Ched Evans Jailed...
- Thread starter rich75
- Start date
thinktank
Hmmm...
- Sep 28, 2004
- 45,893
- 68,893
Apparently, due to new witnesses coming forward and a light being shone on the girls historical sex exploits - which, at times, apparently, uncannily mirrored the events that took place in that hotel - the Jury only deliberated for 3 hours to then acquit.
Wasn't aware of her being outed on social media when I made that post, so knew nothing about that.
My concern is that one can get accused of something and potentially be mercilessly dragged through the court system, having one's life decimated, only to be spat out the other end, innocence verified, but with no legal inspection or punishment whatsoever directed at those who may have made spurious/false claims against you.
You thinking some men should just have to live with that because other fucked up individuals with no connection to them, rape, is perverse in itself. And I would think you may hold a different view if it was you yourself, son, father etc. who was on the unforgiving end of it.
I wouldn't imagine there's a bloke on this forum who doesn't think rape is abhorrent, that goes without saying.
The issue is justice at either side. If a bloke rapes, then batter him with the full force of the law; if it's clear someone has cooked up a fishy tale then the law needs to be applied fairly in that direction also
The argument that it might put other women off of taking forward genuine claims of rape is not good enough for me, personally.
The main problem, as I see it, is that women who make - and have made - false allegations wreak unspeakable damage to genuine rape claimants and the court process thereafter.
Last edited:
Spurger King
can't smile without glue
- Jul 22, 2008
- 43,881
- 95,149
And when women have clearly lied they get punished. 'Fishy' isn't a legal term for 'guilty' as I understand it, and seems more like the kind of word someone would use for their subjective views on something that is at best ambiguous. A man shouldn't be jailed based on suspicion, and neither should a woman. He may have raped her, she may have lied about it, but a jury has decided that there's not enough evidence for either decision. Alcohol tends to muddy the waters, and the legal system is there to look for any concrete evidence of truth. I suspect there's a lot of cases where the circumstances aren't clear to the public, the jury, or the people involved.
Let's try to be sensible about this. Nobody wants to see innocent people dragged through the mud, but life isn't black and white.
thinktank
Hmmm...
- Sep 28, 2004
- 45,893
- 68,893
Commensurate to the term time the man would have gotten for a guilty charge?
And, of course, I'm pointing to clear cases where the evidence is strong either side.
I'm aware this case wasn't clear cut but I think the CPS has set itself on an very messy path.
Spurger King
can't smile without glue
- Jul 22, 2008
- 43,881
- 95,149
Personally I think that if there is solid evidence that someone has lied about rape, they should get the same punishment they were hoping to see handed down to their victim.
But that's a naive wish. As adults we can appreciate that rape is generally caused by men, and that there is a documented history of women admitting that they did not come forward due to fear of not being believed. On this topic I can appreciate where you are coming from, but you're after a perfect legal system, and that can never exist. There's too many possibilities for grey areas when it comes to rape, which is why you don't get men jailed on a hunch (in the UK anyway). You can't jail women on a hunch of false allegations either. Let's say she was raped, but the jury have decided that there's not enough evidence to convict him. In that scenario she's also had her name dragged through the mud, and left with a tarnished reputation as a potential false accuser.
idontgetit
Well-Known Member
- Aug 21, 2011
- 14,541
- 31,109
The real problem highlighted by this case was that the initial verdict deemed the guy who's spent a long time with the "too drunk" girl as having consent but Evans who'd just walked in to room as not. That kinda made consent a factor of time and not consciousness which has huge implications
thinktank
Hmmm...
- Sep 28, 2004
- 45,893
- 68,893
And as we know, the CPS is doing everything in it's power to change that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...oman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html
I absolutely appreciate that there are times where things are extremely grey and the whole process is tricky.
I don't think this Evans case is one though, personally.
Spurger King
can't smile without glue
- Jul 22, 2008
- 43,881
- 95,149
Personally, I do. You can see how this would turn out if we were both on the jury.
