Ched Evans cleared of r***

So this young Welsh footballer has been cleared of alleged r***. What happens now? Will former prime minister David Cameron make a public apology? Will Jessica Ennis-Hill make an apology?

I'd be interested to know what new evidence was presented at his trial.

Anyway, despite being cleared of r@pe, Evans is always going to be seen as a dirty cheating scumbag happy to sleep with some star-struck bimbo behind his girlfriend's back.

Turned into more one person's word against another which you can't convict on (which makes the original verdict curious).

Doesn't make the other side a liar either it's important to remember.

GSC wrote:
Doesn't make the other side a liar either it's important to remember.

But will be immediately forgotten, sadly.

As I have, many times, censored this conversation on here, it has always been as some people cannot handle the conversation and make it a blame game, and belittle the plight of victims in these acts. I hope no one does that now just because Evans is found not guilty in a court of law.

I think there are several important things to remember in the aftermath of this
Firstly there are only 2 people who know what really happened that night and if it was r*** or not and that is Ched Evans and his accuser.
Secondly just because the jury found him not guilty does not mean she is a liar and should be sent to jail. In cases like this it is up to a prosecuter to prove Evans did it to the standard required by a court better known as beyond all reasonable doubt. In a case like this that is incredibly difficult because it is essentially one persons word v another and to prove it that far the jury cannot sit there thinking well he probably did or did not do it, they have to be completely sure otherwise they must find him not guilty.
Thirdly to all those people who say the trial was flawed on twitter and what not please grow up. This was a legitimate trial, a trial which in actual fact had more women jurors than men so we can absolve any likelihood of gender bias in the jury. Just because you don't like Ched Evans or perhaps don't like the verdict does not mean you get to question the legitimacy of a trial.
Fourthly As i said above the accuser may not have been wrong and if that is the case then I truly hope she gets all the hope and support that she needs from the people around her
Finally Ched Evans should be free to go back to playing football and not have people call him a r***ist because he could just as equally truly be innocent. However at the very least he cheated on his girlfriend which to me is never acceptable and perhaps he will need to take a long look at his actions and be a better person.

This is an excellent piece on this whole ugly affair. Well written and informed, cuts through many of the myths doing the rounds on social media currently:

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

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

neilthom7 wrote:... However at the very least he cheated on his girlfriend which to me is never acceptable ...

His girlfriend has accepted it, forgiven him, and supported him.  She is in a better position to judge than you are - you shouldn't use her to cast your own different judgement. Of course you are free to condemn her for supporting him but don't appropriate her for your own moralising.  Ps: everything else in your comment I can agree with - in it being reasoned and fair.  So my only quibble was you using his girlfriend in your comment without acknowledging the girlfriend's actual viewpoint.

What have we learnt?  We are living in a form of what Baudrillard calls a hyperreality.  The media create a story / select a story out of billions of possible stories and present it to us like a "reality soap opera".  Then various celebrity "actors" are roped in to comment on the story to generalise, to moralise, to condemn, and act in a politically correct manner - and that becomes part of the story e.g. the roping in of David Cameron, Jessica Ennis etc.

neilthom7 wrote:I think there are several important things to remember in the aftermath of this
Firstly there are only 2 people who know what really happened that night and if it was r*** or not and that is Ched Evans and his accuser.
Secondly just because the jury found him not guilty does not mean she is a liar and should be sent to jail.  In cases like this it is up to a prosecuter to prove Evans did it to the standard required by a court better known as beyond all reasonable doubt. In a case like this that is incredibly difficult because it is essentially one persons word v another and to prove it that far the jury cannot sit there thinking well he probably did or did not do it, they have to be completely sure otherwise they must find him not guilty.
Thirdly to all those people who say the trial was flawed on twitter and what not please grow up.  This was a legitimate trial, a trial which in actual fact had more women jurors than men so we can absolve any likelihood of gender bias in the jury.  Just because you don't like Ched Evans or perhaps don't like the verdict does not mean you get to question the legitimacy of a trial.
Fourthly As i said above the accuser may not have been wrong and if that is the case then I truly hope she gets all the hope and support that she needs from the people around her
Finally Ched Evans should be free to go back to playing football and not have people call him a r***ist because he could just as equally truly be innocent.  However at the very least he cheated on his girlfriend which to me is never acceptable and perhaps he will need to take a long look at his actions and be a better person.

