Ched Evans rape conviction quashed
Discussion
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/ched-evans-r...
Wales Online said:
11:51
Witness is re-examined
The witness is now being re-examined by defence barrister Judith Khan QC, who is asking why he did not include certain details in his first statement.
She said: “If you had been asked to give those details, would you have given them?”
He replied: “Yes I would.”
The witness said he found out two days ago about the £50,000 reward on offer for information that could lead to Evans’ acquittal,
He said: “If that was my motive, to take a reward, I’ve got a lot more to lose than to gain.
“I do a well-paid job. I could earn that money in less than 12 months and I hope to be in that job for the next 20 years.”
Ms Khan said: “Have you lied to this jury?”
The witness replied: “No.”
11:37
Witness 'not award of reward'
The jury are now being read messages between the witness and the complainant that were sent the day after the alleged incident.
The woman told him: “Long story short, I may have been spiked on Sunday night and attacked. I feel horrible. I don’t even want to go home. Need to see you.”
She added: “You may need to see the police because I’ve slept with you and they need to rule you out of it. Sorry about this. I feel so embarrassed.”
The prosecutor asked: “Were you aware that a very substantial amount of money was on offer for information that could secure Mr Evans’ acquittal in the Court of Appeal?”
The witness, who gave evidence in the Court of Appeal proceedings, said he knew of the website, but was not aware of the reward.
Witness is re-examined
The witness is now being re-examined by defence barrister Judith Khan QC, who is asking why he did not include certain details in his first statement.
She said: “If you had been asked to give those details, would you have given them?”
He replied: “Yes I would.”
The witness said he found out two days ago about the £50,000 reward on offer for information that could lead to Evans’ acquittal,
He said: “If that was my motive, to take a reward, I’ve got a lot more to lose than to gain.
“I do a well-paid job. I could earn that money in less than 12 months and I hope to be in that job for the next 20 years.”
Ms Khan said: “Have you lied to this jury?”
The witness replied: “No.”
11:37
Witness 'not award of reward'
The jury are now being read messages between the witness and the complainant that were sent the day after the alleged incident.
The woman told him: “Long story short, I may have been spiked on Sunday night and attacked. I feel horrible. I don’t even want to go home. Need to see you.”
She added: “You may need to see the police because I’ve slept with you and they need to rule you out of it. Sorry about this. I feel so embarrassed.”
The prosecutor asked: “Were you aware that a very substantial amount of money was on offer for information that could secure Mr Evans’ acquittal in the Court of Appeal?”
The witness, who gave evidence in the Court of Appeal proceedings, said he knew of the website, but was not aware of the reward.
Dr Jekyll said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That seems quite tenuous. With the advent of easy access pornography "f
k me harder" has become a very common phrase.
We obviously move in very different circles.k me harder" has become a very common phrase.k me harder" would be on there. Might not be top answer, but would definitely appear.I'm not saying that in the circles I move in it's a common phrase. "Is it in yet?" seems more prevalent in my world.
hora said:
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.
You're conflating two distinct issues; should the previous sexual activity of the complainant be made available to the jury and, is it right that potential witnesses are offered rewards to come forward with 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.
In the former, my opinion is that if the information is sufficiently narrow in scope and relevance (for example, it's not being used to blacken the character of the person in question, rather to help establish a specific fact or facts), then it appears to be beneficial to the interest of justice, rather than against it. Had Chest Evans been accused of or convicted of similar acts prior to this trial, as defendant, he may have been subject to a bad character application by the prosecution to share this information with the jury. If the defendant is exposed to analysis by the jury of his previous relevant behaviour, it seems fair so should the complainant.
As for rewards being offered for information, this is something that has been historically offered by both prosecuting and defending authorities. Many's the time you watch Crime Watch and there's a reward for information. As in this case, a witness can be examined and cross examined on the matter and the jury can decide on the safety of the information on offer. The courts have powers to restrict juries access to such evidence and even end trials altogether where it's wrongful inclusion precludes a fair result.
In a case like this one, where putting yourself forward involves your very private life being put into public focus by the national media, it stands to reason people might need some encouragement to put their head above the parapet. For me that reward being offered doesn't make any information arising out of it as being tainted. In any case, the protections described above apply.
