Ched Evans Case Verdict

[longboard]

Ched Evans has been found innocent of rape following a retrial after the quashing of the original guilty verdict:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009

[gingerjon]

The only change between the original trial and this one *appears to be* that two witnesses who may have been induced by payments of £50,000 gave the woman, who Evans agrees did not consent to him as he did not speak to her before, during or after his session, a somewhat sordid sexual history.

 

If it was rape before I don't see how it isn't rape now.

 

But if it wasn't rape before I don't see why this sexual history was required for that to be the case in law.

[ckn]

The only change between the original trial and this one *appears to be* that two witnesses who may have been induced by payments of £50,000 gave the woman, who Evans agrees did not consent to him as he did not speak to her before, during or after his session, a somewhat sordid sexual history.

If it was rape before I don't see how it isn't rape now.

But if it wasn't rape before I don't see why this sexual history was required for that to be the case in law.

Have to be careful as he's legally not guilty now but jury trials are notoriously dodgy. Either first time round the jury just didn't like him and got it wrong or this time around they were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt. I suppose if you have enough money you can keep chipping away at the legal system to get the verdict you want, pity that's not available for 99.99% of the U.K. population.

[Bedford Roughyed]

It used to be very simple 'fancy a shag?'...'Aye go on then' or maybe 'jog on'. 

 

 

Fancy a shag? = Asking for consent

Aye go on then = Consent given

Jog on = No consent

 

Its not that different these days.  

[Robin Evans]

Unless she says "aye ok" when her capacity is impaired.... therefore not valid and its sh it creek time...

[gingerjon]

Glad I aren't in the mix these days. It used to be very simple 'fancy a shag?'...'Aye go on then' or maybe 'jog on'. These days a drunken fumble can see you waking up with more than a hangover, you could end up sharing a cell with Rolf Harris and Stewart Hall.

 

But this wasn't even "Fancy a shag?". The report says that Ched Evans didn't speak to her at all before, during or after. Sex took place in a dark room - Ched didn't turn the lights on - that Ched had lied to get a key to.

[Dave T]

Whilst I get where you are coming from Johnoco (so to speak) - i believe number of convictions for rape are dropping suggesting that blokes arent being done all over the place for having sex whilst drunk.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Interesting that the Daily Mail is publishing articles not wholly in his favour.  

[gingerjon]

Interesting that the Daily Mail is publishing articles not wholly in his favour.  

 

Evening Standard likewise.

[nadera78]

On a wider point - if a woman is too drunk to even say yes or no then it's rape. 

 

On this particular case:

Ched Evans lied to get a room key, he never said a word to the woman before during or after, and he left via a fire escape.

 

The two men who have been paid by Evans to give evidence both seem to have changed their statements, apparently from non-descript statements to now including the same phrase Evans claims the woman used. This change happened after they were told about the £50,000 reward for an acquital. The result was the woman being repeatedly questioned on her sexual history, as if enjoying sex means someone cannot be raped. The judge allowed this to go unchecked, in fact sanctioned it beforehand.

 

Evans' girlfriend repeatedly contacted a man working at the hotel, asking him to speak out, and mentioning the £50,000 on offer. The judge refused to allow the defence to mention this in court.

 

The judge also said that Evans' team offering money to witnesses couldn't be bribery because Evans' himself was in prison so couldn't have known about it.

 

It seems the judge in this case has set a very dubious precedent for future rape trials both in terms of what a defence team can do and the claimants history.

[Red Willow]

No body wins in this case, his life has been on hold, hers has been ruined.

I think life is very different to the 80s when I was growing up, but I don't remember people getting as drunk as they do now, We drank in a pub and funds limited the level of drinking.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Strong 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ched-evans-footballer-rape-trial-acquitted-justice-woman-misogyny-consent-prison-walk-free-a7362276.html

 

Suggesting that you can work out whether a woman was raped by speaking to her ex-boyfriends is tantamount to saying that there are certain women – certain “slags”, to use the language of Twitter – who are “asking for it” so much by their very character that they cannot be raped. They are so loose, so sexually immoral, so unladylike, so slutty, so available that they are effectively giving consent all the time.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Jessica Ennis and Charlie Webster are getting lots of abuse.  

[Dave T]

You don't have to be convicted to have your life ruined by an allegation of rape or sexual misconduct.

that is a good point and i almost touched on that point in my initial post.

[Maximus Decimus]

This is an incredibly tricky issue as it often boils down to one word against another. 

 

On the one hand we don't want to promote a situation where women feel like they don't want to come forward after a rape because it will be invasive or it won't be believed. This is a real issue and rape can be very hard to prove. We also don't want to lessen the experience of rape and downplay it.

 

However, the sheer affect of simply accusing somebody of rape means that all women (or men) cannot automatically be believed. It is naive on the part of feminists to think that false accusations don't happen or are incredibly rare. The power to destroy the life of the accused means it will always be an option to some women who have been wronged or feel hatred towards somebody. Don't get me wrong, the ratio is probably incredibly high for genuine accusers but we cannot simply accept false accusations as collateral damage. We don't accept the death penalty because we class 1 case of mistaken identity as too many. 

 

With situations like Ched Evans, we simply have no way of knowing what happened. I do think it raises some interesting scenarios.

 

Imagine hypothetically that from his perspective he genuinely thought she knew what was happening (he thought she knew he was coming for instance and he was plastered) and she responded as somebody does when they are having sex. Then when she wakes up, she claims not to have any knowledge he was there and says she was raped because she couldn't have consented. It was obviously not a good scenario and he should have ensured he had consent but he hadn't intended or known he was raping someone. Does this justify the ruining of his life and the stigma that goes from being a convicted rapist?

 

I think we enter a very murky world when we're talking about drunken situations. Alcohol is often what facilitates many encounters but it also results in situations where people have too much and then forget what happened or regret it the morning after. The law says you can be too drunk to consent but it offers no defense to somebody who took part in the sex act (as of course it wouldn't with any crime). So we end up with the situation where legally somebody can be too drunk to consent even if they are instigating it and really wanting it. By this definition, I could claim to have been raped as I've had women come on to me when I've been drunk and they haven't. In retrospect if a relationship ends sourly I could then use this against my then partner. 

 

One thing is for sure, if I was 18 nowadays I'd be terrified of going near a woman especially on a night out.

[Maximus Decimus]

Well put MD.

One of the reasons that things are very different today is social media. Were a woman to regret a sexual encounter and accused someone of rape, what might have been heard by a handful of people (which was still bad enough) can now be heard/read by hundreds. No mud sticks like this particular mud and jobs/relationships/friends could all be ruined in a very short space of time.

Feminists seem to think that only they find rape abhorrent and that every man somehow secretly approves. Whereas in reality every right minded person finds it appalling regardless of whether you have a penis or not. I actually think it is them who trivialise it by claiming that a drunken sexual encounter in which a woman might regret it afterwards and claim it was rape, is 100% the same as the stereotype of a knifeman jumping out of the bushes. I don't feel comfortable arguing this either.

The fear of being labelled a rape apologist is a strong deterrent to anyone expressing an opinion on this matter.

I've often considered that in the same way you have manslaughter and murder it might be better to have two different terms for violent rapists and someone convicted over a drunken consent issue. Not sure it'd ever be workable and it could send out the wrong message around sexual conduct.

I hate this idea of feminists that we live in a rape culture. On another thread I've made it clear that an awful lot of men talk in a similar way to the way Donald Trump did. However, I've never heard a man make light of rape.

I've actually only just read up fully on Ched Evans case and it was worse than I thought. At best it's a case of men using a woman simply as a piece of meat.

[JohnM]

On a wider point - if a woman is too drunk to even say yes or no then it's rape. 

 

On this particular case:

Ched Evans lied to get a room key, he never said a word to the woman before during or after, and he left via a fire escape.

 

The two men who have been paid by Evans to give evidence both seem to have changed their statements, apparently from non-descript statements to now including the same phrase Evans claims the woman used. This change happened after they were told about the £50,000 reward for an acquital. The result was the woman being repeatedly questioned on her sexual history, as if enjoying sex means someone cannot be raped. The judge allowed this to go unchecked, in fact sanctioned it beforehand.

 

Evans' girlfriend repeatedly contacted a man working at the hotel, asking him to speak out, and mentioning the £50,000 on offer. The judge refused to allow the defence to mention this in court.

 

The judge also said that Evans' team offering money to witnesses couldn't be bribery because Evans' himself was in prison so couldn't have known about it.

 

It seems the judge in this case has set a very dubious precedent for future rape trials both in terms of what a defence team can do and the claimants history.

 

According to the Guardian, High Court judge Mrs Justice Nicola Davies   told the the jury of seven women and five men that the issue of consent was central. She said Evans should be found guilty if he did not reasonably believe the complainant, who cannot be named, was consenting. However, she told the jurors at Cardiff crown court that drunken consent was still consent – and if they believed that was the case then Evans was not guilty. The jurors were given a “route to verdict” by the judge, who said they had to answer three questions – whether the complainant consented to having sex with Evans; whether the defendant did not genuinely believe she had consented; and whether his belief in her consent was unreasonable – before they could reach a verdict.“Your decision must be made calmly, objectively and without emotion,” she said. “You are not here to judge the morals of any person in this case and this includes the complainant and the defendant. “You are to try this case on the evidence you hear in this court in this trial and nothing else.”

 

The jury verdict was unanimous.

 

More explanation here, too. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/details-ched-evans-appeal-can-12027874

[Niels]

If a Judge accepts evidence of previous partners,then are they not effectively making morals an issue?