I think the most important thing to remember in this case is that it was, in fact, not one person's word against the other. The lady in question has no memory of the incident and can't confirm whether she consented or not. Evans (and his mate) both say that she did consent. It is therefore not one person's word against the other but two words against none. I find the original decision remarkable and I think it's right that it was overturned. 

It's also important to stress that the lady in question never accused Evans. She went to the Police as she'd lost her handbag. Upon investigating, the Police found she had been in a room booked by the footballers. They brought them in for questioning and they both said they had slept with her. Given her lack of memory, that was felt sufficient to investigate for r***.

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

This is a disgraceful article. Evidence about a woman's history is, of course, rightly usually not allowed. It is only in very exceptional circumstances that it can be admissible. In this case, Evans' position was that she had used certain phrases to encourage him (showing consent) and had appeared capable of consenting (despite her memory loss the next day). The evidence allowed in was that she used similar phrases with previous one night stands and had appeared "with it" but then had memory loss the next day. 

There is a question about whether the witnesses were being honest. However, on the assumption they were, it would be absolutely outrageous if that evidence wasn't permitted. It isn't evidence simply to portray her in a bad light. It is evidence which directly backs up Evans' evidence why he reasonably believed she had consented. 

This article is biased, ill-informed and will, sadly, in fact itself lead women to believe that the system does not work. It is articles like this, rather than the reasoned decision of the Court of Appeal, which cause problems. What the author should have done was explain the reason why such evidence was permitted in this case, stressed it wasn't just evidence of prior history and then gone from there. Why worry about the potential impact on readers though, when you can sensationalise instead?

Not sure its quite disgraceful. I think thats a reasonable concern in the case. I think there are many legitimate concerns and questions people can reasonably have.

Wouldn't agree that this is of any danger to make women believe the system doesn't work. I think anyone likely to be impacted would already have been.

I don't know the true ins and outs, as you don't I would assume, I am happy, however, that the police don't do these things based on two blokes saying she consented and one not remembering.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Not sure its quite disgraceful. I think thats a reasonable concern in the case. I think there are many legitimate concerns and questions people can reasonably have.

Wouldn't agree that this is of any danger to make women believe the system doesn't work. I think anyone likely to be impacted would already have been.

I don't know the true ins and outs, as you don't I would assume, I am happy, however, that the police don't do these things based on two blokes saying she consented and one not remembering.

I have no direct knowledge but the fact that Evans/McDonald both said she consented and she had no memory (and was therefore unable to say what she did) is uncontroversial. The case can only really have been run on the basis that she was too drunk to consent and that Evans didn't have reasonable belief that she did. It was most definitely not his word against hers as a couple of posters above said. 

As for the article, it's this bit I strongly object to:

"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. There is nothing to be learned from speaking to an ex-partner about a new r*** case – and it’s shocking that this tactic was employed, and left unquestioned, in the retrial."


If this were accurate then, of course, it would be a valid point. However, it is not what happened in this case. Evidence was obtained specifically on the question of whether the actions Evans said she took (which evidence consent) were consistent with prior behaviour. Suggesting it was the case is misleading and, as I said above, could easily put a victim off complaining. Of course, what this case actually shows is how far away from taking a woman's prior behaviour into account we have actually moved. In this case, I think it's fair to say the lady concerned was no innocent, had got extremely drunk, went to a hotel with a footballer she didn't know and couldn't even say whether she had consented or not. None of that was taken into account in a negative context at all.

"The lady was no innocent"....

What a loathsome remark...

It seems weak to me, and I mostly agree with that quoted part. I'm surprised generic phrases were brought up and trusted.

I agree with everything up to the last sentence but that's obviously the crucial part. 

As I understand it, Evans said she displayed certain enthusiastic control and language which he argued made clear she was consenting. She said "I have no memory of what I said but I would never use that language even if drunk". Two witnesses say she had used exactly that language with them and demonstrated very similar control. 

