Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Ched Evans - Not Guilty

Dave

by Dave
in Football

 Share
[[Template core/global/global/poll is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Recommended Posts

newsted

newsted

Posted
Posted

Ched closed the curtains I think. I always thought it was just stupid drunken sex, she just panicked when she couldn't find her phone in the morning iirc and then the police lost their shit and it escalated from there. Anyway, the guy's a twat for fucking a lass behind his girlfriend's back, but the police really shouldn't be ruining people's lives like this.

 

Anecdotally, wor lass managed to drop some planks of wood on herself and bust her nose (like 20 yrs ago) so off I took her to A&E and the doc was determined that I dunnit and really tried to get her to report me to the poliss. Worrying how people jump to conclusions. There were a few civvies who jumped that way as well, it wasn't nice. :lol: I was "Have you ever met me, man?"

 

Just to back up what I've said before about me turning into a robot in emergencies, it was a Saturday and I was watching the football, but when I heard the bang and the wailing from upstairs I took a second to press the record button before racing to the scene. :lol: Makes me sound like a selfish twat. Fair enough.

 

Interestingly, and this just reinforces the robot/twat thing, she was knackered when we got back with the trauma etc. and nodded off in the chair, then woke up screaming as the incident ran through her head. Dealt with that and she was fine afterwards. I felt nothing because action was required. :dontknow:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Klaus

Klaus

Posted
Posted

This is part of what pisses me off about the whole thing. Lasses will be scared to come forward, in case they will get this sort of reaction.

 

'And here are some collected tweets from various members of the public, male and female, following news that Evans had been found not guilty: “That b***h who ruined Ched Evans’ career deserves to die. He is my new hero and I hate feminists”, “Glad Ched Evans is doing well, f**k you feminists”, “Shows how manipulative lasses can be if they want to be, throwing the rape card about and ruined Ched Evans’ career, justice is done slag”, “Ched Evans found not guilty, after all this time. The girl should go to prison, lying sh*t c**t slag”, “Jail the lying slag”, “Hope Ched Evans sues her for every penny. F**king slag”, “Ched Evans what a man #shesaidyes”, “Spiteful little cow #Ched”, “Shows how easily girls can lie about this stuff and ruin someone’s life”, “Ched Evans is innocent, lad’s reputation and career in tatters coz of some little slag”, “Get the dirty little lying slag in jug ASAP”, “Let’s hope the girl has her life ruined like he has. The c**t”, “Lock the lying c**t away and throw away the key”.'

Link to post
Share on other sites
newsted

newsted

Posted
Posted

This is part of what pisses me off about the whole thing. Lasses will be scared to come forward, in case they will get this sort of reaction.

 

'And here are some collected tweets from various members of the public, male and female, following news that Evans had been found not guilty: “That b***h who ruined Ched Evans’ career deserves to die. He is my new hero and I hate feminists”, “Glad Ched Evans is doing well, f**k you feminists”, “Shows how manipulative lasses can be if they want to be, throwing the rape card about and ruined Ched Evans’ career, justice is done slag”, “Ched Evans found not guilty, after all this time. The girl should go to prison, lying sh*t c**t slag”, “Jail the lying slag”, “Hope Ched Evans sues her for every penny. F**king slag”, “Ched Evans what a man #shesaidyes”, “Spiteful little cow #Ched”, “Shows how easily girls can lie about this stuff and ruin someone’s life”, “Ched Evans is innocent, lad’s reputation and career in tatters coz of some little slag”, “Get the dirty little lying slag in jug ASAP”, “Let’s hope the girl has her life ruined like he has. The c**t”, “Lock the lying c**t away and throw away the key”.'

 

That is awful, like. She didn't press charges or lie afaik, she just said she couldn't remember innit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
DJ_NUFC

DJ_NUFC

Posted
Posted

 

This article has no details, context or nuance. Or depth. Regardless of your take on what has transpired, the left continues to use these types of events to expound its narratives that make up the pyramid of victimhood it worships.

 

And I'm a leftie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DJ_NUFC

DJ_NUFC

Posted
Posted

This is part of what pisses me off about the whole thing. Lasses will be scared to come forward, in case they will get this sort of reaction.

