Ched Evans rape conviction quashed
Discussion
Quashed and a retrial ordered on the grounds that the first conviction was unsafe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36099522
If he is found not guilty, how will he be compensated for his time in jail, and the loss of his career?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36099522
If he is found not guilty, how will he be compensated for his time in jail, and the loss of his career?
TooMany2cvs said:
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.
Firstly AIUI, the victim reported to police that she thought she may have been drugged, but a blood test failed to find traces of anything except alcohol.At the very least, both Evans and McDonald are repulsively loathsome slugs.
Secondly McDonald has already been found not guilty of the crime that they were both charged with, and you can't (and therefore shouldn't) be locked up for simply being loathsome.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.So what would TTWK and LL call it when JEH says to Sheffield United, "If you employ Ched, I will make you remove my name from your stand".
Emotional blackmail?
I favour this definition:
Emotional blackmail?
I favour this definition:
Urban Dictionary said:
Blackmail refers to a situation that arises when a person threatens another person with some form of punishment if they do not offer some form of concessions. Blackmail is usually the result of one person somehow obtaining embarrassing information about another and threatening to disclose it unless some form of payment (money or favors) is offered. The term originates from the words "black" and "mail", which referred to the dark or threatening nature of the letters (mail) that were received detailing the threat. Although blackmail usually entails paying a price to obtain another person's silence about an embarrassing situation, it need not involve an actual event before it can be conducted. The threat of embarrassing someone for a contrived event can be enough to conduct blackmail effectively, provided the threat is believable.
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.
Here is a slightly better copy of the video for you.http://s15.photobucket.com/user/Engraver/media/Che...
Note the degree of interaction with the receptionist inside the hotel.
He testified in court that she stumbled, looked drunk, and had a vacant look on her face.
desolate said:
I am not quite sure what that video is supposed to demonstrate.
I can see someone who stumbled and went back outside to pick up a Pizza that was left on the floor (or perhaps a wall)
I can't see her face, but it's fairly likely she was drunk. No idea how drunk she was though and if I wore those shoes I would stumble as well.
The prosecution alleged that she was so drunk she had difficulty standing.I can see someone who stumbled and went back outside to pick up a Pizza that was left on the floor (or perhaps a wall)
I can't see her face, but it's fairly likely she was drunk. No idea how drunk she was though and if I wore those shoes I would stumble as well.
Despite those shoes, she seems to be managing fairly well, unaided.
The Pizza was on the floor - she put it down when she got out of the taxi - then for some reason decided to walk back for it.
She had sat in the front of the taxi, after the driver told her she could not take it in the back seat of the taxi.
Pete317 said:
She certainly doesn't look "barely conscious" to me
It would appear that despite claims to the contrary, that you are not alone!Not everyone sees it that way though.
TooMany2cvs said:
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.
TooMany2cvs said:
ozzuk said:
I'd be mindful what you post on a public forum, if he is found not guilty then wouldn't he be able to sue for libel?
Not if what's been said is true.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff