is this not was is being implied here?
[/quote]

No. Quite the opposite in fact – a-a pointed out it hadn’t been used in court, simply by you.

So what? What’s the required numeric threshold here to call somebody names for their promiscuous sexual behaviour?

I would agree that Evans’s behaviour is worse

Congratulations on that major concession

Where did i say her past sexual history was used to prove she was a slut in court?

You didnt. You just decided yourself.

girl in question had at least 3 one night stands in the space of around a month with folks she didn’t know, that in my opinion is ‘sluttish behaviour’.

Which you then went on to link to your presumption that she consented. Its your views I have the problem with not the courts view.

Which you then went on to link to your presumption that she consented. Its your views I have the problem with not the courts view.

Yep, I have presumed that with no actual evidnce. Likewise you haven’t any that she didn’t. I know I’m not alone in my thoughts, as neither are you.

Her promiscous history isn’t relevant in the court of law and I’ve never argued it should be. However like it or not that information is out in the public domain and when discussing the case on a public forum I am free to an express an opinion.

I frankly don’t really give a toss whether you or JY or anyone else has issue with my view, however to suggest I’m as bad as Ched Evans in my thinking is just ridiculous.

Her promiscous history isn’t relevant in the court of law and I’ve never argued it should be. However like it or not that information is out in the public domain and when discussing the case on a public forum I am free to an express an opinion.

So it shouldnt be relevant in a court of law but it makes you think she’s a slut and that she consented? Is that a fair summary of your thinking?

We all know how tp thinks – I’m not sure there’s anything to be gained by getting him to elaborate further.

It’s a nightmare case for the justice system to try and sort really (from what I have read of the case anyway)

If we assume 3 people out on a night out all happy to have sex with each other then there isn’t any wrong doing anywhere, nobody is a sleaze bag, nobody is a slut, perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour. The version of the night I have read seems plausible.

The memory issue for the young women raises loads of very awkward questions (understatement) and without any actual evidence it is an impossible task to satisfy peoples craving for truth or justice, it seems like a lose lose situation to me.

The interpretation of the term SLUT is changing for some but I think it best to allow people to label themselves if possible rather than stereotyping in a dated judgemental manner (the gist of that also applies to judging Ched Evans though ;0)

The other angle that is being missed here is the sheer elitism. He only got away with it by a hair’s breadth. After having spent the kind of money that 99% of the population can’t in order to be represented by a shit hot lawyer. Also having his missus inexplicably spending tens of thousands of pounds to dredge up details of the girl’s sexual past which is then used as evidence by the aforementioned clever lawyer. A very unedifying chain of events and not one that is open to joe public. I assume all the people leaping to defend Evans also applaud the celebrity drink drive lawyers who concoct all sorts of piffle to bore a court into eventually giving up, when their clients have been caught shitfaced behind the wheel.

To be fair the issue you’re raising there is more that the poor can’t afford justice. I think most of us on this thread – even those who think Evans is a sleaze bag – agree that justice has been done according to the law. There is reasonable doubt.

To be fair the issue you’re raising there is more that the poor can’t afford justice. I think most of us on this thread – even those who think Evans is a sleaze bag – agree that justice has been done according to the law. There is reasonable doubt.

To a point, yes, but the spending of money to discredit the girl, then getting this to be taken into account in court is really pushing it, and may have a detrimental effect on reporting of rape / sexual assault. Can the prosecution in other cases now employ an anatomist to prove that the defendant’s eyes are too close together?

How was money spent to discredit the girl?

“The other angle that is being missed here is the sheer elitism.”

I’ve heard the counter view that if the pair of them hadn’t been celebs it would never have got to court in the first place.

When he lost his appeal later that year, supporters of Evans, including his partner’s millionaire parents, hired private detectives, put up a £50,000 reward for information, and went to the Criminal Cases Review Commission – which for no publicly explained reason fast-tracked the case and brought it back to the court of appeal.

From the Guardian.

I don’t know if any was directly spent to procure the two male witnesses who testified about having sex with the girl. One would hope not, but it certainly leaves a nasty stink.

The £50,000 wasn’t purely for information about that night. It was also for ‘background’ information on the girl. And why hire private detectives? Again, I’m pretty sure they weren’t solely interested in the actual night in question.

It is clear that his partner spent money in order to obtain information that would discredit the girl. The fact that this was allowed to be used in court because the case was somehow ‘exceptional’ is very troublesome, particularly because past sexual history has not been allowed to be taken into account in court for over fifteen years.

the fact his GF did this was raised in court as was the suggestion that it was an inducement* and also both witnesses were asked if they had been paid or they expected the reward
* it was raised re the hotel clerk but the view was it was a desperate GF rather than an attempt at a bribe
The clerk did not change their story

the issue was raised in court

past sexual history has not been allowed to be taken into account in court for over fifteen years.

Just factually incorrect

Its has always been allowed under certain circumstances

From the same Graun article:

Defence lawyers have been banned since 1999 from cross-examining alleged rape victims in court about their sexual behaviour or history but the court of appeal said the specifics of the Evans case meant such evidence ought to be admitted.

Money well spent, then.

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.

Trying to find this thread and stumbled across some of the previous ones – top highlighting of how the same people can have massively different, yet steadfastly adamant, opinions, depending on the sway of the media.

Anyhow, for those that wish to read another side (assuming fairly reported 🙂 )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/exclusive-natasha-massey-i-hated-what-my-fianc-ched-evans-had-do/