction rather than the sentence - otherwise why would CE himself have even bothered.
Their calculation was wrong and the jury felt there was reasonable doubt.

The court of appeal ruling on admissibility of evidence would have held, regardless of the case ran or not, but if the conviction was upheld (and let's face it - the case was relatively strong) then that would have reinforced the idea of the support and justice that rape victims might receive.

In reply to off-duty:


I thought you said yourself higher up that there was no chance of a conviction once the additional evidence was in, which was certainly what I thought.


The result of failure, however, has been the opposite, certainly if WAR are to be believed.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



When that person doesn't reasonably believe you consent - we can try and prosecute for rape. Because lets not forget it's not criminal to go out and get drunk.
It is criminal to commit rape.

In reply to balmybaldwin:
You're missing the point by a country mile, and thereby demonstrating once again why the initial miscarriage of justice occurred, namely that people in general, and no doubt the jury in particular, can't be bothered to concentrate on what the elements of the relevant offence actually are and whether they've been proven.

The prosecution was based entirely on the proposition that the complainant was too drunk to consent validly to sex. If they failed in that, it didn't matter how repellently Evans had behaved, because there wasn't any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the complainant didn't in fact consent.

Part of that case was that she'd been so drunk she couldn't even remember events.

Another part was that the complainant's own evidence that this was unusual for her.

If evidence is produced that actually she commonly drank just as much, consented to sex, and couldn't remember it afterwards, then that strikes the prosecution case a more or less fatal blow. It doesn't matter what you think of Evans' behaviour; the prosecution simply is not able to prove the one thing it needs to prove.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I think it was a much steeper hill to climb. Whether it was insurmountable, I don't know.



I'm not sure whether staying a prosecution of a specific case because of possible repurcussions, if you lose, on hypothetical other victims, is fair in relation to the specific case you are trying, which should be judged on its merits.
That's how case law is created after all.

In reply to off-duty:


Assuming you can prove the elements of the offence. If you can't do that, the person doesn't need to demonstrate that he reasonably believed anything.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:


Really? Surely there's a public interest test, isn't there?

jcm

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Can't remember if that article links to the CA judgment, but one interesting detail in that was that the complainant said in her initial interview that she wasn't the sort of person to consent to sex with someone she'd only just met, and that the prosecution decided not to go with that statement in the light of the defence evidence (which they tried but failed to get in) from a couple of people who said they had had sex with the complainant the first night they'd met her in different-but-not-so-different circumstances.

That's the prosecution's right, of course, but worth remembering when the Guardian moans about the imbalance of power in this case; the prosecution are given some pretty decent cards by statute they don't have in any other kind of case.

Evans will have known that all this time. It's not surprising he felt bitter and that they chose to play the first trial by attacking C's credit (something that had always puzzled me before reading this).

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Of course - first hurdle. Judging a wider public interest vs the specific public interest in prosecuting that case would be a very hard call - particularly if you are judging it on an "if we lose basis" when you adjudge there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

In reply to off-duty:

Well, as you know that's what's always puzzled me - how they could possibly have thought there was a realistic chance of a conviction. Either time indeed, let alone the second time. This case is just so far away from any previous case; there's no reported case where someone who could walk and talk coherently, or anything like it, has been found incapable of giving consent to sex.

That was kind of what my OP was about - I suspect they calculated that D being a footballer would help them, and also of course that the jury would convict as they did regardless of the fact the prosecution didn't on any conventional view have a case. And they were right, of course. That sort of calculation is a bit worrying. The state shouldn't be banging people up unless it can prove the elements of the offence. It's troubling that the CA has refused to say what 'too drunk to consent' might mean, because the result is that juries interpret it differently in different cases according to whether they like the cut of the defendant's jib. See earlier cases where holding the complainant's hair out of the way while they're being sick has appeared to weigh in D's favour with the Court of Appeal, likewise dressing unconscious complainant after sex, etc. I don't care for that; the prosecution ought to be able to prove their case, not get the jury to dislike the defendant so much they convict him anyway.

jcm

In reply to balmybaldwin:

In these other cases did someone turn up she'd not met before and get stuck in too (I honestly haven't gone searching for testimony yet)? because without that I'm not sure it's relevant
Many people go out, get drunk and wake up next to a girl/boy they met the night before and ask 'oh god did we have sex last night?' without full recollection of events
Not many get the answer 'yeah, and I text my mate so he had a go too'

Shock, horror. Drunk female has threesome in a hotel room and one of them she doesn't even know!

In reply to off-duty:

I disagree. The fact that someone has had consenting sex with other people days before and after a rape is not relevant to whether a rape has been committed.

The circumstances are virtually identical to the Ched Evans case i.e. she was drunk and couldn't remember having sex with an individual.
That means that you have two ways of looking at it. Either, the two other men are rapists in line with Ched Evans. Or, Ched Evans isn't a rapist in line with the two other men.
Isn't that essentially the defence claim?

In reply to FactorXXX:





I'll say it one more time.
Meeting a man, getting drunk and having g sex with him is an entirely different scenario from meeting a man, getting drunk and then finding that you have had sex with an entirely different person.

(A person who by his own evidence apparently didn't even speak to you before or after )

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


That is the defence case, not the prosecution case.




All very interesting opinion, though not particularly based on the facts of this case.
The reality is that in some ways the second case was more straightforward than the first.

A girl meets a man, gets drunk, goes back to a hotel with that man and has sex that they have determined wasn't rape. The level of her drunkenness is seen in video and described by a hotel receptionist. Then along comes a second man, she doesn't know, who apparently in his evidence does not speak to her, and has sex with her as well. He then leaves swiftly via a back door.

No wonder the defence needed to attack her character and morals.

In reply to off-duty:




but surely if you're sober enough to consent the first you're sober enough to consent to the second, no?

In reply to off-duty:

Evans was long gone when she woke up..... the issue is that she wouldn't have known she'd had sex with Evans if he hadn't said he had. Also you skip the fact she was o.k to give legal consent to sex with 1 footballer but oddly not 5 minutes later to the second.

Come to think of it.... she'd had drunken sex with 4 different men in the space of a week? Bet daddy is so proud of her!

In reply to Indy:


horrible thing to say. I hope they ban you

In reply to off-duty: read in The Times this morning that the fact Evans' partner had sent a facebook message to the hotel receptionist asking if he could "try and remember anything else" and reminding him about the £50k reward wasn't shown to the jury. Surprising?

The fact that these other men were discovered by investigators paid for by her dad, and had remarkably similar experiences to each other doesn't seem to have been challenged much by the prosecution (other than asking them if they'd been paid - one of them said he was unaware of the reward until very recently - really?). Although to be fair it doesn't sound like the alleged victim contradicted their accounts.

I see she's apparently being named again on social media - let's hope they throw the book at anyone they catch. I'm sure even Evans and his family wouldn't want to see this affair make it less likely that women will report rape because of fear of being named and shamed.

In reply to andy:
Yes, these new witnesses with their sudden recollection of absolutely crucial evidence that they had comprehensively failed to remember until pestered to the nth degree and reminded of a large reward are a very troubling aspect of what's been reported. 'It has the flavour of a bribe' as the prosecutor said.

You're right though, it does not seem that the complainant challenged their evidence.

In reply to Siward:

It should go to the supreme court. Just listened to Today programme.

In reply to off-duty:

Thanks for that Secret Barrister link and your careful arguments... some sanity remains here.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The interesting stuff I referred to in that article was the pressure put on a key witness - the hotel receptionist - by Sian Massey - Evans girlfriend. Had that been judged admissible it is possible the jury might have regarded the two new witness more suspiciously, that maybe their stories were a little too perfect.

Does the end result legitimise the tactics used by Evans, his family and friends during this whole saga ?

In reply to Siward:


The complainant is supposed to remain anonymous in rape cases. How would these witnesses know that their experiences were related to the case, and that their witness statements were required for the first trial? Or was every man who had had casual sex with a drunk woman supposed to report to the police?

Given that supposed anonymity, it does raise the question of how they were found; the anonymity surely must have been broken. Unless investigators trawled nightclubs asking blokes if they'd had casual sex with drunken women they'd just met...

In reply to Pete Pozman:


On what basis?

In reply to captain paranoia:


There is not 'anonymity'; it is only illegal to publish or broadcast the identity of the complainant. There is nothing in the law that prevents the defence team from asking potential witnesses (or anyone else for that matter) if they know the complainant or have any information that might lead them to someone who does, as long as they do not do so publicly.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Standard fare sadly. However the appeal court knew and the jury knew but they chose not to dismiss it. Average outcomes always showed the rich getting better 'justice' than the poor in any form of trial.

In reply to Offwidth:


That's not what was in the Times - it said her message to the receptionist mentioning the reward wasn't shown to the jury.

In reply to andy:

How woud the Times know that?

In reply to JoshOvki:

Because things are revealed after the verdict that aren't before it.

In The Times today: "the judge ruled that the messages should not be shown to the jury"

In reply to andy:

Based on his demeanour (and his fiancee's) it seems Ched has been well coached

In reply to Pete Pozman:

On what basis? The CPS can't appeal.

With all the concern highlighted by WAR etc about future rape victims now being frightened of coming forward (which I totally agree is a concern) the CPS has a lot to answer for. The complainant never reported a rape, she reported that she believed her drink was spiked. The CPS pursued a rape charge after CE reported that he had consensual sex with her. The complainant's evidence, as I understand it, is that she can't remember what happened, and doesn't believe she would have behaved in the way described by CE as this was unlike her.

The defence, wholly permissibly, and properly within a very narrow exception to the rule that rape complainants cannot be questioned on their sexual history, introduced evidence which demonstrated that she behaved in this way twice more in very close proximity in time to the night the CPS alleges she was raped by CE. It does not seem that she contradicted this evidence in cross examination, which must have involved detailed and personal questions about her previous sexual behaviour.

The CPS would have known how she was likely to perform under cross examination. They would have known the effect the new evidence, however publicly and seedily it was obtained, would have at the second trial. I expect that they may have known more about the complainant's sexual history at the first trial. They could have chosen not to pursue the case in the first instance or offered no case at the retrial, but they chose to pursue it.

CE has successfully appealed his conviction and it seems that, however appalling his behaviour appears to many, the current outcome is correct. He had a right to challenge the trial court's decision, and while he is in a fortunate position of being wealthy and influential enough to do so, does not mean he should be allowed to exercise this right. This imbalance of power should not be wrongly conflated with an imbalance of power in the incident in question. There is some suggestion that CE should not challenge a conviction, which he wholly believes is a miscarriage of justice, and which has already cost him his career, out of some wider responsibility to rape victims. This can't be right.

There has been a lot of damage done to CE, the complainant, and to future rape victims. I would say that this damage was done by the CPS in choosing to pursue the case, rather than by CE and his team in choosing to defend it.

In reply to off-duty:

I'll say it one more time.
Meeting a man, getting drunk and having g sex with him is an entirely different scenario from meeting a man, getting drunk and then finding that you have had sex with an entirely different person.

Only if you categorically know that the woman wasn't aware of what was going on at the time.
If Evans was under the impression that she was a willing participant in a threesome, then no, it isn't different.

In reply to Indy:
> Evans was long gone when she woke up..... the issue is that she wouldn't have known she'd had sex with Evans if he hadn't said he had.

I don't know how much more clearly rape through lack of consent can be spelled out. Thanks.

(I'd imagine he admitted it because at the time he believed his mates had videoed it at the time. I'm not sure whether he was forensically linked as well.
Additionally Clayton McDonald would have put him there. He booked the hotel room. He was captured on cctv at the hotel as having been in the room for a period of time.
So not exactly an entirely unpromoted confession)

>Also you skip the fact she was o.k to give legal consent to sex with 1 footballer but oddly not 5 minutes later to the second.

Yep. That's how rape works. Sorry about that, but the woman has to consent.
In actual fact it also has to be shown that the defendant does not reasonably believe she consents - in the case of Clayton McDonald who had been with her that evening and with whom she had gone back - the jury obviously felt he believed she consented. CE - she hadn't met, hadn't gone back with and he didn't even speak with her.


It's not about morality, it's about rape. And I wonder how Daddy feels about CE - all of his sexual activity (and there appears to have been a lot of it) was taking place behind his gf back.

Victim blaming much?

In reply to FactorXXX:





I really don't understand how you can fail to see the difference between going home with one man and then finding out that a second man has had sex with you.

To break it down a bit more - if a man meets a girl, goes drinking with her, goes back to have sex with her - then he might be able to demonstrate that he reasonably believed she consented.
if a man turns up at a hotel room where two people are having sex, walks in, says nothing and has sex with that girl, then slopes out, it's considerably harder to demonstrate that he reasonably believed she consented.

Obviously if you can bring in her sexual history and throw mud then it becomes easier to put doubt in a juries mind.

In reply to gazhbo:



I'd say the damage was done by the appeals court admission of the further evidence - I think they used a phrase like "with great hesitation" and by the verdict.
There was a realistic prospect of conviction, the case in isolation against CE was stronger than the more complex first trial with two defendants.

As with every case judgement calls have to be made - and even very strong cases get juries making odd decisions.

The bizarre element of this new evidence was that - as no-one other than CE gave an account of the sexual activity in the room - the additional evidence was that because the complainant had previously been in a particular position and used the words "Go harder" in one case and "F@@k me harder" in the other, then this some how corroborated CE account that she had used the same position and similar words, ie that this was somehow sufficiently specific or unusual that his account must be true.

I think the court of appeal quite probably need to have more sex.

In reply to JoshOvki:


Actually there's more detail in the Guardian article that Chris linked to:

They were not allowed to hear about Massey’s approach to a vital prosecution witness, Gavin Burrough, who was on the hotel reception desk when the complainant arrived that night and who later said she was “out of it”.

The approach came in May 2013, soon after the reward was first offered. Massey sent Burrough a message via Facebook telling him she was at a “loose end”.

She wrote: “We are appealing for new information. There is a £50,000 reward for any new evidence. Do you know anything that could help Ched? He’s spent nearly 13 months locked up in prison for a crime that never happened. I’m pleading with you if you know anything.” She signed off with a kiss.

I think it's bizarre that the court would allow the two new witnesses' testimony (both of whom had made statements previously but had omitted the crucial detail of what she allegedly said) but not allow the jury to hear about how Evans' supporters conducted themselves as they tried to build their case.

In reply to off-duty:

This is the law on consent:

youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ&

(you may have seen it- very good).

In reply to MarkJH:


My point exactly; the defence cannot make a public appeal to ask for witnesses, since they cannot publicly name the complainant. Therefore finding relevant witnesses is much harder.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Halfwit.

In reply to off-duty:


Ah bless, cops doing ethics now!

You've completely failed to understand the Court of Appeal if you think permitting the evidence enabled an attack on her morals.

The point has already made by jcm, that assuming this was an attack on her conduct is a regressive old skool interpretation of 'sexual history', it doesn't reflect the circumstance here at all.

In reply to winhill:

Yep. Though I'm sure you'll be able to come up with another profession that is required to make ethical judgements on a routine and daily basis.



The point was made in the secret barrister blog that I linked to and, as you can read in that post I explained that my fear of floodgates opening was lessened from earlier postings.

Unfortunately the corollary of that is that the totality of the sexual encounters (plural) could be dissected in front of the court.
Additionally the hesitation with which the appeal court has admiited the evidence appears to have been warranted - it is exculpatory for CE in that the words and position he described were words and a position that she has previously used.
Words and a sexual position that are not exactly unique.

In reply to off-duty:

What do you make of this offering of rewards for evidence? Sounds like it is asking for "convenient" recollections to come up to me, although perhaps better in the open than underhand, which I assume happens too.

In reply to MG:


Totally agree, though the jury obviously didn't.

In reply to off-duty:

Re the secret barrister: whilst presumably correct from a legal standpoint, the air of disdain and general lack of empathy that comes across makes me wonder if the author is in fact JCM!

He (or she) criticises rape support for scaring the women they are meant to help. Similarly cycling groups get accused of scaremongering when they highlight the dangers bad driving or heavy lorries pose to cyclists. Sorry, it doesn't wash with me.

I can accept this doesn't set a precedent in a strictly legal sense, that it was exceptional and that the defence had a high bar to jump to get this evidence admitted. But it's one thing for a lawyer to explain that to a client, I imagine it's quite different if you're a rape counsellor trying to reassure a victim that they won't be put through the same ordeal if they report the crime. Like it or not, this defendant has benefited from the fact that his supporters breached the victims anonymity, came suspiciously close to witness tampering, and employed a no-holds barred defense.

It may not be a precedent, but it's a very troubling blueprint

In reply to off-duty:

Given that the original case relied on the word of someone who couldn't remember what happened, and the Crown needs to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, someone corroborating her sexual preferences and use of language is likely to tip the balance. As for whether it will prevent future complainants, I can of course see why that would be a concern, but I think justice in each individual case is more important.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I don't think high emotion should come into legal analysis.

I think they're right to criticise the rape support people, because they've almost hysterically misrepresenting the circumstances, either wilfully to support their agenda or through ignorance, and in doing so they will have the effect they're saying the admission of evidence will have. The evidence was permitted for very specific reasons, which are pretty obvious. The Ched Evans case was not about future rape complainants, it was about whether he was guilty or not.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

How specific though? Id imagine quite a few rape cases could potentially hinge on similar arguments. This may (or may not) be fine legally, but more widely it is clearly going to make it more difficult for women to report attacks I would think, so from a societal perspective there could be a problem. THe legal process isn't completely divorced from the rest of the world.

In reply to MG:

The alternative is to have an unfair trial, not something legal systems tend to pride themselves on. It would help of course if groups like War on Rape reported the specifics of the case factually and reassured women that previous sexual history would only be introduced in exceptional circumstances where the evidence was felt to be important for a fair trial.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Haven't seen anything hysterical, but having never been in a situation where I need to help a rape victim, I wouldn't consider myself a good judge of what amounts to a hysterical reaction to this case. I am however familiar with the argument that anonymity and questions about sexual history are big factors in whether women report rape. I'm not convinced that being told that this case was exceptional will offer much reassurance, particularly when the tactics employed have been successful

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I agree it appears tricky. Unfair trials and rape going unreported are both bad though.

In reply to MG:

Unfortunately, I can't see how rape trials like this can be anything but tricky.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I can't see how misrepresenting the case can help in any way.

Just read a piece in the Guardian where a judge was saying the exceptional nature of the case needs to be stressed.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Can I make the point that I think Ched Evans is an odious shit, whatever the truth about the night in question.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Agree, but you'll have to help me out with some links


That just reminds me of Fausto Coppi's attitude towards drugs

In reply to MG:
Equally, why can't we assume males are just as uncomfortable as females with publicly revealing their sexual activities to the full glare of court proceedings that are center stage in the media?

And that they might need some cash incentive to do so, other than simply saving a publicly shamed and hated football figure from being found guilty?

I don't doubt there are potential or implied cash incentives on offer for those women who are currently claiming first-hand experience in Trumps sexual activities.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

If you're trying to avoid women being put off reporting rape, it just seems blindingly obvious that inaccurately reporting this case isn't the way to do it. The impression given by what the pressure groups and many journalists is that the floodgates are open for those accused of rape to accuse complainants of promiscuity and get away with it - I don't think the reality is that at all.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


So he should have remained guilty because it will help future rape victims come forward? That sounds a more "troubling blueprint".

In reply to off-duty:

the jury didn't give a view on the new evidence. new evidence is (as I understand it) required to have an appeal. but the appeal considers all evidence rather than just whether the new evidence makes a difference.

question: can you imagine, given the publicly available facts, being sure of both a. that she didn't give drunken consent and b. that Evans didn't believe her to have given consent? and, if so, interested in your reasons

for what it's worth. I reckon the appeal court was uncomfortable with the initial conviction and that coloured their view about whether the knew evidence and, hence, appeal should be allowed. That's not to give a view either way about whether they interpreted the law correctly - just that the outcome might have been different if they didn't have doubts about the initial conviction.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


You think? I'm finding it to be hideous and disgusting from every angle.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


Yes. The new evidence is that which is permitted in the trial. The trial judge, to an extent has their hands ties, in that evidence they might consider inadmissable is permitted. They have some leeway - I believe it was the trial judge that disallowed the evidence regarding CE girlfriend repeated attempts to speak with the receptionist.


I'm not in the jury, so I don't know how the parties came across when giving evidence, however as I have (repeatedly , and I mean repeatedly) said - it is an entirely reasonable case that someone might have gone back to a hotel room, drunk, with person A, and in a combination of considering her state of drunkenesss re consent AND his state of reasonable belief that she consents - Person A does not commit rape, however Person B, who turn up at the hotel room, has no conversation with the victim, has sex with her, and leaves - IS guilty of rape.


I disagree, the issue is about new evidence, whether it is admissable or not. In this case I think they may have erred on the side of the defendant. I don't think that their opinion has any relevance to their opinion of the validity of the original conviction, unless you can produce anything concrete to suggest that.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


If her sexual preferences and use of language were sufficiently unique - I might agree. The reality is that saying "F@@k me harder" or "Go harder" (which is actually DIFFERENT phrase) in a "certain" position, is not unique. Or even unusual.
It does, however, have the advantage that i allows the complainants sexual history to be exposed, for "judgement", in a way that is simply not allowed for the defendant.

In reply to David Martin:


We could assume that - but we know society. This thread alone demonstrates examples of people suggesting that her behaviour was reprehensible, whilst making no comment on CE sexaul antics, let alone they were carried out behind his girlfriends back.


A comparison might be - were there any of CE "conquests" willing to come forward. He has self-admittedly been involved in threesomes and had sex behind his girlfriend's back. Do you honestly think he is such a knight that none of those girls want to come forward. Not that ANY of that would be admissible though....


Possibly, though I haven't heard of it. Not quite the same as a publically offered £50,000 pounds, is it.

In reply to off-duty:

To break it down a bit more - if a man meets a girl, goes drinking with her, goes back to have sex with her - then he might be able to demonstrate that he reasonably believed she consented.
if a man turns up at a hotel room where two people are having sex, walks in, says nothing and has sex with that girl, then slopes out, it's considerably harder to demonstrate that he reasonably believed she consented.

I thought Evans had turned up at the room and McDonald had asked the complainant could Evans join in with their sexual activities. She replied 'Yes' to this and then asked Evans to perform oral sex on her and then they had sexual intercourse.
If that is the case, then yes, she did consent to sex with Evans.
The fact that he sneaked in and out is totally irrelevant.

In reply to aln:

You think? I'm finding it to be hideous and disgusting from every angle.

Why is it hideous and disgusting?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The attention it's garnered the speculation the aspersions the abuse the doubt the prejudice it goes on there's more than that. Even the attitudes toward sex. It's horrible all round

In reply to FactorXXX:





So, as I said, and I believe Evans also said - he had no conversation with the victim.


Yes. Because his behaviour, unlike hers, is not under scrutiny. Or something.

In reply to off-duty:

The argument about whether it should be lawful to offer a reward for information/evidence was settled long ago. I don't see anything in this case that makes it necessary to revisit that; the suggestions being made here were ones that arise in any such case. No-one worries about prosecution witnesses being granted immunity from prosecution.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

So, as I said, and I believe Evans also said - he had no conversation with the victim.

So what if he didn't speak to her.
She was apparently aware of Evans and was open to having sex with him.
As for using his sneaking in and out of the hotel to try and insinuate that he was doing something sinister, well, that's just ridiculous. Sneaking into hotel rooms is common place, either to save money (climbers, etc.), or to use the room for sexual activities involving more than two people...

