Ched Evans has been cleared..

[tinfoilhat 11]

Everyones life has been torn apart, but in the eyes of the law nothing illegal happened.

 

And I don't understand why. You've got a woman so out of it she fell over and couldn't get up in a kebab shop and wet the bed. But could give consent.

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2016 at 13:01 ----------

 

Everyones life has been torn apart, but in the eyes of the law nothing illegal happened.

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2016 at 13:00 ----------

 

 

Incase you missed the verdict, he was found not guilty.

 

Unless he's been out and done something else he can't be alleged to have raped her anymore.

 

I'm on about future cases. Reread and keep up.

[geared 306]

I'm on about future cases. Reread and keep up.

 

You really aren't, you're just bellyaching and making noise.

 

Perhaps you should do some reading yourself, try this lot:

 

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

 

X was grilled on her sexual history, in contravention of the law. We’re back in the dark ages.

 

This was the analysis offered immediately post-verdict to the Guardian by Women Against Rape, a charity which should really know better, and Sandra Laville, the Guardian’s crime reporter. It has since been adopted and virally transmitted throughout the media. Questions about a complainant’s previous sexual history are not allowed in sex trials, unless a very strict set of criteria (set out in section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999) are met. As the Court of Appeal explained (at [44]), these provisions are designed to counter the myths that “unchaste women are more likely to consent and less worthy of belief”. Yet X was cross-examined by the defence barrister over other sexual incidents – so what happened?

 

Well, in short, the law was followed. This point hinges mainly on “fresh evidence” that was not available at the first trial. Leave to appeal against Evans’ conviction was refused by the Court of Appeal in 2012, and Evans thereafter approached the Criminal Cases Review Commission with “fresh evidence” which had since emerged and which he claimed undermined the safety of his conviction. We now know that the principal nature of this fresh evidence was as follows:

 

A man, O, gave evidence that, two weeks after 29 May 2011, he had been out drinking with X, and had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse, during which she instructed him to penetrate her vaginally from behind, shouting, “**** me harder”.

A second man, S, gave evidence that, on 28 May 2011, X had engaged him in a night of drunken sexual activity, in which she adopted the same sexual position and used words, “Go harder”.

Evans’ case at trial was that X had acted in the same way on the 29 May 2011, encouraging him to penetrate her “doggy style” and using the words “**** me harder”. This, it was argued, demonstrated that she was consenting, and also supported the reasonableness of his belief that she was consenting.

 

One of the exceptions under section 41(3) allows for evidence of sexual history to be adduced, and questions asked of the complainant about it, where the evidence relates to the issue of consent, and is of sexual behaviour of the complainant which is “so similar to any sexual behaviour of the complainant which (according to evidence adduced or to be adduced by or on behalf of the accused) took place as part of the event which is the subject matter of the charge against the accused…that the similarity cannot reasonably be described as a coincidence”. In short, it is beyond coincidence, the defence argued in the Court of Appeal, that X would consensually engage in this specific type of sex act using these specific words on occasions around the time of 29 May, but that she was not consenting in the same circumstances on that date. This tends to show that, drunk though she was, she was sufficiently in control of her senses to give consent, and, furthermore, to give Evans the impression that she was consenting. This, the defence argued, is relevant to the jury’s assessment of whether she was consenting, and whether Evans reasonably believed that she was.

 

The Court of Appeal, having considered other case law, agreed that in these unusual circumstances the fresh evidence ought to be admitted, and that X should be questioned on what the new witnesses had to say. Now it may be (I haven’t had the time to properly apply my mind to it) that a forensic analysis of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning will reveal a flaw, or an inappropriate leap, or even a misinterpretation of previous binding authority. It may be that the Court’s application of the strict criteria for agreeing to admit fresh evidence was arguably not met. Such things are not unknown. The Court of Appeal sometimes fluffs up. But unless you’ve read the judgment, and have carried out the legal analysis and the research, you’re not able to say, are you? So, I urge you, stop spreading speculation which is not only misleading and removed from fact, but likely to deter victims from coming forward.