Evan's freedom hung on a very narrow piece of factual information, and his subjective interpretation of it. Whilst his behaviour is not going to get him any invites to the Vatican, his freedom, future prospects and reputation were on the line and I think it was only right the case be re-examined. Whether the result is the right one is down to the jury and what they saw in the facts. I trust them (and the previous jury, who didn't have access to the same information) to have come to the right decision in each case.
hora said:
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.
hora said:
Here's £5,000 for information if you say she also said aardvark to you. It'll clear your overdraft and buy you a nice Corsa.
I presume you have heard of CRIMESTOPPERS who use this technique to gather intelligence on crime as a matter of course?The woman has never approached the police to complain she was raped - she went to them because she could not find her handbag in the room.
After questioning her, it was the police who suggested that she had been raped by the two men, because THEY said she could not have consented in her state - and the CPS happily went along with it.
During their enquiries, the woman gave the name of the "new" witness, and he was questioned by police because he had slept with her very recently and his DNA needed to be eliminated.
He suggested in court that this was the reason he was not asked by the police about his opinion of the woman which he later revealed to the defence team, and he was not called at the original trial.
janesmith1950 said:
There wasn't a victim here at all...
Except perhaps Evans, who was not allowed to resume his career with his employers due to pressure from do gooders, despite him serving his sentence for a crime that the alleged victim didn't report, and which he has now finally been cleared of.Mill Wheel said:
janesmith1950 said:
There wasn't a victim here at all...
Except perhaps Evans, who was not allowed to resume his career with his employers due to pressure from do gooders, despite him serving his sentence for a crime that the alleged victim didn't report, and which he has now finally been cleared of.Mill Wheel said:
Except perhaps Evans, who was not allowed to resume his career with his employers due to pressure from do gooders, despite him serving his sentence for a crime that the alleged victim didn't report, and which he has now finally been cleared of.
At the time he was a convicted rapist. People are quite entitled to object to organisations they support, and are paying customers of, employing a convicted rapist, even one who has served his time. Those organisations are entitled to ignore the concerns of their customers and employ one anyway, although that might not be a wise option.Any organisation employing a convicted criminal, especially one convicted of a sexual offence, has to weigh up the assets of the employee and what benefit they can bring, against the orgganistation's reputation and any damage that might be caused to it by employing such a person.
That's the way things work in the real world.
PAULJ5555 said:
As for Jessica Ennis-Hill... she was not associated with Evans, she was associated with the club who employed him.
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.
Yep
Nope. She never blackmailed anyone. She was a high profile athlete with a spotless reputation that SUFC chose to honour by naming a stand after her. She never asked them to. When they were considering employing a convicted rapist, she asked that the stand be renamed if they went ahead as she didn't want her name associated with an organisation that would employ a convicted rapist. 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.
Yep
SUFC chose her association over Ched Evans. The could have chose Ched over her, but they didn't. She did nothing wrong.
PAULJ5555 said:
As for Jessica Ennis-Hill... she was not associated with Evans, she was associated with the club who employed him.
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.
Yep
Be careful what you write on open forums. Do you have proof of her 'blackmailing' Sheffield United? If not, you could leave yourself open to an action for libel.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.
Yep
KevinCamaroSS said:
PAULJ5555 said:
As for Jessica Ennis-Hill... she was not associated with Evans, she was associated with the club who employed him.
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.
Yep
Be careful what you write on open forums. Do you have proof of her 'blackmailing' Sheffield United? If not, you could leave yourself open to an action for libel.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.
Yep
Blackmail - Give me something I'm not entitled to, or I will do something unpleasant to you (usually illegal) that you don't deserve. Eg. Pay me £1m, or I will kill your family member I am holding hostage.
Statement of fact - If you employ a convicted rapist, I want my name removed from your stand as I will wish to end my association with you.
You may agree or disagree with JEH's stance, but blackmail it ain't.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I don't think he understands what blackmail is.
Blackmail - Give me something I'm not entitled to, or I will do something unpleasant to you (usually illegal) that you don't deserve. Eg. Pay me £1m, or I will kill your family member I am holding hostage.
Statement of fact - If you employ a convicted rapist, I want my name removed from your stand as I will wish to end my association with you.
You may agree or disagree with JEH's stance, but blackmail it ain't.
Er I think your scenario is more akin to kidnap and extortion. Blackmail - Give me something I'm not entitled to, or I will do something unpleasant to you (usually illegal) that you don't deserve. Eg. Pay me £1m, or I will kill your family member I am holding hostage.
Statement of fact - If you employ a convicted rapist, I want my name removed from your stand as I will wish to end my association with you.
You may agree or disagree with JEH's stance, but blackmail it ain't.
You definitely don't understand what blackmail is
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff