[Closed] Ched Evans - Not Guilty

Are you sure? Because it certainly doesn't mean she was a willing participant, nor that the jury have decided she was a willing participant by any standard of proof. Which is what you appear to be claiming it shows.

I am well aware that the court has to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt', and they werent able to do this. Obviously the jury have doubts it was non consensual, and so do I. ie I think on balamce of probabilities she was willing. Thats my opinion, feel free to disagree.

Are we going to use this standard against all individuals who are found non guilty of a crime as the same rule apply?

BBC reported she made an allegation, no idea if thats true or not.

Thanks greatape - I was just wondering how it came about in this particular case - given the appalling online abuse the victim went through subsequently, if she hadn't made the complaint originally I wondered who had.

Not sure for this case. Parent/friend she spoke to afterwards? Staff at the hotel in the morning if she said something to them? Her telling the police something might have happened after speaking to hotel staff and learning who she came back with?

[quote=tpbiker ]Obviously the jury have doubts it was non consensual

Did you even bother to read tga's reply?

I think on balamce of probabilities she was willing. Thats my opinion, feel free to disagree.

I do, and the jury verdict can't be used to support your opinion over mine as you were attempting to use it (even ignoring tga's third item). Hence you have no evidence for your opinion and assertion.

Did you even bother to read tga's reply?

It's nice to know a couple of people read it 🙂

I agree with today's Observer, I hope it doesn't lead to a drop in women coming forward to report rape.

yes i did read GTA's explanation. It doesn't change my thoughts on what i think happened. My opinion on the matter is just as relevant as yours, thats something you need to grasp if you are going to try and debate on a forum rather than try to belittle and patronise.

Just so we are absolutely clear on my thought on this episode:

- The 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'. You may not agree, many will.

- Sluttish behaviour is no excuse for Rape

- I find the idea of Rape abhorant

- I think on the balance of probability she wasn't raped, based on what has been reported in the news about the case and about the girl. Again this is my opinion.

- None of this excuses the fact that Ched Evans is a sleezebag

yes i did read GTA's explanation. It doesn't change my thoughts on what i think happened. My opinion on the matter is just as relevant as yours,

Its not because your opinion is at odds with the actual facts as clearly explained by GTA. You are entitled to be wrong and maintain your ignorance of the law and what the verdict meant but that is not equivalent or as relevant as an opinion that is consistent with the law. the verdict did not prove she consented.

thats something you need to grasp if you are going to try and debate on a forum rather than try to belittle and patronise

That is not meant to be rude though you make take it that way

If I contend, despite the evidence, that the sun orbits the earth it is not an equally valid opinion to someone who explains why the earth orbits the sun.
Basically the decision does not prove that she did not consent. It might , it might not but it is not DEFINITE as tga explained clearly.

The rest of your post is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

The 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'. You may not agree, many will.

Whats that got to do with it?

Consent is like the probability of a coin toss. What occurs before or after doesnt affect it.

A-A - it does relate to the (successful) defence.

But TP also likes to judge women on their sexual behaviour.

[quote=cynic-al ]A-A - it does relate to the (successful) defence.

Not directly.

i dont think his defence was she is a "slut" therefore i did not rape her

and here we all are Bunch of blokes given up on discussing him and now discussing her sexual history and whether her being a "slut" is relevant like its 1974 🙄

SLOW HAND CLAP
exits thread
ASHAMED and refusing to take part in shaming her thread rather than discussing the issue thread

Whats that got to do with it?

Consent is like the probability of a coin toss. What occurs before or after doesnt affect it.

It doesn't sit well with most folk, because it involves sex and young women and arsehole footballers, but if you take the humanity out of it then it makes sense to look at past behavior to inform the decision.

Though as has been pointed out, that isn't exactly how the evidence was used, and in fact such evidence isn't normally allowed at all in rape trials.

[quote=aracer ]Though as has been pointed out, that isn't exactly how the evidence was used, and in fact such evidence isn't normally allowed at all in rape trials.
I can give you an example of where sexual [i]behaviour[/i] was involved in a rape trial;

Scandinavian girl claims to have been raped.
She has no memory of the incident as both she and the accused were drunk (he so much so that he had to be taken to hospital).
She claims that she would [i]never[/i] have consented because he's not "her type", she only goes for tall, blonde guys.
A witness is presented saying that she'd been coming on to him after falling out with her boyfriend only a few hours before the alleged rape.
The witness is short and dark.

I think that's a relevant example of when it's right to establish some sort of behaviour but I don't think its otherwise possible to extrapolate from past events.

but if you take the humanity out of it then it makes sense to look at past behavior to inform the decision.

It really doesnt. Thats why its not normally used in rape cases. In this one it appears to have been used due to the memory loss aspect not to prove that she was a "slut" as that idiot up there did.

Basically the decision does not prove that she did not consent. It might , it might not but it is not DEFINITE as tga explained clearly.

i'm not arguing that point, i'm saying that imo, based on what was reported and her previous history, I think she did. What part of that is so contentious?

discussing her sexual history and whether her being a "slut" is relevant like its 1974

The Judge thought her previous sexual encounters were very relevant, hence they were allowed in court. I agree that it wasn't because she was 'a slut', but because she has a history of one night stands after which she would have absolutly no recolection.

My point is one of double standards. We are happy to slate a guy (who in the eyes of the law is innocent) for his lack of morals, but seem to take offence when we simlarly critisise the girl involved for her behaviour.

Noone really knows what happened, but there is no more evidence that she didn't consent than there is that she did. Yet with this in mind he is still the scumbag, and she gets a free pass (from those on here).

as for

if you wish to be respected you need to grasp and understand facts rather than insist that you can ignore them and we should respect your view. Opinions that are clearly wrong on matters of fact have to be "belittled" - by which you mean challenged for being false- because they are false
If you cannot understand this distinction then, unfortunately, its another reason to not take your opinion seriously

please quote me where i i have been wrong on matters of fact. All ive stated is that i personally think she was happy to go along with it, in the eyes of the law he is innocent, and that her behaviour and sexual history would be described by many as 'sluttish'. What matter of fact have i missed?

remember....Please provide evidence in quotes of where i have chosen to ignore facts on this thread, rather than just the usual bluster you come out with?

In this one it appears to have been used due to the memory loss aspect not to prove that she was a "slut" as that idiot up there did.

Where did i say her past sexual history was used to prove she was a slut in court? Please feel free to quote me on that, as if i did say that then i will full admit that is not the case

[quote=tpbiker ]please quote me where i i have been wrong on matters of fact.

If you insist:

[quote=tpbiker ]Obviously the jury have doubts it was non consensual

[quote=anagallis_arvensis ]Why do you think her willing?

[quote=tpbiker ]because if it wasn't it would have been rape....and the Jury found him not guilty of that.

[quote=tpbiker ]Where did i say her past sexual history was used to prove she was a slut in court?

Where did a-a say anything about proving it in court?

From the moral perspective, you don't seem to see a difference between having a few one night stands and walking in and taking over with a drunk girl (when you have a fiance at home). I don't think anybody would be condemning Evans for having a few one night stands - I'm sure lots of professional footballers do that, along with lots of the rest of the population. It's not the sort of thing men get called "slut" for doing.

Obviously the jury have doubts it was non consensual

Thats a fact

» because if it wasn't it would have been rape....and the Jury found him not guilty of that.

fair enough in light og TGA's statement that he may have thought she consented but she han't thats not entirely accurate as a point of law. I'll give you that.

next!

Where did a-a say anything about proving it in court?

It really doesnt. Thats why its not normally used in rape cases. In this one it appears to have been used due to the memory loss aspect not to prove that she was a "slut" as that idiot up there did[/i]

is this not was is being implied here?

few one night stands

3 in a month leads me to think she may have had more than a few in her time....morality is subjective. I would agree that Evans's behaviour is worse, but not by much. Just my opinion though.

[quote=tpbiker ]Thats a fact
er...

fair enough in light og TGA's statement that he may have thought she consented but she han't

Regarding the second "fact" of yours, it's not only the issue raised by tga concerning whether Evans knew she was willing, but also as I pointed out when you first made that statement, the jury simply found there was reasonable doubt, their decision certainly doesn't mean that she was willing even if you ignore that point.

next!

How many times do we have to show you to be wrong on matters of fact to support JY's statement?

[quote=tpbiker ]

In this one it appears to have been used due to the memory loss aspect not to prove that she was a "slut" as that idiot up there did

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

[quote=tpbiker ]3 in a month leads me to think she may have had more than a few in her time...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/