Another prove your innocence case

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

saying something hadnt happened when it had?

So are you saying that she made a false accusation?

[saaby93]

cookie118 said:

saaby93 said:

saying something hadnt happened when it had?

So are you saying that she made a false accusation?

Just relaying what was in the reports - Isn't that what came out?

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

ust relaying what was in the reports - Isn't that what came out?

Most definitely not.
The reports state that after a £50,000 reward was put up, two former partners came forward with information that the victim used wording that exactly matched the wording Ched Evans said she used.

Now, you appear to be insinuating that her reports are false (even if you are avoiding saying it directly). Are you not presuming guilt of a criminal offence there?

[saaby93]

cookie118 said:

saaby93 said:

ust relaying what was in the reports - Isn't that what came out?

Most definitely not.
The reports state that after a £50,000 reward was put up, two former partners came forward with information that the victim used wording that exactly matched the wording Ched Evans said she used.

Now, you appear to be insinuating that her reports are false (even if you are avoiding saying it directly). Are you not presuming guilt of a criminal offence there?

No insinuating no such thing
Youd have to go back into the case but it wasnt as straightforward as that

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

cookie118 said:

saaby93 said:

Wha do you mean by crying wolf?

To raise a false alarm. How about you?

saying something hadnt happened when it had?

What did she say hadn’t happened when it had?

What you’re describing sounds like a lie, but most lies aren’t “crying wolf”.

[saaby93]

La Liga said:

hat did she say hadn’t happened when it had?

What you’re describing sounds like a lie, but most lies aren’t “crying wolf”.

Let's forget I said 'cry wolf'. It's being taken the wrong way.
Unless someone knows otherwise she didn't do that, but what happened is relevant for the thread

[Thorodin]

All a bit irrelevant to the case really. Archaic phrases may mean all things to all men. What matters is the presumption that unsupported allegations were taken to be, and the first jury were instructed in this, sound evidence that was taken as sufficient 'proof' of the alleged event. It obviously was 'unsound', another word for false or prejudicial or perjury - lawyers take your pick. How many more of these charades in subservience to crock-eyed feminism must there be before a proper review is made? How long before another liar has a 'friend' that will support her (or him) by alleging, with no supporting evidence, she too suffered the same fate by the same defendant? The problem is a result of the blind faith myth that men are rapists if a woman says so, even when there is no evidence other than her singular testimony. Three cheers for the law!

[anonymous-user]

Thorodin said:

All a bit irrelevant to the case really. Archaic phrases may mean all things to all men. What matters is the presumption that unsupported allegations were taken to be, and the first jury were instructed in this, sound evidence that was taken as sufficient 'proof' of the alleged event. It obviously was 'unsound', another word for false or prejudicial or perjury - lawyers take your pick. How many more of these charades in subservience to crock-eyed feminism must there be before a proper review is made? How long before another liar has a 'friend' that will support her (or him) by alleging, with no supporting evidence, she too suffered the same fate by the same defendant? The problem is a result of the blind faith myth that men are rapists if a woman says so, even when there is no evidence other than her singular testimony. Three cheers for the law!

Absolutely not. The judgement of not guilty means that the accusation was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt. It means the defendant has the right to go free as if it did not happen, but does not return a verdict on the victim in this case. You yourself are making a false accusation here, presuming guilt rather than innocence.

You seem to be falling victim to the (actual) myth that a not guilty verdict means the accuser must have been lying, and believing the myth that false accusations are rife.

[anonymous-user]

Thorodin said:

All a bit irrelevant to the case really. Archaic phrases may mean all things to all men. What matters is the presumption that unsupported allegations were taken to be, and the first jury were instructed in this, sound evidence that was taken as sufficient 'proof' of the alleged event. It obviously was 'unsound', another word for false or prejudicial or perjury - lawyers take your pick. How many more of these charades in subservience to crock-eyed feminism must there be before a proper review is made? How long before another liar has a 'friend' that will support her (or him) by alleging, with no supporting evidence, she too suffered the same fate by the same defendant? The problem is a result of the blind faith myth that men are rapists if a woman says so, even when there is no evidence other than her singular testimony. Three cheers for the law!

The complaint in the Evans case at no point complained she had been raped, she stated she had no memory of what went on which was the basis for the prosecution to assert she was not able to consent, nor for Evans to reasonably believe she was consenting.

How was it ‘obviously unsound’? Evidence can be sound but simply unable to overcome counter-evidence which introduces reasonable doubt.

There was corroboration around her level of intoxication on CCTV, and IIRC, from witnesses. That’s by definition corroboration and supporting evidence. The supporting evidence you seem keen to incorrectly state was absent.

The piece earlier in the thread makes the case for rape cases to no have juries. Reading posts like yours helps support that suggestion.

It’s perfectly possible she has no memory of what went on but did use the specific words which were the basis for introducing reasonable doubt in the re-trial.

It’s perfectly possible she wasn’t able to consent and thus didn’t, but Evans reasonably believed she was consenting.

At least attached ‘feminism’ to your errors.

[Thorodin]

I accept I am corrected in my prejudices with all the grace I can muster although the post was written somewhat tongue in cheek. The root of this lies in an apparent acceptance of Not Guilty being equivalent to 'Not Guilty but.......'. What does that do to a genuinely innocent Accused? Are we saying there should be an alignment with Scotland as in Not Proven? Wouldn't that be more accurate? In these cases the 'not guilty' Accused carries the assumed burden of guilt for evermore.

[saaby93]

Thorodin said:

All a bit irrelevant to the case really.

It's all relevant to this thread though
As La Liga says

La Liga said:

The complaint in the Evans case at no point complained she had been raped,

She had no recollection of the event and didnt pursue the case against Evans.
It was the police that ran the prosecution on the basis that if she had no recollection she couldnt have consented and this seemed to find favour with the first Jury.
At the time there were no reports on the manner of relationship but Cookies found the Guardian article which is quite explicit
However another witness turned up afterwards and I think was discussed in the PH thread who'd also spent a night with her some months before and was surprised that afterwards that she'd had no recollection of the event. There was something about the manner of the intercourse which made him surprised but exactly what, wasnt reported at the time.

Cookie found this article - it's agreed the complainant wasnt 'crying wolf', the complainant never had any recollection.

cookie118 said:

If you are talking about the additional evidence presented at the second trial-that most definitely was not the complainant 'crying wolf' in previous relations.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/14/ca...

In there you can see that what Evans had asserted was the manner of their encounter, in the way that could be said, she'd been the one taking the lead and forceful too.
The article showed the other witnesses had independently said the same had happened to them - whether one of them is the witness above - it's not clear.
However it seems that the second Jury on realising that this was the way encounters happened that Evans probably was being truthful in his explanation of what happened, or at least had nothing to say that he wasnt.
The complainant having no recollection couldnt say one way or the other.
The appeal held

Why it matters to this thread is that Evans had to prove his innocence to break the link the prosecution hade made that no recollection means no consent.
Evans has relayed that he holds no malice to the complainant, it's not even clear that she was a complainant.

It brings us back to this

andy_s said:

This may help...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov...

'Juries have no place in rape trials. They simply can’t be trusted'

it shouldnt be necessary to trawl back through someones sexual history to prove innocence or otherwise
The case should have rested firmly on the case as it stood - what if there were no similar encounters?

'no recollection' should not have directly lead to 'no consent'.

It would be interesting to know what conclusion a sitting Judge wihout a Jury would have made

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

it shouldnt be necessary to trawl back through someones sexual history to prove innocence or otherwise
The case should have rested firmly on the case as it stood - what if there were no similar encounters?

'no recollection' should not have directly lead to 'no consent'.

It would be interesting to know what conclusion a sitting Judge wihout a Jury would have made

But the case was tried without the history of the victim, and he was found guilty.

Lack of recollection was not automatically used as the sole evidence, other’s testimony about the victim’s state of inebriation was used in the case, and in the first case the jury was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the victim did not or could not consent.

[saaby93]

cookie118 said:

saaby93 said:

it shouldnt be necessary to trawl back through someones sexual history to prove innocence or otherwise
The case should have rested firmly on the case as it stood - what if there were no similar encounters?

'no recollection' should not have directly lead to 'no consent'.

It would be interesting to know what conclusion a sitting Judge wihout a Jury would have made

But the case was tried without the history of the victim, and he was found guilty.

Lack of recollection was not automatically used as the sole evidence, other’s testimony about the victim’s state of inebriation was used in the case, and in the first case the jury was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the victim did not or could not consent.

And overuled the defendant's claim and as described in the Guardian article you found that at the time she knew what she was doing.
(she wasnt passive and incapable)
Hence the second Guardian article question about whether juries can be used in these type of cases.
Not easy but the law should be balanced such that the innocent go free.

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 27th November 07:48

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

And overuled the defendant's claim and as described in the Guardian article you found that at the time she knew what she was doing.
(she wasnt passive and incapable)
Hence the second Guardian article question about whether juries can be used in these type of cases.
Not easy but the law should be balanced such that the innocent go free.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 27th November 07:48

The Guardian article nor the trial proves that the victim knew what she was doing, gave or was capable of providing consent.

The defence managed to find two prior partners whose testimony matched words that Evans' stated was said, that was linked to behaviour that in the other occasions could be reasonably interpreted as consent by the other party. It definitely does not prove that consent was given on the occasion with Evans, or that the victim was in a position to give consent.

[saaby93]

cookie118 said:

saaby93 said:

And overuled the defendant's claim and as described in the Guardian article you found that at the time she knew what she was doing.
(she wasnt passive and incapable)
Hence the second Guardian article question about whether juries can be used in these type of cases.
Not easy but the law should be balanced such that the innocent go free.

The Guardian article nor the trial proves that the victim knew what she was doing, gave or was capable of providing consent.
The defence managed to find two prior partners whose testimony matched words that Evans' stated was said, that was linked to behaviour that in the other occasions could be reasonably interpreted as consent by the other party. It definitely does not prove that consent was given on the occasion with Evans, or that the victim was in a position to give consent.

Surely the first article did not prove things either way - it did at least provide some facts.
There are no winners in these cases and both parties could be said to be victims in the end

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 27th November 20:55

[saaby93]

What about this one - not quite the same
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-4...
no crime pursued yet details saved on the police computer for later, just in case

[saaby93]

or the tesco guys
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46459884
'Quite how the SFO managed to so fundamentally misunderstand the effect of its own evidence demands an answer'

[saaby93]

And another
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46347051
3.5 years in Jail 2008

beeb said:

Cardiff University's Innocence Project had taken his case to the Court of Appeal, believing it was a miscarriage of justice.

High Court Judges ruled his "conviction cannot be regarded as safe".

[BlackLabel]

“Victims of crimes, including those alleging rape, are to be asked to hand their phones over to police - or risk prosecutions not going ahead.
Consent forms asking for permission to access information including emails, messages and photographs, have been rolled out in England and Wales.
It comes after a number of rape and serious sexual assault cases collapsed after crucial evidence emerged.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48086244

[anonymous-user]

Overdue. I am surprised that looking at their phones isn't already standard procedure. Is the fear of the (wrong, IMO) accusation of victim blaming really that strong that the powers that be can't (won't ask to) see all of the available evidence?