Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[Raconteur]

Point 2 is pretty important. People on social media want to see the lass get the electric chair.

 

Which is why Point 3 is also very important.

[Guest chicken little]

The 'Ched supporters' on twitter are only matched by the equally unbearable 'feminist' posts. It's basically thicko's vs self serving agenda pushers.

 

What 'agenda' are these people pushing?

[mozy]

That this case has set a precedent for all future rape cases and from now on all victims are going to have their sexual history brought up in court, have to give evidence etc. As you can read from that secret barrister post, that is nonsense.

[DJ_NUFC]

The 'Ched supporters' on twitter are only matched by the equally unbearable 'feminist' posts. It's basically thicko's vs self serving agenda pushers.

 

What 'agenda' are these people pushing?

 

If you're unfamiliar with rabid third-wave and nouvelle vague fourth-wave feminists, I suggest you take to twitter and their blogs yourself to check out their insane agenda of victimhood. As somoene who's identified as a feminist all my life, these people make me sick.

[Guest chicken little]

I see.

[mrmojorisin75]

The 'Ched supporters' on twitter are only matched by the equally unbearable 'feminist' posts. It's basically thicko's vs self serving agenda pushers.

 

What 'agenda' are these people pushing?

 

If you're unfamiliar with rabid third-wave and nouvelle vague fourth-wave feminists, I suggest you take to twitter and their blogs yourself to check out their insane agenda of victimhood. As somoene who's identified as a feminist all my life, these people make me sick.

 

Any prime examples of said twatishness then?

[JB]

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.

[oldtype]

Decent read but this part is patently absurd:

 

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.

 

You are innocent unless proven guilty.

 

It is irrelevant that Evans was unable to prove he didn't do it; the law does not require him to do so to be deemed innocent. You don't get to be like "eh, yeah he was acquitted but he's probably guilty anyway." His exoneration should be taken at face value.

 

(That doesn't justify the bullshit some people are piling on his accuser, of course.)

[newsted]

She didn't accuse him, she couldn't remember.

[Greg]

Decent read but this part is patently absurd:

 

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.

 

You are innocent unless proven guilty.

 

It is irrelevant that Evans was unable to prove he didn't do it; the law does not require him to do so to be deemed innocent. You don't get to be like "eh, yeah he was acquitted but he's probably guilty anyway." His exoneration should be taken at face value.

 

(That doesn't justify the bullshit some people are piling on his accuser, of course.)

 

Wrong. You are presumed innocent, not proved innocent.

[sleazy]

The 'Ched supporters' on twitter are only matched by the equally unbearable 'feminist' posts. It's basically thicko's vs self serving agenda pushers.

 

What 'agenda' are these people pushing?

 

If you're unfamiliar with rabid third-wave and nouvelle vague fourth-wave feminists, I suggest you take to twitter and their blogs yourself to check out their insane agenda of victimhood. As somoene who's identified as a feminist all my life, these people make me sick.

 

Any prime examples of said twatishness then?

 

I had a run in with one yesterday on FB. She said that this case has given men the legal right to rape drunk women. She said that this is because "most men dont care if a women is raped unless its their daughter" I told her how insulting that is to the vast majority of men and she declared to the world that I was a "rape apologiser" and that I had claimed rape "doesnt exist"

 

in her defence I did call her a "hysterical feminazi"

[Heake]

Tell her to "Shut up & shave"

[Wullie]

The type of maniacs who start hate campaigns and send death threats whenever someone in the public eye passes comment that some forms of rape are worse than others, something that is frankly indisputable and that the law acknowledges. Not sure half of them even realise what they're arguing for or against half the time.

[Hanshithispantz]

Decent read but this part is patently absurd:

 

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.

 

You are innocent unless proven guilty.

 

It is irrelevant that Evans was unable to prove he didn't do it; the law does not require him to do so to be deemed innocent. You don't get to be like "eh, yeah he was acquitted but he's probably guilty anyway." His exoneration should be taken at face value.

 

(That doesn't justify the bullshit some people are piling on his accuser, of course.)

 

Wrong. You are presumed innocent, not proved innocent.

this is what I was trying to argue after the original trial. It's ludicrous to me that people view cases like these things in such a black & white manner.

 

If found guilty/innocent you should retrospectively serve your time/be exonerated. That's how the legal system has to work, but I'm not going to sit here and be like "Ched Evans 100% raped someone" or "Ched Evans 100% didn't rape someone" based on a verdict brought on by opinion based evidence and clear guess work.

[Hanshithispantz]

The type of maniacs who start hate campaigns and send death threats whenever someone in the public eye passes comment that some forms of rape are worse than others, something that is frankly indisputable and that the law acknowledges. Not sure half of them even realise what they're arguing for or against half the time.

They just love arguing like, it's weird.

 

Same as the ones who kick off when people candidly talk about 'male' and 'female' jobs. It's never the lass who's a brickie, because she's knocking a block of flats up somewhere and not sitting on This Morning barking on about pointless semantics.

[mrmojorisin75]

The 'Ched supporters' on twitter are only matched by the equally unbearable 'feminist' posts. It's basically thicko's vs self serving agenda pushers.

 

What 'agenda' are these people pushing?