This is not evidence that she had "loose morals". It is evidence which goes directly to Evans' recollection of events and whether it was accurate. Do you honestly think such evidence should be barred? 

Just to clarify, given Truss' comment, she was obviously entirely innocent in this incident and those who have named her are absolute scum. My point was that, 30 years ago, her sexual history would have been wrongly considered relevant - I think the fact someone wore black underwear was considered relevant in one case. Thankfully, we have moved on from those days and this case does not demonstrate a return.

Born Slippy wrote:As I understand it, Evans said she displayed certain enthusiastic control and language which he argued made clear she was consenting. She said "I have no memory of what I said but I would never use that language even if drunk". Two witnesses say she had used exactly that language with them and demonstrated very similar control. 

The only problem with this evidence is that Ched Evan's girlfriend's father did put out a significant reward for witnesses coming forward with evidence that could help Evan's case. It's just a matter of asking them to say that she has said those things before and putting money in their back pocket. Then we are back to her word against theirs.

Did say way back when that I was surprised he'd been found guilty here. I was surprised he chose a retrial but fair play to him. No one will ever know the truth.... But, I've always felt "being too drunk to consent" is a very slippery slope. And an interesting one as well. It's a rather remarkable facet of the law where a person can never be quite too drunk to be blamed for committing a murder.

There isn't a wrong party here, because obviously a person who can't recall whether they consented or not ABSOLUTELY could have been r.aped, and It's up to the police to make sure that was not the case, but without extenuating circumstances, it's hard to imagine too many other crimes where the sole witness/victim not being able to remember the crime can get a conviction. I imagine me saying "I can't remember if he broke in or I let him in and told him to take my 50 inch TV would lead because I willingly got drunk at a party with him" would probably end up with the prosecution sticking Ted Buckland on the case and directing me to a place where I can get a second hand 50 inch because insurance sure as hell isn't gonna cough up*.

*Yes yes. Different situations but you get the gist

Rowley wrote:This is an excellent piece on this whole ugly affair. Well written and informed, cuts through many of the myths doing the rounds on social media currently:

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

From point two of this blog:  "X has never asserted that she was raped. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. It was the prosecution case – the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service – that she was raped.  

Hence, in this regards Born Slippy was correct.  There were two witnesses against none in this case.

Rowley wrote:This is an excellent piece on this whole ugly affair. Well written and informed, cuts through many of the myths doing the rounds on social media currently:

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

Summary of original trial wrote: "Ched Evans was originally tried with a co-defendant, and fellow footballer, Clayton McDonald ... Evans and McDonald had sex with X, in a hotel room. McDonald had met X on a night out, taken her back to the hotel room, and had alerted Evans that he had “got a girl”.  Evans duly arrived, made his way to the room and, seeing McDonald and X having intercourse, joined in. X woke up the following morning, professing to have no memory at what had taken place. Both men admitted that they had had sex with X, and were charged with r***, on the basis that X was too drunk to consent, and that neither man reasonably believed that she was consenting. Both men asserted that they reasonably believed that the complainant was an enthusiastic and consenting party. At the first trial, McDonald was acquitted. Evans was convicted and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, of which he served the standard half before being released on licence.

Bit in bold: What is surprising, given there were two witnesses to none, that one of the witnesses (McDonald) was acquitted while the other corroborating witness (Evans) was not acquitted.  

Remember r*** is about not giving permission for sex at the time when sex is "initiated".  Allowing oneself to be taken to a hotel room is not consent to sex, if on arrival one decides against it.

So somehow in the first trial it was decided that X had given consent for sex with McDonald in the Hotel room, while, not having any more alcohol, was too drunk to have given consent to sex with Evans.  

X herself cannot recall whether she gave consent or not and it was not her that brought the case to trial.

One can see why the decision was overturned on appeal - but it did require new evidence.

Glad to say I'm old fashioned and like to make love....The thought of sex with someone intoxicated leaves me cold...

Hope this incident has turned this guy into a Gentleman...Because in my eyes his behaviour was inappropriate if not illegal..

And on the thought of Truss dimming the lights and laying a woman down by the fire, I think we can safely say this is no longer a football topic and you can move along to the off-topic section if you'd like to discuss what is and isn't r***