I'm pretty passionate about the rights of people falsely accused (having been on the receiving end years ago), but sometimes the only clear decision that the jury can take is that it's unclear. Extrapolating guilt from uncertainty doesn't work for me.
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
Secret Barrister does a good write-up
Among other things:
1. So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right?
Wrong. You’d be forgiven for thinking this, given that it was in the prepared statement read out by his solicitor, but Ched Evans has not “demonstrated his innocence”. That is not how our criminal justice system operates. It is not a means by which the truth of a situation or event is conclusively and fully determined. Rather the jury are asked one simply question – are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (or, as juries are commonly instructed, so that you are sure)? “Not guilty” means just that. The jury were not sure that he was guilty. They may have decided that he was totally, utterly innocent, but we don’t know. All we know is that they considered the evidence, and were less than sure of his guilt. As I tell juries in every closing speech – if you think the defendant probably did it, he’s still not guilty.
Among other things:
1. So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right?
Wrong. You’d be forgiven for thinking this, given that it was in the prepared statement read out by his solicitor, but Ched Evans has not “demonstrated his innocence”. That is not how our criminal justice system operates. It is not a means by which the truth of a situation or event is conclusively and fully determined. Rather the jury are asked one simply question – are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (or, as juries are commonly instructed, so that you are sure)? “Not guilty” means just that. The jury were not sure that he was guilty. They may have decided that he was totally, utterly innocent, but we don’t know. All we know is that they considered the evidence, and were less than sure of his guilt. As I tell juries in every closing speech – if you think the defendant probably did it, he’s still not guilty.
agrdavidsfan
Ledley's Knee!
- Aug 25, 2005
- 10,918
- 13,352
Tbf the details that were missed first time round made it all very clear to
- Feb 1, 2005
- 55,635
- 205,515
- Admin
- #1,731
If the woman didn't make the complaint of rape how on earth has she lied? I'm not sure why she's getting any stick at all, but then again I haven't read the finer details.
I've just read through the early pages of this thread.......wow.
I've just read through the early pages of this thread.......wow.
tototoner
Staying Alert
- Mar 21, 2004
- 29,411
- 34,148
Yeap just read it, everyone with a view on this should
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/
danielneeds
Kick-Ass
- May 5, 2004
- 24,183
- 48,814
Yep, I think the last point probably hits the nail on the head.
"10. What does this whole affair say about our society?
Christ knows. Nothing good."
Danners9
Available on a Free Transfer
- Mar 30, 2004
- 14,018
- 20,807
Point 6 about her sexual history was quite interesting - especially as that sort of thing isn't usually considered.
The write up explains it well, but also I read somewhere else yesterday that on both occasions she woke up unsure where she was or what she had done - but this was the only time (of the 3..) that she claimed rape afterwards. I presume that Evans' team used it to show a pattern of behaviour where she may well have consented, as she had before, and therefore created doubt that it was rape, but this time she found out it was a footballer... dangerous. It takes several steps along the road to saying it's okay to rape prostitutes or if the girl is known as 'easy' then she said yes, of course she said yes, and her opinion doesn't matter anyway. Dangerous...
---
Anyway, this piece is getting praise from various back slapping journos and criticism from most who follow their Twitter accounts: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...just-how-sick-football-culture-in-britain-is/
Basically it cites Adam Johnson, 'Team Ched' and then compares it to Trump's 'locker room talk' as a way to bad mouth football culture - whatever that is.
Really though, the issue is wider. It's the same if you were for or against Brexit, for or against the Tories/Labour, Trump/Hillary, all manner of things. The writer, and subsequent commentators, want to pin it on the tribalism of football but it's indicative of a more divided society. Rich/poor, right/left, 'experts'/everyone else - basically those with vs those without, making one right and automatically therefore one wrong.
It's also part of the social media age where someone is on you within seconds for having an opinion. Something they don't like it wrong straight away, and if you are for something you are therefore in favour of all sorts of other things - as well as against other things. The grey areas have been eliminated - not guilty doesn't mean innocent (Scotland has the option of 'not proven' for such decisions), but this is still a victory for Evans (eventually) and his supporters will translate it to meaning innocent. Which therefore makes the girl a lying slut, in their eyes.
What happens when the next person accused of rape isn't a footballer. Do they then go and bad mouth that culture? make one up to fit.. or just recognise there is a toxicity within society these days causing resentment, aggression, blame and general bad feeling.
Veuve Clicquot
Well-Known Member
- Jun 29, 2012
- 533
- 1,032
I can't beleve one or two posters on here belive Evans is innocent/ deserves an apology and that the girl should somehow be punished for being a victim in this, because she clearly was.
If anyone has read the full details of this case, what is very clear is that the girl was treated like a piece of meat by Evans (and by his 'friend') and if you think it's ok for a woman to be treated like that then you are basically condoning rape and I feel very sorry for any daughters/partners/mothers in your lives if that is your attitude.
There are no grey areas in what constitutes rape, it is where the victim has not fully and freely given consent to sex,. In this case, the victim was highly inebriated (as confirmed by various witnesses) and clearly not in a fit condition to give her consent. He didn't even have a conversation with her ffs, but he has been found 'not guilty' not because he was innocent but because the jury couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt.
And anyone trying to victim blame her for being drunk, these are the words of the Director of public posecutions -
'It is not a crime to drink, but it is a crime for a rapist to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex though drink'
The victims sexual history should also not be relevant to whether or not she was raped as, just because the victim may have had a number of sexual partners doesn't mean one (or more) of the partners isn't a rapist and it doesn't make her less believable.
In this appeal however, Evans legal team found a legal loophole to and introduced evidence from the victims past, and if you read about how they came about this evidence it is highly questionable and unethical if you read this link https://www.theguardian.com/society...ers-fear-evans-case-will-stop-women-reporting
Men should understand that rape is the one of the most traumatic and personally violating things that can happen to a woman, and even though 85,000 cases were reported just last year, the real number will be a lot higher than that because a lot of women are scared and ashamed to come forward, due to the fear of having to relive the trauma of the assault, the further humiliation and violation of rape tests in hospital and the stress of having a potential court case dragging on for months if not years.
Believe me that women don't want to be put through that living nightmare in the first place only to then be accused by some neanderthal misogynists of being liars and wanting their names dragged through the mud even more.
Evans got away with it with the help of his and his millionaire girlfriends money but my heart goes out to his victim and all of the women who have suffered sexual assault.
If anyone has read the full details of this case, what is very clear is that the girl was treated like a piece of meat by Evans (and by his 'friend') and if you think it's ok for a woman to be treated like that then you are basically condoning rape and I feel very sorry for any daughters/partners/mothers in your lives if that is your attitude.
There are no grey areas in what constitutes rape, it is where the victim has not fully and freely given consent to sex,. In this case, the victim was highly inebriated (as confirmed by various witnesses) and clearly not in a fit condition to give her consent. He didn't even have a conversation with her ffs, but he has been found 'not guilty' not because he was innocent but because the jury couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt.
And anyone trying to victim blame her for being drunk, these are the words of the Director of public posecutions -
'It is not a crime to drink, but it is a crime for a rapist to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex though drink'
The victims sexual history should also not be relevant to whether or not she was raped as, just because the victim may have had a number of sexual partners doesn't mean one (or more) of the partners isn't a rapist and it doesn't make her less believable.
In this appeal however, Evans legal team found a legal loophole to and introduced evidence from the victims past, and if you read about how they came about this evidence it is highly questionable and unethical if you read this link https://www.theguardian.com/society...ers-fear-evans-case-will-stop-women-reporting
Men should understand that rape is the one of the most traumatic and personally violating things that can happen to a woman, and even though 85,000 cases were reported just last year, the real number will be a lot higher than that because a lot of women are scared and ashamed to come forward, due to the fear of having to relive the trauma of the assault, the further humiliation and violation of rape tests in hospital and the stress of having a potential court case dragging on for months if not years.