 

If you're unfamiliar with rabid third-wave and nouvelle vague fourth-wave feminists, I suggest you take to twitter and their blogs yourself to check out their insane agenda of victimhood. As somoene who's identified as a feminist all my life, these people make me sick.

 

Any prime examples of said twatishness then?

 

I had a run in with one yesterday on FB. She said that this case has given men the legal right to rape drunk women. She said that this is because "most men dont care if a women is raped unless its their daughter" I told her how insulting that is to the vast majority of men and she declared to the world that I was a "rape apologiser" and that I had claimed rape "doesnt exist"

 

in her defence I did call her a "hysterical feminazi"

Interesting perspective because what this case would tell me is be careful shagging a mortal lass on a night out otherwise you could risk losing 2.5 years of your life, your job, and spend loads of wedge and further time trying to clear your name. Certainly not 'rape is cool'

[DJ_NUFC]

The type of maniacs who start hate campaigns and send death threats whenever someone in the public eye passes comment that some forms of rape are worse than others, something that is frankly indisputable and that the law acknowledges. Not sure half of them even realise what they're arguing for or against half the time.

 

You just invalidated rape culture. Typical white male privilege.

 

I wonder how they can keep bandying terms like rape culture to describe Western countries. If the West has a 'rape culture,' what the fuck does the Congo, Saudi Arabia and the entire Middle East, India, etc. have?

 

This is not to invalidate actual issues women face in Western countries. In fact, they're trivializing actual rape and misogyny by calling every little thing rape and misogyny, making those terms lose all meaning and gravity.

[Marmoset]

'Feminazi'  :anguish:

[DJ_NUFC]

'Feminazi'  :anguish:

 

A perfectly sound way of describing some of the radical third wave feminists. If the left is so keen to use words like 'nazi' to describe the fringe extreme right, the same behaviour is displayed by the extreme left.

 

Which brings us to the Horseshoe Theory:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

[Thomson Mouse]

The 'Ched supporters' on twitter are only matched by the equally unbearable 'feminist' posts. It's basically thicko's vs self serving agenda pushers.

 

What 'agenda' are these people pushing?

 

If you're unfamiliar with rabid third-wave and nouvelle vague fourth-wave feminists, I suggest you take to twitter and their blogs yourself to check out their insane agenda of victimhood. As somoene who's identified as a feminist all my life, these people make me sick.

 

Any prime examples of said twatishness then?

 

I had a run in with one yesterday on FB. She said that this case has given men the legal right to rape drunk women. She said that this is because "most men dont care if a women is raped unless its their daughter" I told her how insulting that is to the vast majority of men and she declared to the world that I was a "rape apologiser" and that I had claimed rape "doesnt exist"

 

in her defence I did call her a "hysterical feminazi"

Interesting perspective because what this case would tell me is be careful shagging a mortal lass on a night out otherwise you could risk losing 2.5 years of your life, your job, and spend loads of wedge and further time trying to clear your name. Certainly not 'rape is cool'

 

Because that's exactly what happened.

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

The 'Ched supporters' on twitter are only matched by the equally unbearable 'feminist' posts. It's basically thicko's vs self serving agenda pushers.

 

What 'agenda' are these people pushing?

 

If you're unfamiliar with rabid third-wave and nouvelle vague fourth-wave feminists, I suggest you take to twitter and their blogs yourself to check out their insane agenda of victimhood. As somoene who's identified as a feminist all my life, these people make me sick.

 

Any prime examples of said twatishness then?

 

I had a run in with one yesterday on FB. She said that this case has given men the legal right to rape drunk women. She said that this is because "most men dont care if a women is raped unless its their daughter" I told her how insulting that is to the vast majority of men and she declared to the world that I was a "rape apologiser" and that I had claimed rape "doesnt exist"

 

in her defence I did call her a "hysterical feminazi"

Interesting perspective because what this case would tell me is be careful shagging a mortal lass on a night out otherwise you could risk losing 2.5 years of your life, your job, and spend loads of wedge and further time trying to clear your name. Certainly not 'rape is cool'

 

Because that's exactly what happened.

 

It's not exactly what happened, granted, but it's also not untrue. There was no evidence that lass was raped, end of story now.

[Hanshithispantz]

If it wasn't rape then it was still sick, according to Thompson, even though he doesn't know what happened - nobody does. Evan's legs should be broke in any case because why not?

[Thomson Mouse]

It was sick but I dont advocate violence.

 

Confirmed that he turned up to have sex with a pissed woman that his mate was and his brother was to film it?

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

the point was simply that "feminists" said the conclusion to be drawn from the case is that rape is cool or something like that, quite clearly this is not the logical conclusion at a normal human male would draw from the whole thing

 

evans acted the twat and apparently treated the girl with utter contempt, probably like a piece of meat, however he shouldn't lose 2.5 years of his life and job etc. for it

[Thomson Mouse]

the point was simply that "feminists" said the conclusion to be drawn from the case is that rape is cool or something like that, quite clearly this is not the logical conclusion at a normal human male would draw from the whole thing

 

evans acted the t*** and apparently treated the girl with utter contempt, probably like a piece of meat, however he shouldn't lose 2.5 years of his life and job etc. for it

 

I suppose that's debatable on whether you think she should be judged on previous sexual encounters