In reply to aln:
Actually, since I last posted I've had an experience which rather makes me feel the same way as you - a bunch of people on my Facebook page (passionate Brexiteers, as it happens) posting about how the complainant is a slag and a liar and should be jailed and was obviously out for a good time, and so forth. Quite the eye-opener for me; you hear about these people but I didn't really believe they actually existed.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

>however as I have (repeatedly , and I mean repeatedly) said - it is an entirely reasonable case that someone might have gone back to a hotel room, drunk, with person A, and in a combination of considering her state of drunkenesss re consent AND his state of reasonable belief that she consents - Person A does not commit rape, however Person B, who turn up at the hotel room, has no conversation with the victim, has sex with her, and leaves - IS guilty of rape.

And as I have repeatedly said, that's also what the Court of Appeal said. It would be true only in some different case where (i) there was any evidence whatsoever that the complainant did not in fact consent to person B, as opposed to being too drunk to do so, and (ii) if Person A had not spent considerable time with the complainant, thus ensuring that he was much better placed than the jury to assess her state of drunkenness, so that a finding beyond doubt that she was drunk, while at the same time finding that person A had reasonable doubt on the matter, was absurd.

jcm

In reply to Chris the Tall:
>Re the secret barrister: whilst presumably correct from a legal standpoint, the air of disdain and general lack of empathy that comes across makes me wonder if the author is in fact JCM!

Extraordinary thing to say. I can only imagine that you've read only this one post. The author is not me and I don't know who he/she is, but if you think he/she lacks empathy you should read some of his or her earlier posts about, for instance, the impact of legal aid cuts on vulnerable defendants.

jcm

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

>The alternative is to have an unfair trial, not something legal systems tend to pride themselves on.

Well of course the exclusion of sexual history evidence makes all rape trials unfair, in the sense that the defendant is unable to put before the jury evidence which might help secure his acquittal. There are respectable societal reasons why we do this, but let's not pretend it promotes justice in a narrow sense. It also leads to the disagreeable spectacle of intelligent people - and indeed Court of Appeal judges - being forced to maintain with a straight face that in assessing the probability of a person agreeing to do thing A the frequency with which they have agreed to do thing A in the past is logically irrelevant, which is embarrassing. Why they can't be honest and explain the real reason for the rule while acknowledging its drawbacks I never quite know.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

To break it down a bit more - if a man meets a girl, goes drinking with her, goes back to have sex with her - then he might be able to demonstrate that he reasonably believed she consented.

For clarification, they hadn't been drinking with each other in the evening. They bumped into each other at 0400, instantly got into a taxi and went to the hotel.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



No-one is suggesting it is unlawful to offer money for information. As has always been the case, the motivation and evidence of those providing information for money should be scrutinised, just as would be the case if a prosecution witness was offered immunity for testimony.

In reply to gazhbo:
An excellent post, if I might say so.

>The complainant's evidence, as I understand it, is that she can't remember what happened, [and doesn't believe she would have behaved in the way described by CE as this was unlike her].

The last part of this is not right, however. According to the CA judgment, this was indeed what she told the police and was in her statement to them. The prosecution, however, decided not to use this last claim, because the defence had indicated they wanted to put in evidence of past sexual activity in order to rebut it. That's the prosecution's right, and that's why some of the sexual history evidence which was available at the first trial was not allowed then. It was also why there was no evidence, at all, on which the jury could properly decide that the complainant did not factually consent, so that the prosecution had to run their case on the basis that any consent the complainant did give was negatived by the fact that she was too intoxicated to give a valid consent. Their problem there was that this was manifestly not true, at least by the standard which every previous reported case had applied. However, the CA has repeatedly said that how drunk is too drunk is a matter for the jury, with the result that the jury moved the goalposts (hah!) because they didn't like Evans.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

Absolutely. And it was. They were cross-examined about it.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:

>> This case is just so far away from any previous case; there's no reported case where someone who could walk and talk coherently, or anything like it, has been found incapable of giving consent to sex.

>That is the defence case, not the prosecution case.

Well, no, it is the prosecution case. The hotel receptionist testified he saw her walk in with McDonald and heard her talk to him - he repeated the words.

>No wonder the defence needed to attack her character and morals.

I don't see that they did that at all. Obviously they needed to characterise her as someone who regularly got drunk and had sex. I'm not sure why you call that an attack on either her character or her morals.

jcm

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


The verdict in the first trial was based on the notion that she was not sober enough to consent to either, but that the first one reasonably believed she was. At least that was how the Court of Appeal rationalised it.

Nonsense, of course. You can't at the same time be sure she was too drunk, and believe that McDonald, being in her company with her over a period of an hour, or so, including having sex with her, reasonably formed the opposite view.

jcm

In reply to Siward:

Actually the 'flavour of a bribe' remark was about Massey's approach to the receptionist. The complainant certainly challenged the new witnesses' evidence as regards the timing of her meetings with them. I didn't see any report of her evidence about sexual position or remarks during sex.

jcm

In reply to FactorXXX:


"Instantly" ? Taxi service in Rhyl must be considerably better than elsewhere in the UK.

To break it down a bit more - if a man meets a girl, talks to her, gets a taxi back to his hotel to have sex with her - then he might be able to demonstrate that he reasonably believed she consented

Better?

Interestingly none of the "key" new witnesses, that described the victim's "unique" sexual preferences, appears to have mentioned her requesting them to provide oral sex. I guess that's just more common behaviour than saying "F@@k me harder" in a "certain" sexual position...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Absolutely. As I have said - the jury felt it was an irrelevance. Not the Massey approach to the receptionist though. That was inadmissible

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The defence case at trial, confirmed in large part by McDonald, was to similar effect. The appellant claimed that McDonald was having consensual sexual intercourse with X when the appellant entered room 14. As the appellant entered the room, McDonald stopped having intercourse with X and invited the appellant to join in, with X's assent. The appellant performed oral sex upon her at her request and then had vaginal intercourse with her with her consent. During the intercourse she turned over on all fours and invited him to 'f*ck her harder'. X moved to the edge of the bed and they changed positions, continuing to have intercourse. She was enthusiastic, awake and gave no indication that she was not capable of consenting. He accepted she may well have been under the influence of something, but asserted that she was perfectly capable of exercising her choice as to whether to engage in sexual activity and took the lead in most of what took place. At the very least, the appellant reasonably believed that she had consented.

https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2016/chedevansappealx.pdf

In reply to off-duty:

"Instantly" ? Taxi service in Rhyl must be considerably better than elsewhere in the UK.

They met at approximately 0400, got a taxi and entered the hotel at 0415.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




He described her as "extremely drunk" and her 'conversation' was - "You are not going to leave me here are you?".





Because "getting drunk" and "having sex" are not really relevant to getting raped by a stranger. It's interesting that you highlight that she "got drunk" and "had sex"given that they were specifically NOT the reasons that this evidence was admitted. It's funny what sticks...

In fact through these witnesses were able to discuss her previous sexual activity on two occasions in quite some detail.
Though I didn't hear about the witnesses who dissected Evans' sexual history in similar detail.

In reply to off-duty:


Precisely. Drunken consent is still consent. If you can decide to go back to a hotel room with someone and ask them to spend the night with you, you can decide to have sex once you're there. The words quoted are immediately fatal to the prosecution case by themselves.


Well, getting drunk, having sex and then forgetting it were the reasons some of it were admitted. But anyway I wasn't talking about why it was admitted, I was trying to guess why you thought it constituted an attack on C's character and morals.


There's always something to be thankful for!

jcm

In reply to FactorXXX:
Interesting that the appeal judgement (thanks for the link btw) names both the new witnesses and one of their mothers, yet in the papers they "cannot be named".

Must say having read that I'm still baffled that the appear court thinks that (a) a woman taking control whilst having sex and (b) using the accredited phrase is so unusual that it must be so significant it cannot possibly be coincidental.