Believe me that women don't want to be put through that living nightmare in the first place only to then be accused by some neanderthal misogynists of being liars and wanting their names dragged through the mud even more.
Evans got away with it with the help of his and his millionaire girlfriends money but my heart goes out to his victim and all of the women who have suffered sexual assault.
Last edited:
WorcesterTHFC
Well-Known Member
- May 4, 2016
- 1,788
- 2,565
For some time now, I've had the opinion that English (or Anglo-Welsh) law should be changed so that juries here have the 'not proven' verdict available to them, as their counterparts in Scotland have. The fact that Parliament has made no attempt to change the law is a damning indictment of 'our' lawmakers.
idontgetit
Well-Known Member
- Aug 21, 2011
- 14,541
- 31,109
Do you think his co-defendant was rightly acquitted in the previous trial?
Veuve Clicquot
Well-Known Member
- Jun 29, 2012
- 533
- 1,032
Personally speaking I thought the co-defendant was equally guilty, plus he was the one who put the inebriated girl in a taxi and phoned Evans to say 'he had got a girl' like she was a some mindless object that they could use and abuse for their own personal needs. Both of their respective behaviour that night was vile and despicable, but he probably got away with it because he spent more time with the victim and therefore it was more difficult to prove the consent issue.
Monkey boy
Well-Known Member
- Jun 18, 2011
- 6,452
- 17,186
When a girl bends over and shouts fuck me harder then I'm sorry but where I'm from that means that she knows exactly what she is doing and that she is far from being raped but actually enjoying the experience.
Anyway, looks like we'll never agree on this so let's just leave it at that.
Ps. I've not seen anyone on here condoning rape so find it a bit annoying that you're implying that if someone has a difference of opinion to you then they are some sort of Neanderthal rapist.
Syn_13
Fly On, Little Wing
- Jul 17, 2008
- 14,852
- 20,661
So Evans goes all Monty Burns with his legal team to find some sort of a loophole and hires a private detective in the process. The two witnesses suddenly decide to give more detailed statements to describe the way she had sex, using words like "fuck me harder". Did she actually say this? I doubt she'd be able to remember if she was drunk. If she didn't say it, or if there's no proof that she did at the very least, then can we really use a phrase like that as being consistent enough amongst the 3 instances to believe she's actually said it? It's not exactly an extraordinary thing to say during sex. It's apparently rare for a judge to allow this kind of evidence to be used, so I'm surprised it's been allowed. Can't help but feel that if it wasn't a high profile case it wouldn't have been allowed. The whole case was a shambles and I just hope it's all been some bizarre mix up and that he hasn't gotten away with being a cheeky ****, although in truth I'm finding it hard to believe that.
At the end of the day Evans' legal team were not trying to prove innocence like they were attempting in the original trial, they've had to try and muddy the waters enough for a jury to not be able to make a guilty verdict. I totally get why a jury cannot come to a decision based on presumption and that they need to have sufficient evidence to find a defendant guilty, but it doesn't prove his innocence at all. I guess we'll never truly know what happened and will just have to hope that the 'not guilty' verdict is the right one. The calls for her blood, however, are disgustingly short sighted. People who think she needs to be held accountable for that need their heads examined. Ultimately, what this does show is that it is bloody hard for a rape case to be proved. Such a shit situation.
At the end of the day Evans' legal team were not trying to prove innocence like they were attempting in the original trial, they've had to try and muddy the waters enough for a jury to not be able to make a guilty verdict. I totally get why a jury cannot come to a decision based on presumption and that they need to have sufficient evidence to find a defendant guilty, but it doesn't prove his innocence at all. I guess we'll never truly know what happened and will just have to hope that the 'not guilty' verdict is the right one. The calls for her blood, however, are disgustingly short sighted. People who think she needs to be held accountable for that need their heads examined. Ultimately, what this does show is that it is bloody hard for a rape case to be proved. Such a shit situation.
