Ched Evans cleared of rape at retrial
- Thread starter Mors
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I haven't really followed this, so apologies, but he's actually been tried twice? I don't understand.
He served two years or something, then what happened? If it was quashed and he was released, why did he go to trial again?
And can he now sue?
The defence was allowed to bring her ex sexual partners to the stand as witnesses. Like it has anything to do with it.
Who the fuck allowed that?
Who the fuck allowed that?
The Judge and the legal system.
It's weird - and yet totally obvious - that some people seem quite disappointed with this verdict, and wish that Ched Evans had actually raped her. Because footballers and men are all evil liars. I'm pretty certain I'd prefer all rapes not to have happened.
It's a pretty interesting case on the surface. I don't have an opinion as to his innocence or not, but a quick dive through that website he'd had set up certainly provided some compelling arguments.
If I remember rightly, he was flying for Sheffield United at the time the charges surfaced and had just won footballer of the year (?) He's got a pretty good argument for loss of earnings and damage to his reputation now after this verdict.
Any of the resident law guys have an opinion on what could come next in this? Can he now sue? Is he due compensation?
If I remember rightly, he was flying for Sheffield United at the time the charges surfaced and had just won footballer of the year (?) He's got a pretty good argument for loss of earnings and damage to his reputation now after this verdict.
Any of the resident law guys have an opinion on what could come next in this? Can he now sue? Is he due compensation?
I think some people are very disappointed that Evans has been found not guilty, which means they'd prefer he was guilty, which ....yeah. That is what I'm saying.
Collateral damage to bring down a horrible, rapist footballer and expose....you know the rest.
Quite sad really.
I would say the people very disappointed that Evans was found not guilty are the people that think he actually was guilty.
Just a hunch.
But, regardless, bringing ex-partners into the fold is just insane.
Why would anyone make such an assumption?
His conviction was quashed, a retrial was ordered due to new evidence and a separate trial and new jury found him not guilty.
I'd say that's great news for the justice system and wonderful that an unfairly convicted man has been exonerated of a most heinous accusation.
I can't see much to be disappointed about, Oliver. Are you disappointed?
Either the appeal court which quashed the original conviction or the judge at the new trial will have heard arguments from both sides on whether or not the new witnesses' evidence would be, in the legal phrase, "more prejudicial than probative" before deciding the question. None of us who didn't hear those arguments is in a position to know whether the decision was a sound one or not.
His successfully suing anyone would be all but impossible IMO. The only possible defendant that I can see would be the girl herself and it's clear that she was p!$$ed out of her mind at the time, so I can't see how he could prove deliberate intent on her part to give false evidence in order to get him wrongly charged. There's also a rule in law that no-one should be able to profit from his own misdeeds and it might be said that he was trying to do so in this case if he sued anyone, because he himself has accepted publicly that he shouldn't have behaved as he did, though he's always maintained that it didn't constitute rape.
He may be able to seek compo from the Criminal Review Compensation Board but I don't know a whole lot about that side of it TBH.
I'm disappointed that I'm in yet another stupid conversation with you.
So, yes, I am.
But knowing absolutely nothing about this case (and I don't), what possible relevance can previous sexual encounters have to a rape case? Genuinely. Maybe the legal minds on here can educate me.
She never accused him of rape. Didn't five years ago, didn't in the retrial. She has always maintained she doesn't remember anything, and believes her drink might have been spiked as she'd never blacked out like that before.
Her anonymity has already been breached several times, both her original name and her new one. She's been dubbed a gold-digger despite never launching action against anyone and never talking to the press. I'm not sure why further punitive action should be taken against her.
To prove someone guilty of a crime the prosecution has to establish intent as well as show what actually happened. The behaviour of any alleged rape victim will obv.be crucial in that process and, without knowing the details, I can see in principle how the evidence of former partners could be relevant in enabling the jury to form a view on how credible the defendant's version of events actually was.
He must be well pissed off that he was put on trial and jailed for rape when he never did it, and was never even accused of it.
As for the girl, some of the vitriol aimed at her has been equally astonishing. Almost like she accused a venerated saint. When actually he's a cunt. As is his mate.
Poor the Oliver. Permanently confused and anxious.
Yes, I get that. But how would former partners be relevant?
I imagine Evans' case was that nothing in the girl's demeanour gave him the slightest indication that she was saying no to sex. I can see how the evidence of former partners who have been with her when she was in a state of intoxication could shed light on how plausible his account of events on the night might be.
If you give that type of evidence to a judge, he or she can use it for what you say and give it the appropriate weight. But there are all sorts of other irrelevant connotations that a jury could not put out of their mind, and it would therefore unfairly influence their verdict. It just should not have been permitted. The CPS barristers are becoming increasingly retained in-house, so their shite skills are not the best compared to the self-employed barristers being instructed by Ched. His name alone warrants two years, he can have no complaints.
That's too simplistic. I expect the prosecution would have argued along those lines, but without hearing the arguments on both sides none of us is qualified to say whether or not that evidence was rightfully allowed in.
If it turns out she regularly got drunk and tag teamed gangs of lads then that is extremely relevant. Especially considering she said she couldn't remember and he said she was into it.
If she didn't normally do that then you can start to think she was coerced, but if she was often into getting gang banged then that's far less likely. Of course that kind of evidence should be heard.
If she didn't normally do that then you can start to think she was coerced, but if she was often into getting gang banged then that's far less likely. Of course that kind of evidence should be heard.
The former partner described how she couldn't remember a night they spent together despite the fact she was only mildly intoxicated on the night in question. Whilst I also thought it was bizarre he came forward to give evidence, you can see how it's relevant to the trial.
That evidence should only be heard if she relied upon her good character, for example by telling the jury she is a good person when under oath, only then you can introduce it for that specific purpose. Otherwise, the only evidence that should be heard is anything relevant to whether or not she was raped on the day in question.
That's relevant, but she had already conceded that she had memory problems so it was not on trial and didn't need a witness to give evidence on it. I would guess they allowed it on that point, then whilst on the stand the barrister got him to start flapping his gums about her back story, picking her up in clubs, and so forth. Which unduly influences the jury.
I can't decide if i get why former partners were brought forward
Fine, they explain that she does forget stuff when shes had a drink...but we knew that anyway. As she doesn't remember the night in question
There will never be conclusive proof that a rape did/didn't occur because 1)the girl cant remember if she agreed to it, and 2) There's no guarantee that Evans could tell she wasnt in to it.
It could be rape, but the man be completely unaware. It might not be rape because the woman can't remember
Rapes a bit shit legally speaking init
Fine, they explain that she does forget stuff when shes had a drink...but we knew that anyway. As she doesn't remember the night in question
There will never be conclusive proof that a rape did/didn't occur because 1)the girl cant remember if she agreed to it, and 2) There's no guarantee that Evans could tell she wasnt in to it.
It could be rape, but the man be completely unaware. It might not be rape because the woman can't remember
Rapes a bit shit legally speaking init
- Status