Also is it right that large sums of money can be offered for witnesses to support one side of the case?

I agree with Nadera, the case has certainly not made things easier for victims of rape, at a time when attacks on women seem to be more prevalent and abusive.

It wil not benefit men who are wrongly accused either as most will not be able to offer such high financial rewards.

[Dave T]

Further reading explains why those witnesses were allowed. It was due to similarities in her behaviour during sex with other partners and this occasion maybe suggesting that she was in control or at least was lucid. Its not something i buy tbh and the offers of cash for evidence should not be allowed.

Some of the stick this woman and other women are getting on twitter over this is disgusting and is worrying if they are genuine views of men.

[Dave T]

I also think that this was particularly seedy in that whilst she was drunk, she had left town with the other guy, gone back to the hotel and got into bed with him, meaning there is a fair assumption he would believe there was consent, hence him not being found guilty.

A 2nd man entering the room during sex could surely be confusing and scary for a young drinken woman and saying no could have been difficult. A 27 year old man should know better. But when you are a footballer i suppose anything goes.

That however wasnt her complaint, it was that she couldnt remember, and i have sympathy here. She seems to be getting stick as she didnt drink between leaving town and tge incident, with people suggesting she would be more sobre. Well i dont know about anybody else, but thats not how it is for me. I can leave a night out a

In a decent state and during the next hour or two can end up more drunk, dont know if there are scientific reasons in terms of it going into your bloodstream, i always put it down to tiredness kicking in, but it is entirely believable that she could have been in a state to be consenting for one guy and not for the 2nd guy an hour or so later.

The most bizarre thing is his partner standing by him (aggressively so) when he had really seedy unprotected sex with a stranger.

[Maximus Decimus]

I also think that this was particularly seedy in that whilst she was drunk, she had left town with the other guy, gone back to the hotel and got into bed with him, meaning there is a fair assumption he would believe there was consent, hence him not being found guilty.

A 2nd man entering the room during sex could surely be confusing and scary for a young drinken woman and saying no could have been difficult. A 27 year old man should know better. But when you are a footballer i suppose anything goes.

That however wasnt her complaint, it was that she couldnt remember, and i have sympathy here. She seems to be getting stick as she didnt drink between leaving town and tge incident, with people suggesting she would be more sobre. Well i dont know about anybody else, but thats not how it is for me. I can leave a night out a

In a decent state and during the next hour or two can end up more drunk, dont know if there are scientific reasons in terms of it going into your bloodstream, i always put it down to tiredness kicking in, but it is entirely believable that she could have been in a state to be consenting for one guy and not for the 2nd guy an hour or so later.

The most bizarre thing is his partner standing by him (aggressively so) when he had really seedy unprotected sex with a stranger.

Especially when the nature of it makes it seem extremely unlikely that it was a one off.

[gingerjon]

The most bizarre thing is his partner standing by him (aggressively so) when he had really seedy unprotected sex with a stranger.

 

 

No one said the world had to make sense but, yes, that Evans is a seedy, unfaithful POS is now not in doubt. That he has the love of a grasping, spiteful, bullying, plastic plaything means we can be glad that each has found their soulmate.

[shrek]

Have a great deal of sympathy for the young lady who now I believe can only be known as the complainant rather than "victim".

 

Obviously not to have heard the evidence in full, my opinion is formed on what I've heard and read, but boy, it seems to me in this situations that if you have deep pockets you can keep chipping away until you create even a fraction of doubt required to get yourself home and dry.

 

Not sure what else to say that wouldn't lead me rambling into an ineloquent legal mine field other than Evans and his partner seem well matched, I hope they see out the rest of there days together so's not to heap miserary on anyone elses life.

[ckn]

What I really don't get is the abuse given to the "complainant". Were the abusers there? Did they stand there taking notes? How come they were so sure he didn't do it and sure enough to commit criminal contempt of court in abusing the complainant and naming her. Especially when the defendant was quite openly unashamed of acting in a manner most people would consider immoral, or at best amoral.

The legal industry is very clear in criminal law, and rightly so, that there must be no reasonable doubt before a criminal conviction. The unfortunate side effect is that if you get a case where it's one person's word against another's and there's no clear other evidence then it's extremely tough to get a conviction even if the jury believe guilt on the balance of probabilities.

[Ackroman]

You can't convict on one word over another when there's only circumstantial evidence. Not guilty

 

And judging Ched Evans on his moral compass, coming from the Sun? I also wonder what they had printed on page 3 to cement misogynistic attitudes in men.

 

Ched is clearly a sleeze ball and there's plenty like him. His "victim" isn't so choosy either but in this instance and without recollection, she decided to go to the police. What I can't understand is how she knew it was him if she was so out of it (am I missing something?). My conclusion on her is that she's no better than him but she hasn't been in prison for 3 years and been publicly hung in a very high profile fashion.