Ched Evans rape conviction quashed
Discussion
ChocolateFrog said:
Where it is alleged that she said and acting in almost an identical way to the night she met Ched Evans including having no recollections of her actions the next day. The initial jury were not told because the accuser has the right to anonymity.
Shame she still get to keep that right while Ched Evans will have the stigma attached to him forever.
I wonder if Jessica Ennis-Hill will offer an apology for blackmailing Sheffield United into blocking ched Evans return to their employment...?Shame she still get to keep that right while Ched Evans will have the stigma attached to him forever.
And what of the sport hack who idolised convicted rapist Mike Tyson, yet still claims tonight on twitter: "I took a stance upon a guilty verdict & still maintain that no convicted rapist should be revered or treated as a role model."
And what of TooMany2cvs, who while decrying footballers who behave despicably towards women, fails to acknowledge that there are women out there who hope to ride on the coat tails of fame and fortune by latching onto randy footballers and dropping their knickers then realise they could be onto a winner (no pun intended) when police tell them they may have been raped?
The worrying aspect of this case is the spotlight has been turned on the manner in which the courts CAN get things wrong in a spectacular fashion when they rely on the evidence recounted by witness testimony and ignore aspects like the hotel video which clearly showed the woman was not as "out of it" as the prosecution alleged.
Mill Wheel said:
And what of TooMany2cvs, who while decrying footballers who behave despicably towards women, fails to acknowledge that there are women out there who hope to ride on the coat tails of fame and fortune by latching onto randy footballers and dropping their knickers then realise they could be onto a winner (no pun intended) when police tell them they may have been raped?
The worrying aspect of this case is the spotlight has been turned on the manner in which the courts CAN get things wrong in a spectacular fashion when they rely on the evidence recounted by witness testimony and ignore aspects like the hotel video which clearly showed the woman was not as "out of it" as the prosecution alleged.
Can you expand on the first paragraph I have quoted? - not sure I quite understand your point.The worrying aspect of this case is the spotlight has been turned on the manner in which the courts CAN get things wrong in a spectacular fashion when they rely on the evidence recounted by witness testimony and ignore aspects like the hotel video which clearly showed the woman was not as "out of it" as the prosecution alleged.
How can you say that the "courts" ignored certain evidence? Do you really believe the jury got it "spectacularly" wrong?
Can you provide a link where we can see the hotel video? - that would be useful to those interested.
desolate said:
Can you expand on the first paragraph I have quoted? - not sure I quite understand your point.
How can you say that the "courts" ignored certain evidence? Do you really believe the jury got it "spectacularly" wrong?
Can you provide a link where we can see the hotel video? - that would be useful to those interested.
The woman did not go to police with a complain that she had been raped - but when it was suggested to her that she may have been, she took up the offer of a rape complaint.How can you say that the "courts" ignored certain evidence? Do you really believe the jury got it "spectacularly" wrong?
Can you provide a link where we can see the hotel video? - that would be useful to those interested.
The video was published on Ched Evans website, but was taken down during the trial - and there was talk of a case against them (Evans supporters) as Premier Inn claimed the tape was leaked without their permission.
In it the co defendant walks in with the woman - who then retraces her steps alone, and bends down to pick up a pizza box she had dropped as they exited the taxi before re-entering the hotel.
The receptionists evidence was repeated in the appeal:
Wales Online said:
The jury had heard evidence from Gavin Burrough who was working as a night receptionist at the hotel in Rhuddlan on the night in question.
Giving evidence in court on Thursday, Mr Burrough had said: “My impression was that the woman (the complainant) was extremely drunk. She was unsteady on her feet."
He added: “Her eyes were all glazed over, like a vacant expression. She didn’t seem to realise I was there. She seemed to look straight through me.
“I did ask her if she was okay but she didn’t reply.”
The defence had said that that while Mr Burrough heard “sex noises” coming from Room 14 he did not appear concerned or intervene.
Defence barrister Judy Khan QC had said: “He (Mr Burrough) did not even knock on the door."
This isn't as clear as the original I saw, as the whole figure is blurred instead of just the face. However you can still make out that she was able to walk, stoop and stand unaided, while in heels... hardly "unsteady on her feet"... and completely at odds with TooMany2cvs assertions and his suggestion that she may have been drugged!Giving evidence in court on Thursday, Mr Burrough had said: “My impression was that the woman (the complainant) was extremely drunk. She was unsteady on her feet."