 

UPDATE: A special mention goes to the raft of claims in the press that this case sets a new, special precedent allowing the sexual history of complainants to be admitted in evidence in any future case, solely for the purpose of shaming the complainant in a dark return to the 1970s. Allow me to help: The precedent that has been set is none. The Court of Appeal decision sets down no new application of law or principle, and section 41 continues to operate exactly as it did before, excluding the vast, vast majority of questions about previous sexual behaviour. The newspapers, activists and charities propagating this false message are needlessly terrifying present and future victims, and will only risk deterring them from coming forward.

[tinfoilhat 11]

I'm leaving this before we fall out I think.

[Stranza 10]

Everyones life has been torn apart, but in the eyes of the law nothing illegal happened.

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2016 at 13:00 ----------

 

 

Incase you missed the verdict, he was found not guilty.

 

Unless he's been out and done something else he can't be alleged to have raped her anymore.

 

I believe what Ched said.

In my understanding of rape he raped her.

As did his chum.

They should both have done time and you add their other pal who tried to throw a woman under a bus that night, him too.

 

As it is people with all the facts made the decision they did nothing illegal. I can accept that, rather 10 guilty men walk free than one innocent man go to jail.

 

They were out doing a bad thing, with bad intentions.

Not illegal.

The consequences of them doing the bad thing only happened because they did it.

 

This all happened because of their actions in pursuit of sex.

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2016 at 13:20 ----------

 

ETA

Sorry it was a taxi he tried to chuck a woman under not a bus.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/football-ace-admits-kicking-woman-1828506

[Randy 10]

One of the more unpleasant aspects of this case have been some of the abuse directed not just at the victim but also Jessica Ennis-Hill from Sheffield United supporters.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3840064/Internet-trolls-launch-sickening-attack-Olympics-star-Jess-Ennis-Hill-speaking-against-Ched-Evans-two-years-ago.html

 

It's bad enough that Sheffield United tried to resign Evans when he was still a convicted rapist but those comments from fans of a so-called family club are vile.

[apelike 10]

I believe what Ched said.

In my understanding of rape he raped her.

As did his chum.

 

Thankfully your understanding of rape is not what the law says happened on that night.

 

This all happened because of their actions in pursuit of sex.

 

Agreed, all parties including the woman were in pursuit of sex.

[The Joker 10]

One of the more unpleasant aspects of this case have been some of the abuse directed not just at the victim but also Jessica Ennis-Hill from Sheffield United supporters.

 

 

It's bad enough that Sheffield United tried to resign Evans when he was still a convicted rapist but those comments from fans of a so-called family club are vile.

 

You should have heard the blades fans on Radio Sheffield's morning show when the issue of signing Our Chedders came up several months ago.

 

So many fans calling up to support him, saying he'd served his time and should be free to play.

 

Remember - this was before Our Chedders was ever declared innocent.

 

I'm sure that Rovvrem's taxi drivers can count on the support of blades fans upon their eventual release.

[apelike 10]

I'm sure that Rovvrem's taxi drivers can count on the support of blades fans upon their eventual release.

 

I doubt it as by the time they are eventually released most of the blades fans will have forgotten about Evans.

[Stranza 10]

Thankfully your understanding of rape is not what the law says happened on that night.

 

 

 

Agreed, all parties including the woman were in pursuit of sex.

 

I would have said sadly, not thankfully

 

I agree with you completely. The law disagreed.

 

The woman may have been looking for sex after work and a few drinks.

The defendants also had a few drinks and looked for sex after a good night out.

 

Only one of those groups decided to push it so close to the legal line that a rape charge was made by our police service.

Only one of those groups invited Ched and his friends.

Only one of those groups felt entitled enough to do that.

 

Pick one:- Bill Clinton, Ched, Jimmy Saville, Donald Trump, Grooming gang filth, Clayton, Cyril Smith......you get the point.

[atticus 97]

Scratches head and wonders what serial child raping Rotherham taxi drivers and Ched Evans are doing in the same sentence.

This forum sometimes.......

[Stranza 10]

Scratches head and wonders what serial child raping Rotherham taxi drivers and Ched Evans are doing in the same sentence.

This forum sometimes.......

 

Don't be disingenuous I wasn't comparing the offences.

 

Entitled men using their position to abuse women and children.

And the excuses made for them.

[atticus 97]

Don't be disingenuous I wasn't comparing the offences.

 

Entitled men using their position to abuse women and children.

And the excuses made for them.

 

To be honest it was aimed more at the other poster who has mentioned the taxi drivers at least twice.