 

'And here are some collected tweets from various members of the public, male and female, following news that Evans had been found not guilty: “That b***h who ruined Ched Evans’ career deserves to die. He is my new hero and I hate feminists”, “Glad Ched Evans is doing well, f**k you feminists”, “Shows how manipulative lasses can be if they want to be, throwing the rape card about and ruined Ched Evans’ career, justice is done slag”, “Ched Evans found not guilty, after all this time. The girl should go to prison, lying sh*t c**t slag”, “Jail the lying slag”, “Hope Ched Evans sues her for every penny. F**king slag”, “Ched Evans what a man #shesaidyes”, “Spiteful little cow #Ched”, “Shows how easily girls can lie about this stuff and ruin someone’s life”, “Ched Evans is innocent, lad’s reputation and career in tatters coz of some little slag”, “Get the dirty little lying slag in jug ASAP”, “Let’s hope the girl has her life ruined like he has. The c**t”, “Lock the lying c**t away and throw away the key”.'

 

That is awful, like. She didn't press charges or lie afaik, she just said she couldn't remember innit?

 

Yup. Twitter seems to attract a section of the pubic that needs sectioning. Remember the Adam Johnson tweets? f***.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlufPurdi

BlufPurdi

Posted
Posted

 

This article has no details, context or nuance. Or depth. Regardless of your take on what has transpired, the left continues to use these types of events to expound its narratives that make up the pyramid of victimhood it worships.

 

And I'm a leftie.

 

:thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanshithispantz

Hanshithispantz

Posted
Posted

 

This article has no details, context or nuance. Or depth. Regardless of your take on what has transpired, the left continues to use these types of events to expound its narratives that make up the pyramid of victimhood it worships.

 

And I'm a leftie.

Aye, it's why I'm starting to find the left canny vile like. On social issues aye, I'm left wing, but I hate being thrown in with these absolute fannies.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Raconteur

Raconteur

Posted
Posted

Leftish protests are always the most cringe worthy events like.  They scream about tolerance to the point of intolerance. 

 

(Obligatory "I'm a fairly serious lefty" disclaimer)

 

It's funny, but elements of the left can almost be described as fascist with the whole "Think like us or else". Deviation from some left-wing beliefs can bring about a flash mob of real and cyber-activists calling for all sorts of retribution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
geordiesteve710

geordiesteve710

Posted
Posted

 

This article has no details, context or nuance. Or depth. Regardless of your take on what has transpired, the left continues to use these types of events to expound its narratives that make up the pyramid of victimhood it worships.

 

And I'm a leftie.

 

Evans admitted that he lied in order to get a key for the hotel room that the woman was in

 

Stopped reading there. Of what consequence is that to the whole thing? He committed hotel-key-fraud, clearly he must be a wrong un?!?

 

I have every sympathy with the lass for what she's been through the last few years, but that is just scraping the barrel. Didn't bother with the rest of the article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SMTW

SMTW

Posted
Posted

Read a lot of "he might not of raped her but he still cheated" type of comments. Some here, mostly twitter. In terms of morality, illegality and impact on your career the two are a million miles apart or should be. And more worrying the abuse his lass has got for sticking by him.

 

I personally think cheating is vile. BUT, I've got mates who have cheated and mates who have been cheated on and stuck with their partners. I don't think they should be made to go to prison or be stopped from being employed in their career.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lush Vlad

Lush Vlad

Posted
Posted

Of course you shouldn't have to go to prison for cheating :lol: if people are suggesting that, then they are a bit dim.

 

But it seems like a bit more than just cheating. The whole thing was sordid as fuck and makes for uneasy reading. I find it strange that some good mates of mine are labelling the girl a slag, saying she should be made to stand trial, buzzing for Ched etc etc.

 

The whole thing is a mess and I don't think either party comes out of it well. But I just don't understand the logic in lauding Evans as some sort of hero?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanshithispantz

Hanshithispantz

Posted
Posted

https://thesecretbarrister.com/

 

Good read.

 

10 myths busted about the Ched Evans case

 

Footballer Ched Evans was today acquitted after a retrial of one count of rape. The jury at Cardiff Crown Court returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty, Mr Evans’ solicitor read out a statement on his client’s behalf to the gawping media on the court steps in the time-honoured fashion and, within seconds, social media duly exploded with more speculation, myths, distortions and unjustified fury than one might suppose 140 characters could contain.

 

The facts, as reported, can be briefly summarised: Ched Evans was originally tried with a co-defendant, and fellow footballer, Clayton McDonald, in April 2012. On 29 May 2011, Evans and McDonald had sex with the complainant, X, in a hotel room. McDonald had met X on a night out, taken her back to the hotel room, and had alerted Evans that he had “got a girl”. Evans duly arrived, made his way to the room and, seeing McDonald and X having intercourse, joined in. X woke up the following morning, professing to have no memory at what had taken place. Both men admitted that they had had sex with X, and were charged with rape, on the basis that X was too drunk to consent, and that neither man reasonably believed that she was consenting. Both men asserted that they reasonably believed that the complainant was an enthusiastic and consenting party. At the first trial, McDonald was acquitted. Evans was convicted and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, of which he served the standard half before being released on licence.

 

That much, most people know. The further details, very few have bothered to acquire before forming judgment, firing off angry electronic missives and, in the cases of certain activists who should know better, offering vacuous quotes to the media.

 

So, in an effort to extinguish at least some of the stupid, herewith 10 myths we can squash at the outset:

 

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 simple 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.

 

2. Well at the very least, the verdict means that the complainant has lied, surely?

 

No. Absolutely not. A not guilty verdict in most cases is insufficient to safely infer that the jury have concluded that a complainant lied (as opposed to the jury not being sure one way or the other), but in this case the facts suggest the opposite. As the Court of Appeal made clear in its judgment allowing the appeal, X has never asserted that she was raped. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. It was the prosecution case – the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service – that she was raped. The defence case was based not on the “usual” he said/ she said dispute over consent, but rather he said/ she can’t remember. There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied, or, to quell the more hysterical calls, that she should be prosecuted on the basis of Evans’ acquittal.

 

3. Regardless, she has trashed his reputation and must be named and shamed.

 

That is extremely silly. And illegal. As a complainant in a sex case, she has anonymity for life. If you publicly identify her – including on Twitter – you will be prosecuted. It has happened before to friends of Mr Evans. It will happen to you.

 

4. How come she gets anonymity when he doesn’t?

 

Because that is the law. If you want to read my views on it, for what it’s worth, they are here. You may not like the law, but you should obey it. There’s some free advice.

 

5.This is a victory for rape apologists. She was blind drunk, he admitted not speaking to her before, during or after, and this shows that consent does not mean consent.

 

No it doesn’t. It shows simply that the jury were not sure of both of the following limbs to the prosecution case, that need to be established to prove rape:

 

(i) That X was not consenting (because she was incapable through intoxication);

 

(ii) That Evans did not reasonably believe X was consenting.

 

Now based on the evidence, including the fresh evidence (see below), it might be that the jury thought X was consenting. And if they did, having heard all of the evidence, they are in a far better position to make that assessment than anyone not in the courtroom. Drunk consent, as juries are reminded by judges, is still consent. But it is equally plausible that they were sure that X could not consent, but were not sure, given her described behaviour, that Evans did not reasonably believe that she was not. Even if the jury thought that X was not capable of consenting, and that Evans probably didn’t reasonably believe that she was, he would still be not guilty – not because of a flaw in the law, or inherent misogyny, but because of Question 1 above, the burden and standard of proof.

 

6. 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, “Fuck 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 “fuck 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.

 

 

7. But didn’t the prosecution suggest those “new witnesses” were paid to say what they said?

The prosecution did. They said that in the Court of Appeal, when they argued that the evidence shouldn’t be admitted, and they put it to the witnesses at trial. The jury heard the evidence, heard the questions and the witnesses’ answers, and made up their own minds.

 

8. So the acquittal shows that the CPS was wrong to bring the case at all, then. That’s what you’re saying.

No it isn’t. There was a case for Evans to answer. The fact that there was an initial conviction, and that in both trials the judge did not withdraw the case from the jury (which judges are bound to do if they feel that there is insufficient evidence for a jury safely to convict) shows that there was a case to answer. Whether, given that Evans had already served his sentence (and therefore would not have served any more time if re-convicted) it was wise to put the complainant through a retrial is arguable, but that’s a fight for another day.

 

9. Will the CPS appeal?

They can’t. There is no prosecution right of appeal. That is, or should be, the end of it.

 

10. What does this whole affair say about our society?

Christ knows. Nothing good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...