He added: “Her eyes were all glazed over, like a vacant expression. She didn’t seem to realise I was there. She seemed to look straight through me.
“I did ask her if she was okay but she didn’t reply.”
The defence had said that that while Mr Burrough heard “sex noises” coming from Room 14 he did not appear concerned or intervene.
Defence barrister Judy Khan QC had said: “He (Mr Burrough) did not even knock on the door."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNiN7VByAPk
desolate said:
Mill Wheel said:
And what of TooMany2cvs, who while decrying footballers who behave despicably towards women, fails to acknowledge that there are women out there who hope to ride on the coat tails of fame and fortune by latching onto randy footballers and dropping their knickers then realise they could be onto a winner (no pun intended) when police tell them they may have been raped?
The worrying aspect of this case is the spotlight has been turned on the manner in which the courts CAN get things wrong in a spectacular fashion when they rely on the evidence recounted by witness testimony and ignore aspects like the hotel video which clearly showed the woman was not as "out of it" as the prosecution alleged.
Can you expand on the first paragraph I have quoted? - not sure I quite understand your point.The worrying aspect of this case is the spotlight has been turned on the manner in which the courts CAN get things wrong in a spectacular fashion when they rely on the evidence recounted by witness testimony and ignore aspects like the hotel video which clearly showed the woman was not as "out of it" as the prosecution alleged.
How can you say that the "courts" ignored certain evidence? Do you really believe the jury got it "spectacularly" wrong?
Can you provide a link where we can see the hotel video? - that would be useful to those interested.
Mill Wheel said:
This isn't as clear as the original I saw, as the whole figure is blurred instead of just the face. However you can still make out that she was able to walk, stoop and stand unaided, while in heels... hardly "unsteady on her feet"... and completely at odds with TooMany2cvs assertions and his suggestion that she may have been drugged!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNiN7VByAPk
That video isnt clear at all. Can hardly see the woman involved and as it is time lapsed it is in my opinion impossible to tell if she is unsteady on her feet or not.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNiN7VByAPk
Ultimately though he has been found not guilty. However the very fact he decided to partake in sexual activity with the girl and another man whilst having a partner of his own demonstrates his own character. He may have been dragged through the courts but that was caused by his own misjudgement in taking part in the activities he did that night.
There is a risk for any of us who might get involved in drunken shenanigans and if you are wealthy or famous or both that risk is higher.
As regards the Jessica Ennis position I can fully understand her point even though he has been found not guilty. Does she want to be associated with men who have appeared on the front pages of all the papers for the wrong reasons?
What has Ennis got to apologise for?
In addition offering £50,000 for 'information'.
Sorry, this isn't a clear case IMO and he's not come across as a Gent as he? (That's beside the point of course). Cynically but after offers of money new witness(es) come out with supporting information. Nothing was paid of course.
In addition offering £50,000 for 'information'.
Sorry, this isn't a clear case IMO and he's not come across as a Gent as he? (That's beside the point of course). Cynically but after offers of money new witness(es) come out with supporting information. Nothing was paid of course.
Chrisgr31 said:
That video isnt clear at all. Can hardly see the woman involved and as it is time lapsed it is in my opinion impossible to tell if she is unsteady on her feet or not.
Ultimately though he has been found not guilty. However the very fact he decided to partake in sexual activity with the girl and another man whilst having a partner of his own demonstrates his own character. He may have been dragged through the courts but that was caused by his own misjudgement in taking part in the activities he did that night.
There is a risk for any of us who might get involved in drunken shenanigans and if you are wealthy or famous or both that risk is higher.
As regards the Jessica Ennis position I can fully understand her point even though he has been found not guilty. Does she want to be associated with men who have appeared on the front pages of all the papers for the wrong reasons?
The YouTube video isn't clear at all, but the original video shown on the Ched Evans webpage only had the face blurred, and was clearer - and it did not have the Premier Inn watermarks removed.Ultimately though he has been found not guilty. However the very fact he decided to partake in sexual activity with the girl and another man whilst having a partner of his own demonstrates his own character. He may have been dragged through the courts but that was caused by his own misjudgement in taking part in the activities he did that night.
There is a risk for any of us who might get involved in drunken shenanigans and if you are wealthy or famous or both that risk is higher.