And having decided that this detail is significant, why the trial judge decided that emails from Natasha Massey to the receptionist reminding him about the reward were inadmissible, given that the two witnesses' statements were taken by investigators working for CE. Also given that they both knew CE or people connnected to him, it seems inconceivable that living in a place the size of Rhyl that they could be unaware of the reward until "they heard about it on Twitter".

In reply to off-duty:


The question is whether it's enough to tip the balance in what was always going to be a marginal case. I quite agree it's not as concrete as some highly niche sexual predilection. I suspect if you tried the original case with a new jury there would be a high chance of getting a different outcome.


The defendant's history is only relevant if he was a rapist, and prior convictions can't colour a current trial. I'm not sure whether there is the 'judgement' you allude to about a woman's sexual history in the same way there would have been 30 years ago and more, but I'm not sure. Of course you only need a couple on the jury to be prejudiced by it and the defendant walks free. Aside from the fact that the complainants wouldn't want it being discussed, logically in many ways it strengthens their case. If you present a young woman who regularly has sex with lots of different men without incident and then accuses one of them of rape, it does beg the question of what's different about him. If I was in the jury it would make me suspect him more. Not everyone thinks the same of course. As I said upthread, these things are always going to be incredibly difficult.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


One of the new witnesses was apparently originally motivated to come forward because he believed the complainant (who of course has never claimed to have been raped) was "in it for the money". There certainly seems to be plenty of evidence around the information superhighway that suggests that many, many people believe that a woman who has sex with several partners is a "slag" - that's got to colour their view of any potential trial, you''d have thought?

In reply to andy:

I hadn't realised that the complainant hadn't claimed to be raped until I read this thread.

There is a lot of vile shit on the internet about it. What % of people it's generated by I don't know, but it wouldn't need to be huge to risk tipping the balance in a jury trial.

In reply to andy:

It doesn't have to be unusual, it just has to be similar, which it is. The legislation states that the alleged behaviour has to be so similar that the similarity cannot be reasonably explained as a coincidence.

Whether or not this test was satisfied might still be a point of debate (though the CA decided it was) but there is not, and never has been any requirement for the alleged behaviour to be unusual. Similarity might be easier to establish where the behaviour is unusual, but that's not the test.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Thanks for the link to the judgement. After reading that it seems even more that the CPS did her and (future rape victims) even more of a disservice by pursuing the case.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Fatal to the prosecution of McDonald perhaps, but irrelevant to Evans, unless you believe that one couldn't be convicted without the other, perhaps because consent to one confers consent to anyone else.

According to the guardian, Evans will now seek compensation for wrongful imprisonment, as well as suing his first set of lawyers, so more 'entertainment' to come.

Does the former follow simple binary rules - I.e he is innocent, end of story - or is it slightly more nuanced - he was acquitted, due to reasonable doubt, but the first decision was reasonable on the evidence presented. Furthermore how is the crown liable for the fact that new evidence emerged after the first trial?

In reply to off-duty:

I can see that that is possible for A to be innocent and B guilty. My question to you is, not with standing you weren't at the trial, can you imagine being sure that B is guilty? I genuinely can't. I can imagine thinking he likely is guilty but I just can't imagine being sure.


Well if they've erred towards the defence it seems reasonably likely that their views on the original conviction might be the reason why they did (quite possibly subconsciously). Obviously no way of knowing or sure, but I work in a job where we make legal decisions (not my decision, but I look at the evidence and make recommendation to the decision maker). Where there's room for interpretation of the law, most people tend to lean to the side which they think is right (some people tend to lean the other way too). Expect this happens in policing and judging also.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

>Furthermore how is the crown liable for the fact that new evidence emerged after the first trial?

As I understand it, they're not. I am under the impression that he can't seek compensation at all because nothing has gone wrong in a sense - in order to get the retrial at all he has to show that the new evidence wasn't reasonably available at the time of the first trial. But I could be wrong.

There is of course the possibility that Evans was merely shooting his mouth off about taking advice, and once interpreted by journalists this became 'seeking compensation', after the fashion of their tribe.

>Fatal to the prosecution of McDonald perhaps, but irrelevant to Evans, unless you believe that one couldn't be convicted without the other, perhaps because consent to one confers consent to anyone else.

I don't know why I'm finding this so difficult to explain. The unique thing about this case is that it was not based on absence of actual consent, because the complainant was not able to say that she did not consent, and was not willing to say that she is not the sort of person ever to consent in such circumstances. It was based, solely, on the proposition that the complainant was too drunk to be able to give a valid consent.

It follows that if she was sufficiently sober to consent to sex with McDonald, the prosecution of Evans fails without more.

jcm

In reply to andy:

>Interesting that the appeal judgement (thanks for the link btw) names both the new witnesses and one of their mothers, yet in the papers they "cannot be named".

The appeal judgment was only published after the case was decided. Presumably the reporting restrictions fell at the same time. I don't know why they were imposed though in that case - I had assumed it was to avoid identifying the complainant, but obviously not.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Yep, I'd assumed that, but the paper today said the witness couldn't be named (I think) - maybe they've not spotted the restrictions have been lifted!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I understand the point you are making, but don't think it was as simple as that. If it had been, then surely the court of appeal would have called a mistrial on the basis that the judges direction to the jury was invalid.

There is strong evidence that she consented to McD, and that he had reason to believe she was capable of giving consent. In the initial trial there was no independent evidence that the same applied to Evans on either issue. The retrial gave credence to his claim that he had genuine belief of consent, because his story fitted a pattern

In reply to Chris the Tall:

>In the initial trial there was no independent evidence that the same applied to Evans on either issue.

Sure, but he doesn't need to prove it unless the prosecution can first prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant is incapable of giving consent. And if there's 'strong evidence that McDonald had reason to believe she was capable of giving consent', then they can't.

I'm pretty sure from the CA's first judgment they knew this; it's full of the sort of over-protesting you get from judges when they know they're defending the indefensible. But it's not really grounds for appeal that the jury demonstrably didn't grasp the law, and the judge's direction was in a sense correct. The CA didn't want to change the verdict; that's in practice the only test they ever apply.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It's fair to assume her condition was deteriorating- so it might have been that she was the right side of the line at 4.00 (pickup) and very close to it at 4:15 (arrival at hotel), but beyond it at 4:30 (Evans arrival) and 4:45 (McDonald's departure, when he expressed his concern to the porter). It might have been that she was willing and enthusiastic throughout that half hour, or maybe just the first few minutes with McD. We really don't know.

However the fact that the woman can't contradict Evans account surely doesn't mean that that his account has to be accepted.

Like it or not there are two issues at stake here and the jury will consider them together. There are few certainties in this case, and on both issues, for both defendants, the jurors would be weighing up a sliding scale of probabilities. Not that surprising that some sort of toting up will take place, and that one defendant falls into the 'reasonable doubt' band and the other doesn't

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think an interesting issue with this case was the absolute certainty many posters had in the correctness of the legal process when CE was convicted. This certainty seems to have dissolved upon the quashing of his conviction.

I didn't know if he was guilty then and I don't know now, but how with the circumstances of the case he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt I'm really not sure.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

If you're referring to me then no, I have never been certain of his guilt, nor of his innocence. Like you I thought his behaviour, based on his own testimony, was thoroughly reprehensible, but whether it was criminal or not is another matter.

What I have said all along is that I found the juries decision reasonable, and therefore it was right that he be treated as a convicted rapist up until such a time as that conviction was overturned. As it has been there is now no impediment to him resuming his football career, though I can't say I'd be comfortable if he ended up at my club - thankfully pretty unlikely

In reply to Yanis Nayu: there was no suggestion the legal process was not correct was there? Otherwise his first appeal would hqve been successful - the retrial was a result of new evidence (ie the two blokes who remembered additional details that they didn't mention in their first interviews) that wasn't available at the original trial.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

>However the fact that the woman can't contradict Evans account surely doesn't mean that that his account has to be accepted.

Of course not. It simply means that the prosecution have no evidence to offer on that issue.


Of course we don't. So why are we sending people to jail?!

>Like it or not there are two issues at stake here and the jury will consider them together.

I agree with the second part, but not the first. There are not two issues, because on one of them, the prosecution has no evidence to offer.

jcm

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Like you I thought his behaviour, based on his own testimony, was thoroughly reprehensible, but whether it was criminal or not is another matter.

What exactly is reprehensible about his behaviour?
His mate texted him to say that there was a possibility of a threesome. He turns up at the hotel, sneaks in because it's out of normal hotel hours and when he gains access to the room, his mate asks the female could he join in, to which she replies yes.
If anything, it's McDonald's behaviour that should be questioned. He's the one that took her to the hotel room and then abandoned her.
As for it being criminal or not, then according to the Appeal Court, he isn't...

In reply to Chris the Tall:


The first jury or both of them?

If the first, how do you know it was reasonable? Juries don't give their reasons, so it may have been based on the fact he was a bit of a cad, which would hardly be reasonable.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Is that a serious question? I can accept that his behaviour might well not have been criminal, but he admitted that he had sex with an inebriated woman who he didn't know, had never spoken to, who had just finished having sex with his mate, while his brother and other friend tried to peer through the window and film the encounter. He obviously had no care or concern for this woman he just used her for his own gratification.

Reprehensible seems a reasonable discription to me.

He seems to understand that himself, he said after the trial " I was young at the time and I was stupid" and "what I did that night was not acceptable"

In reply to mountain.martin:

Is that a serious question? I can accept that his behaviour might well not have been criminal, but he admitted that he had sex with an inebriated woman who he didn't know, had never spoken to, who had just finished having sex with his mate, while his brother and other friend tried to peer through the window and film the encounter. He obviously had no care or concern for this woman he just used her for his own gratification.

Have you actually read the transcript of the court case?
If not, I suggest you do.
When you have done so, you'll realise that, the woman was fully aware of Evan's presence and consented to having sex with him.
As for the voyeuristic element, didn't Evans close the curtains when he realised what was happening?
My basic understanding of what happened that night, was that by whatever means, three people ended up having sex in a hotel room. Not unheard of and certainly not reprehensible.
The only thing that really stinks, is that she was left alone in the hotel room and woke up wondering what the f*ck had happened to her.

In reply to FactorXXX:
It seems pretty clear, that any consent given was drunken consent. CE took advantage of her inebriated state for his own gratification. He may well have considered that she gave consent but it must have been quite clear that she was acting in a way that she wouldn't have done if she was in full control of her facilities.

Yes I'm sure that happens with young drunk people, but it is nothing to be proud of. As I said ce now considers it stupid and unacceptable. I consider it reprehensible. Although I will just go and look up the dictionary definition.

In reply to FactorXXX:
I did think his action was reprehensible. Having just looked it up that's still my interpretation.

Anyway apologies if my questioning of your earlier post came across a bit strong.
It has been refreshing to read a long ukc thread on an imotive subject that hasn't descended into acrimony. Would be a shame for that to change now.

In reply to mountain.martin:
My take on this ironically is that I think that we have finally got the right result but for wrong (and possibly dangerous) reasons.

Evans was surely correct when he said that young woman chased after footballers, who are after all rich and fit. I find the puritanical exclamations of 'disgusting! Pah!' a bit odd, but maybe that's an age thing. After all, groupie culture in the 70s was a bit 'inclusive' - one of the Faces' inside album covers was devoted to photos of on tour orgies, and I don't remember anyone raising an eyebrow.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think we can say that we have learned two things, one old and one new: that young people have sex for fun; and that, 'I've got a girl', no longer means the room is mine but pop round and join in. Life's an education, ain't it?

In reply to FactorXXX:

The extract in the transcript you refer to is his defence - if we accept that to be the truth then the prosecution fails - there is no question that she gave consent, and that he believed she had the capacity to give consent. The first jury didn't believe his story, the second did, or at least had reasonable doubt, and based on the evidence presented to each I can understand both.

Nonetheless my 'reprehensible' statement is based on the notion that we do accept his account fully. There is nothing wrong with having a threesome in which all participants consent. I'm not even going to judge him on the cheating, that's a matter between him and his partner. What I find reprehensible is trawling the takeaways at 4 in the morning looking for drunk and vulnerable women, and then, having used them for your gratification, abandoning them without a care to their wellbeing.

In reply to mountain.martin:

It seems pretty clear, that any consent given was drunken consent. CE took advantage of her inebriated state for his own gratification. He may well have considered that she gave consent but it must have been quite clear that she was acting in a way that she wouldn't have done if she was in full control of her facilities.

I thought the whole point of the new evidence, was that she did act in such a manner?

In reply to mountain.martin:

I did think his action was reprehensible. Having just looked it up that's still my interpretation.

Reprehensible to your moral standards.
It's entirely possible that the three people involved that night had different moral standards to yours and therefore their behaviour wasn't reprehensible.
It's obvious that Evans and McDonald held such views and the new evidence suggests the she too had a similar attitude.
It seems to me, that people are looking at what happened that night using their own set of morals as a guide and coming up with the conclusion that Evans's actions were disgusting and then arbitrarily labelling him a rapist. Once you accept the fact that women too can act in such a fashion, then it puts a different slant on things.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

What I find reprehensible is trawling the takeaways at 4 in the morning looking for drunk and vulnerable women, and then, having used them for your gratification, abandoning them without a care to their wellbeing.

That was McDonald...

In reply to FactorXXX:

'It seems to me, that people are looking at what happened that night using their own set of morals as a guide and coming up with the conclusion that Evans's actions were disgusting and then arbitrarily labelling him a rapist. '

I think you make a very good point.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



At this point I find myself wanting to quote Erica Jong

In reply to FactorXXX:

Quite possibly they did have different moral standards, and if all three were happy during and after the event then i would have no problem with that. But the facts are that one of the participants was so unhappy after the event that they subsequently decided to participate in a rape trial and another described his actions as stupid and unacceptable so it seems both of them were unhappy with their own moral standards on that night.

You are right, my judgement is based on my moral standards. When I was 22 horny and very drunk my moral standards would have been different to what they are as a (currently) sober man is his fifties but not that different I don't think.

If it was your daughter or someone you cared about who was treated this way would you still think it was acceptable?

I've never argued that he committed rape, and the latest court case cleared him of this, which given my knowledge seems a sensible decision.

In reply to MarkJH:

How does the defence know who to approach ?

The Prosecution advertises who the accused is, sometimes on national television, inviting all and sundry to come up with something extra to add onto their agenda. Furthermore they have the Police Force at their beck and call.
However the Defence can apparently only go around making discreet enquiries, and would have to employ a private detective or similar.

And as an advance reply to off-duty, from what I've observed over the last 40 years, PC Plod in general has absolutely NO interest in finding out what ACTUALLY happened, but only in digging up dirt to help the prosecution, and this does include deliberately ignoring witnesses who would help the Defence.
This is done quite simply by not actually taking any statement off "unhelpful" witnesses, therefore there's nothing in the file that the Prosecution has to hand over to the Defence.

In reply to off-duty:

>> The reason I highlight victim blaming is that the "additional" evidence appears to focus on the defendants previous character/sexual behaviour. Non-criminal, effectively "normal" behaviour.

But it appears that her claim that she obviously had a spiked drink BECAUSE she couldn't remember is an out and out lie.
She had a history of drinking, bonking, and not being able to remember.
She did not tell the truth on the stand in court - I make this Perjury.

In reply to mountain.martin:

Quite possibly they did have different moral standards, and if all three were happy during and after the event then i would have no problem with that. But the facts are that one of the participants was so unhappy after the event that they subsequently decided to participate in a rape trial and another described his actions as stupid and unacceptable so it seems both of them were unhappy with their own moral standards on that night.

The only questionable bit about the males behaviour was abandoning her alone in the hotel room and there I agree that their behaviour was entirely wrong in that respect. However, that was more McDonalds responsibility than Evan's, so if anyone is going to point fingers about being a 'cad', then it's McDonald that should be labelled as such.
Bearing the above in mind, it's quite understandable that the woman was confused and wanted answers as to what happened. Upon her complaint to the Police, they questioned Evans and McDonald and they immediately admitted what they had done that night. It was the CPS that decided to press charges against both men upon that investigation and in retrospect that perhaps wasn't the right decision.
When it got into court initially, there was no doubt that the prosecution and Judge laid on the moral side of things thickly and it's no surprise that a Jury found Evans guilty using equal moral values of their own.
As for Evans saying that he regretted it, etc. then of course he would, he was trying to re-build his life and reputation.


If it was your daughter or someone you cared about who was treated this way would you still think it was acceptable?

Aren't you in danger of biasing your decision by putting your daughter in that position and therefore thinking the worst of Evans and McDonald?

In reply to FactorXXX:

In Ched's case I'd say that voyeurism is pretty dodgy and it is an offence, goes for the 2 filming it outside the window too.

There was evidence presented to suggest she was more than just 'drunk', as well as evidence to the contrary, so 'reasonable doubt' on the charges brought seems appropriate. However, this idea that they were lads out on a normal night is wrong, they were well out of order, and offences do seem to have been committed.

In reply to fred99:





Gosh. That's quite a leap of logic. Has it been suggested by anyone, anywhere, that she lied?

You do know that she's never claimed to have been raped, right?

In reply to FactorXXX:


I think we will have to agree to differ, in my opinion, and as stated previously, having sex with a woman who you don't know, haven't had a conversation with and who is clearly heavily drunk is also at least questionable or in my opinion is reprehensible.


The woman also agreed to be the main witness in a rape trial, she must have been more than just confused and wanting answers.


I would hope that they, any footballer, or anyone at all would treat a drunk young woman who might not be thinking clearly as they would want their daughter/sister to be treated.

That's obviously an idealistic notion, but if behaviour falls short of the ideal then it should be recognised as not ideal, where it falls so far short as it has done in this case then it should be recognised as unacceptable/reprehensible.

I'm sure quite a few other young men would have acted in a similar manner given the opportunity (and assuming they thought she was consenting), but I'm also sure a lot of men of a similar age would have done nothing of the sort, wouldn't have taken advantage of her drunken state and would have made sure she got home safely.

In reply to fred99:

You'll be voting Trump I guess.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

In Ched's case I'd say that voyeurism is pretty dodgy and it is an offence, goes for the 2 filming it outside the window too.

Was Evans being a voyeur?
No and furthermore he closed the curtains upon realising what was happening.


There was evidence presented to suggest she was more than just 'drunk', as well as evidence to the contrary, so 'reasonable doubt' on the charges brought seems appropriate. However, this idea that they were lads out on a normal night is wrong, they were well out of order, and offences do seem to have been committed.

So what if she was more than just a bit 'drunk'? Plenty of people have sex with strangers whilst totally pissed. I think it was calculated that she was two and a half times over the drink driving limit, so probably pretty normal for a weekend night out and certainly the type of drunken state that both sexes are quite often in before having sex with a stranger.
Why the onus on blaming the males for the all the sexual behaviour that went on? Women are quite capable of being up for a no questions shag with a stranger.
Their only bad behaviour was leaving her in the hotel room and that was more McDonald than Evans at fault there.

In reply to FactorXXX:



Yes he admitted it. Entered the room and watched before being noticed.




Not what I said, I said more than just 'drunk', for instance Macdonalnd describe her as 'sick' to the the porter. However, I said, there is reasonable doubt regarding her condition, so I'm not sure you have chosen to argue on that.

In reply to FactorXXX:


I said the same thing in the pub last night. I think it's clear that a number of posters here are falling into that trap.

I'm not going to judge the moral behaviour of anyone involved; all I would want to do is try to establish the plain facts of what happened on the night, and determine if any law was broken. And prior behaviour of all parties may have bearing on that, when considering the question of reasonable doubt about consensual, willing participation.

To address off_duty's earlier assertion "Yes. Because his behaviour, unlike hers, is not under scrutiny. Or something.", the only scrutiny I'd subject her behaviour to is whether this was something she was in the habit of; not to judge her, but simply to establish the likelihood of the truth of the defendants statement about her giving consent. It's her body, and she can do what she likes with it. What we should be trying to establish here is whether someone did something to her body that she didn't want; nothing else. We should not let moral indignation cloud that simple issue.

In reply to FactorXXX:


According to Ched's own brother it was Macdonald who closed the curtains. The curtains re-opened after Evans entered the room (again according to Ched's brother).

In reply to mountain.martin:


Surely this is otherwise known as Casual Sex?

Sexually objectifying people, using them for sex and for one's own gratification is the name of the game.

It's Friday Night, Saturday Morning, at least it used to be, nowadays some people seem to take this prim and proper puritanical attitude that only allows sex under some exact set of social niceties.

It's just sex, nothing to get too excited about.

In reply to FactorXXX:


My moral standards are that anything and everything is Ok, as long as all parties freely consent, and have the capacity to freely consent.

What are yours ?



The fact that Evans and McDonald have moral standards that permit them to prey upon vulnerable women is indeed obvious, but I don't see how the fact that the woman enjoys vigorous sex means she has no objection to people taking advantage of her when she is drunk.

In reply to andy:


Never? How do you know that?

You've got to wonder if the Police and CPS have managed to convince her otherwise.

That's quite a responsibility if they have.

In reply to winhill:



She's never said she's been raped (she can't remember what happened) - she went to the police because she thought someone had stolen her bag.

In reply to andy:


So did the police tell her they thought she'd been raped?

In reply to andy:


She's never made an allegation of rape but that doesn't mean that she's never said it or believed it.

I'm sure lots of people both say they've been raped and believe they've been raped but don't go on to make allegations or complaints (perhaps the majority according to figures from the Institute of Studies).

But it begs the question, if someone has been convicted of raping you, does that mean that you do now believe you've been raped.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I've no idea. Presumably someone (police, CPS) decided that there was a realistic chance of a conviction based on the evidence.

But the woman involved has never, in anything I've seen, claimed to have been raped during either court case - all she's said is she can't remember anything before waking up alone.

In reply to andy:



Which makes the online abuse she's received even worse to take I would imagine.

From what I can gather the only evidence that she'd had sex with CE was from him, but he contests with consent. The whole thing seems really weird.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


The only thing I'd do to Trump would involve me being liable for the death penalty in the US.

In reply to andy:

In court, one is supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
It is obvious that her history of "selective amnesia" was not brought up in the original court case, and has led to the acquittal in the retrial, as her amnesia was originally blamed on a spiked drink - an obviously horrendous state of affairs, but which never happened.

Now she knew about this. The question I'd like to ask is; Did the Prosecution team ??
One of two options would explain this omission;
1) She kept it quiet, and it was eventually found out after considerable investigation by Evans' legal team.
2) The Prosecution team knew about it and kept it quiet. But someone on/near said team found out about the non-disclosure and spilled the beans to the Defence AFTER the original court case.

In case 1, she's guilty of some measure of lying - and in the worst case that has to be regarded as Perjury.
In case 2, she's an innocent victim - of the legal system - and someone really should be dealt with for it.

Considering how quickly Evans' girlfriend and her father were behind him regarding an Appeal, I would go with case 2.

I would also suggest that she really needs to sort out her drinking if it affects her so badly and so regularly - who knows what might happen in the future.

In reply to andy:

I sure hope Chris Evens didn't steal her bag, that would be a really crappy thing to do.

In reply to Jimbocz:


Who's "Chris Evens"?

In reply to fred99: i think jcm or off-duty will be better qualified to assist, but i think it's the defence's job to, well, you know, build the defence case, so I don't think it's up to her or the prosecution to volunteer whether she'd lost her memory through drink previously (in fact, one could read into her testimony that perhaps she did say she'd lost her memory through drink, but I think she said it was when she'd drunk rather more - hence her concern her drink had been spiked). Evans' initial legal team did a pretty crap job of interviewing witnesses given that all it took was a private investigator to mean these two blokes managed to recall far more crucial and extraordinarily similar detail about their encounters with the complainant.

I'm not sure what you mean by "selective amnesia" - that's more usually used where there's a suggestion someone's deliberately "not remembering", which I don't think is suggested? I don't think she's under any obligation to volunteer any information if not asked, so suspect your suggestion of perjury is probably incorrect. Perjury is lying under oath - which I don't think she has been accused of?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Some interesting comments from a barrister here:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-ev...

In reply to andy:

The prosecution is required by law (CPIA) to disclose everything, even that which doesn't suit their case, and they're also required to follow all avenues of enquiry. I guess if they have info on a rape complainant's sexual history and it can't be used by the defence anyway they may not need to disclose it - I'm not sure.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/why-the-fallout-from-the-ched-eva...

An interesting counterbalance to most reporting on the issue.

In reply to Yanis Nayu: I think the suggestion was that SHE should have disclosed stuff (though to be honest I think she did say she had lost her memory whilst drinking - but not on such a relatively low amount).

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



"Leading criminal barristers are concerned that victims of sexual attacks may be “scared off” from coming forward by the “over-reaction” of some women’s rights campaigners following the Ched Evans rape verdict.

Some commentators have suggested that a decision to allow the complainant’s sexual history to be used by Evans’s defence has created a “rapists’ charter” and set the law back three decades.

But the chair and vice-chair of the Criminal Bar Association told the Guardian that such language was counterproductive and could undermine confidence in the rules designed to protect victims of sex crimes.

Francis FitzGibbon QC, chair of the association, said: “There’s been a huge over-reaction to what this case means. The answer is not very much. The thing that troubles me is people saying it sets the law back 30 years and it’s a rapists’ charter. That is what is going to make people think they daren’t report what’s happened to them. Those cries of anguish are a self-fulfilling prophesy.”"

From the Guardian, echoing the point I made upthread.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Over-reaction?..... What do you expect from a load of men hating lesbian feminazi's

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Labour Women on the Warpath:

"More than 40 female Labour MPs have written to the attorney general warning that women will be less likely to report rape because of the legal precedent set in the retrial of the footballer Ched Evans.

The members of the women’s parliamentary Labour party, including its chair, Jess Phillips, Harriet Harman and Angela Eagle, have urged Jeremy Wright to support a change in the law to stop a move towards the sexual history of rape complainants being used routinely to discredit their evidence in court."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/23/female-labour-mps-write-to-...

In reply to fred99:
How does the defence know who to approach ?

The Prosecution advertises who the accused is, sometimes on national television, inviting all and sundry to come up with something extra to add onto their agenda. Furthermore they have the Police Force at their beck and call.
However the Defence can apparently only go around making discreet enquiries, and would have to employ a private detective or similar.


The proviso being that publication of the name comes after charge. IE the CPS have reviewed the evidence in that specific case and consider that it is sufficient for a realistic prospect of conviction.
It is not the police job to search out evidence for the suspect beyond that which he identifies in his defence, or which comes to light otherwise during the investigation.

And as an advance reply to off-duty, from what I've observed over the last 40 years, PC Plod in general has absolutely NO interest in finding out what ACTUALLY happened, but only in digging up dirt to help the prosecution, and this does include deliberately ignoring witnesses who would help the Defence.
This is done quite simply by not actually taking any statement off "unhelpful" witnesses, therefore there's nothing in the file that the Prosecution has to hand over to the Defence.

I don't know your experience over the last 40 years - but I know that I have spent a considerable amount of my service taking alibi statements, tracking down CCTV and similar enquiries to exonerate suspects. Surprisingly enough, very few of them have actually been exonerated. It's amazing how many alibi witnesses don't realise that the suspect "was" with them when they are interviewed prior to the suspect's release from custody.

As as has been mentioned there is an obligation under CPIA to pursue reasonable lines of enquiry. Reasonable being dependant on the specific circumstances. It is not the investigators responsibility to explore every possible defence that might hypothetically be put forward.
In this case it was a matter of drunkeness and consent. As a sexual offence then, as is normal, the previous sexual behaviour of the victim is not a reasonable line of enquiry - unless there was some specificity to it that might be revealing.

That is drunkeness and consent on that specific night. If there was evidence that she was an alcoholic, had a memory disorder, had made false claims - in fact if there was anything in her medical, social services or other history, it would have been collated gathered, and more oftne than not handed straight over to the defence.

As - despite your experience - I have seen happen repeatedly, resulting in CPS refusing to charge offenders.

But it appears that her claim that she obviously had a spiked drink BECAUSE she couldn't remember is an out and out lie.
She had a history of drinking, bonking, and not being able to remember.
She did not tell the truth on the stand in court - I make this Perjury.

It's not perjury.

In court, one is supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
It is obvious that her history of "selective amnesia" was not brought up in the original court case, and has led to the acquittal in the retrial, as her amnesia was originally blamed on a spiked drink - an obviously horrendous state of affairs, but which never happened.

That might have led towards the acquittal, however it wasn't why the new evidence was admitted and the suggestion that it was rather highlights the dangers of allowing this new evidence in to the trial.


Now she knew about this. The question I'd like to ask is; Did the Prosecution team ??
One of two options would explain this omission;
1) She kept it quiet, and it was eventually found out after considerable investigation by Evans' legal team.

Again. It is not relevant evidence.

2) The Prosecution team knew about it and kept it quiet. But someone on/near said team found out about the non-disclosure and spilled the beans to the Defence AFTER the original court case.

Why discuss this when you aren't grasping the legal issues, either with the first case, the appeal court case, or the final case.


In case 1, she's guilty of some measure of lying - and in the worst case that has to be regarded as Perjury.
In case 2, she's an innocent victim - of the legal system - and someone really should be dealt with for it.

?? She woke up in a strange hotel room, in her own urine, with no recollection of the night before.
That's not quite the same as claims (by defence witnesses) that she said to them in the morning that she couldn't remember having had sex with them.

Considering how quickly Evans' girlfriend and her father were behind him regarding an Appeal, I would go with case 2.

Their motivations are interesting. But unless you know them personally I wouldn't want to draw conclusions - as they would be nothing more than one (of many possible) opinions.

I would also suggest that she really needs to sort out her drinking if it affects her so badly and so regularly - who knows what might happen in the future.

Yes. Because if someone is vulnerable because they are drunk, then they should just accept it if they get raped...

No comment on Ched's (or Clayton's) behaviour? I guess it's reasonable to trawl nightclubs and streets looking for drunken girls at 4am in the morning.

In reply to off-duty:



I'm not saying anyone should accept such. I am saying that for her to go around repeatedly getting drunk, and not being able to remember, makes her more vulnerable. The first act to be less vulnerable is NOT to get drunk, or at least only get drunk when in the company of friends who could look after her.
If someone regularly passed out in the street, and kept finding that their pockets had been emptied of all valuables, wouldn't it be prudent to stop getting drunk and passing out.


I think I've already given my (somewhat low) opinion of the whole episode - I wouldn't wish to have anything to do with any of the parties involved.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The thing I still don't think I will ever understand is why his girlfriend is still with him, and even more some than that, why her father paid for his defence instead of kicking him to the kerb. What kind of a man encourages his daughter to stick by someone who has so little regard for her that he gets his kicks in someone else's travelodge room with a drunk woman he doesn't know who someone else picked up and slept with already.

In reply to marsbar:
Perhaps she loves him? Perhaps he loves her? Perhaps he convinced her the girl had been more than willing, and probably led them on, that it was a childish, immature boys romp that got out of hand, and in fact didn't mean anything, and he even had evidence of that - he left without 'finishing', which was why there was no forensic evidence.

For the avoidance of doubt I've never been involved in anything like this, but I'm not so old that I can't remember what it was like to be young, randy and maybe a little the worse for drink. In my experience too, girls have been known, on occasion, to be 'startlingly immodest'. Most such events have no or limited fallout.

To read people here you'd think everyone had been a member of the Waltons family when they were younger.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Her Dad has gone to extraordinary lengths to clear him and shore up his career, despite him cheating even in the best light. I just find it odd.