As regards the Jessica Ennis position I can fully understand her point even though he has been found not guilty. Does she want to be associated with men who have appeared on the front pages of all the papers for the wrong reasons?
Evans character has never been in doubt - he admitted in court that his behaviour fell below the standards expected... although some would say that we have come to expect poor moral standards from footballers!
The issue here has been "was he guilty of rape"?
The witness who provided evidence this time around of the woman's previous and subsequent behaviour, had already been interviewed before the first trial, and before the £50,000 reward was offered.
What was new here was that the judge decided that his testimony should be heard in court.
This was I believe, because the conviction revolved around the issue of consent, and the subsequent behaviours of the complainant - the victim.
The other issue was the reprehensible behaviour of Evans supporters in naming the victim on social media - and I believe this has been repeated since the retrial.
This has not helped Evans case in court, nor the investigation into the truth of the matter.
As for Jessica Ennis-Hill... she was not associated with Evans, she was associated with the club who employed him.
She might feel his character represented a stain on the club - but she gave his conviction as the reason for her stance, and now that he has been cleared, it would be nice of her to acknowledge this and accept that her blackmailing Sheffield United into denying Evans right to rehabilitation was an error on her part.
Mill Wheel said:
Chrisgr31 said:
That video isnt clear at all. Can hardly see the woman involved and as it is time lapsed it is in my opinion impossible to tell if she is unsteady on her feet or not.
Ultimately though he has been found not guilty. However the very fact he decided to partake in sexual activity with the girl and another man whilst having a partner of his own demonstrates his own character. He may have been dragged through the courts but that was caused by his own misjudgement in taking part in the activities he did that night.
There is a risk for any of us who might get involved in drunken shenanigans and if you are wealthy or famous or both that risk is higher.
As regards the Jessica Ennis position I can fully understand her point even though he has been found not guilty. Does she want to be associated with men who have appeared on the front pages of all the papers for the wrong reasons?
The YouTube video isn't clear at all, but the original video shown on the Ched Evans webpage only had the face blurred, and was clearer - and it did not have the Premier Inn watermarks removed.Ultimately though he has been found not guilty. However the very fact he decided to partake in sexual activity with the girl and another man whilst having a partner of his own demonstrates his own character. He may have been dragged through the courts but that was caused by his own misjudgement in taking part in the activities he did that night.
There is a risk for any of us who might get involved in drunken shenanigans and if you are wealthy or famous or both that risk is higher.
As regards the Jessica Ennis position I can fully understand her point even though he has been found not guilty. Does she want to be associated with men who have appeared on the front pages of all the papers for the wrong reasons?
Evans character has never been in doubt - he admitted in court that his behaviour fell below the standards expected... although some would say that we have come to expect poor moral standards from footballers!
The issue here has been "was he guilty of rape"?
The witness who provided evidence this time around of the woman's previous and subsequent behaviour, had already been interviewed before the first trial, and before the £50,000 reward was offered.
What was new here was that the judge decided that his testimony should be heard in court.
This was I believe, because the conviction revolved around the issue of consent, and the subsequent behaviours of the complainant - the victim.
The other issue was the reprehensible behaviour of Evans supporters in naming the victim on social media - and I believe this has been repeated since the retrial.
This has not helped Evans case in court, nor the investigation into the truth of the matter.
As for Jessica Ennis-Hill... she was not associated with Evans, she was associated with the club who employed him.
She might feel his character represented a stain on the club - but she gave his conviction as the reason for her stance, and now that he has been cleared, it would be nice of her to acknowledge this and accept that her blackmailing Sheffield United into denying Evans right to rehabilitation was an error on her part.
Evans does have a right to rehabilitation but he deoesnt have a right to choose where he works during that. Sheffield United believe their organisation doesn't want to employ Evans because of what he has done. Whether he has been found guilty or has been acquitted of rape doesn't necessarily affect their decision, what does is that he, in their opinion has engaged in an act they do not want to be associated with and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that opinion. Not everyone may agree with the opinion but there is nothing wrong with it, nor that of Mrs Hill
TooMany2cvs said:
Would anybody care about the case in the slightest, if not for what his job happened to be? If he was a builder or worked in McDogbits, it would have been a few column inches on page five and long since forgotten.
A couple of jack-the-lads who think they're something special get a teenage lass seriously pissed and doped-up, potentially surreptitiously sedated, then take advantage of her state. He-said-she-said, backed up by video evidence of her intoxication.
At the very least, both Evans and McDonald are repulsively loathsome slugs.
Well surprise, surprise. You're wrong again. Care to retract your statement now?A couple of jack-the-lads who think they're something special get a teenage lass seriously pissed and doped-up, potentially surreptitiously sedated, then take advantage of her state. He-said-she-said, backed up by video evidence of her intoxication.
At the very least, both Evans and McDonald are repulsively loathsome slugs.
drf765 said:
Sheffield United believe their organisation doesn't want to employ Evans because of what he has done. Whether he has been found guilty or has been acquitted of rape doesn't necessarily affect their decision, what does is that he, in their opinion has engaged in an act they do not want to be associated with and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that opinion. Not everyone may agree with the opinion but there is nothing wrong with it, nor that of Mrs Hill
You are incorrect.Evans did not get to choose where his rehabilitation took place... but Sheffield United offered to allow Evans to train with them, but were then forced to retract their offer after the intervention of Ms Ennis-Hill and some of their sponsors, hence my earlier use of the term "blackmail".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30054475
I see also that for once there seems to be an enthusiasm for revealing the reason for the verdict of the court... at least in the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ched-ev...
Moaningroadie said:
Interesting read:
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths...
An interesting point from that link talks about how Evans could reasonably infer consent from the manner in which she had sex with previous and subsequent sexual partners, with whom consent was not in dispute.https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths...
Not mentioned in that analysis though, unless I'm missing something obvious, is that Evans would not at the time of the alleged rape had knowledge of these other incidents, so how could he form an opinion of consent based on them? The appeal seems to bless Evans with knowledge of "how this girl likes to have sex" retrospectively.
That being said I think the reporting and commentary on this case, particularly from the likes of The Guardian, has been pretty reprehensible. It seems as if when the courts convicted him they were absolutely indutible, but the same court of law, finding him not guilty, has made a mistake, "set back progress by 30 years", etc, basically anything that supports the narrative that he is guilty anyway.
Durzel said:
Not mentioned in that analysis though, unless I'm missing something obvious, is that Evans would not at the time of the alleged rape had knowledge of these other incidents, so how could he form an opinion of consent based on them? The appeal seems to bless Evans with knowledge of "how this girl likes to have sex" retrospectively.
Evans' claim was that he formed an opinion of consent based on the girl saying 'f
k me harder'. The relevance of the previous incidents was that if she had used a similar form of words to give consent previously this made Evans' claim more plausible.I'm surprised that the alleged victims past sexual history was made available to the jury when it's been known that Evans supporters were offering money for 'evidence'.
There's a huge opportunity there to abuse the process there.
We all have previous sexual partners but as a female you can be in no fitstate and be cohered and abused when you aren't in the right frame of mind.
Will this set a precedent in future cases where the defendant has access to money?
Again, to me it demonstrates that people like Jess have absolutely no reason to apologise to anyone. As for blackmail? Have a word with yourself. The case was verging on bribery.
When the defence can offer payments for information, whether it be veiled or open paints a very disturbing picture.
There's a huge opportunity there to abuse the process there.
We all have previous sexual partners but as a female you can be in no fitstate and be cohered and abused when you aren't in the right frame of mind.
Will this set a precedent in future cases where the defendant has access to money?
Again, to me it demonstrates that people like Jess have absolutely no reason to apologise to anyone. As for blackmail? Have a word with yourself. The case was verging on bribery.
When the defence can offer payments for information, whether it be veiled or open paints a very disturbing picture.
Dr Jekyll said:
Evans' claim was that he formed an opinion of consent based on the girl saying 'fk me harder'. The relevance of the previous incidents was that if she had used a similar form of words to give consent previously this made Evans' claim more plausible.
That seems quite tenuous. With the advent of easy access pornography "fk me harder'. The relevance of the previous incidents was that if she had used a similar form of words to give consent previously this made Evans' claim more plausible.k me harder" has become a very common phrase.If I was a rapist trying to convince police that I wasn't, I may well say she used that phrase when she didn't.
And the same woman I raped my well have used that phrase when having consensual sex with someone else. It's not exactly a leftfield phrase.
If he'd claimed she said something out of the ordinary, like "tell me I'm a very naughty aardvark", and someone else could back that up by saying she said that while having consenting sex, then I think it carries more weight.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff