Ched Evans - should he play football again?

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:

In rape trials, defence lawyers are banned from cross-examining an alleged victim about their sexual behaviour or history to protect them from humiliating treatment.
But there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal said Mr Evans' case was one of those very rare exceptions.
It said that two other men who had sex with the woman had described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were virtually indistinguishable from Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.
One of the encounters occurred days before the alleged rape - and the other in the days that followed.
On each occasion the woman had been drinking heavily and the sex occurred in a very specific way - including the words she used to encourage her partner.
Each time she woke up saying she had no memory of what had happened

Lady Justice Hallett, one of the country's top judges, said that these events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent

From bbc.

Well this seems a tad dodgy to me.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:

In rape trials, defence lawyers are banned from cross-examining an alleged victim about their sexual behaviour or history to protect them from humiliating treatment.
But there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal said Mr Evans' case was one of those very rare exceptions.
It said that two other men who had sex with the woman had described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were virtually indistinguishable from Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.
One of the encounters occurred days before the alleged rape - and the other in the days that followed.
On each occasion the woman had been drinking heavily and the sex occurred in a very specific way - including the words she used to encourage her partner.
Each time she woke up saying she had no memory of what had happened

Lady Justice Hallett, one of the country's top judges, said that these events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent

From bbc.

nf

Well this seems a tad dodgy to me.

The interesting thing is that I've not seen reported anywhere how she responded to this. Did she deny this happened with the other two men?

Tomous wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:

In rape trials, defence lawyers are banned from cross-examining an alleged victim about their sexual behaviour or history to protect them from humiliating treatment.
But there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal said Mr Evans' case was one of those very rare exceptions.
It said that two other men who had sex with the woman had described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were virtually indistinguishable from Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.
One of the encounters occurred days before the alleged rape - and the other in the days that followed.
On each occasion the woman had been drinking heavily and the sex occurred in a very specific way - including the words she used to encourage her partner.
Each time she woke up saying she had no memory of what had happened

Lady Justice Hallett, one of the country's top judges, said that these events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent

From bbc.

nf

Well this seems a tad dodgy to me.

The interesting thing is that I've not seen reported anywhere how she responded to this. Did she deny this happened with the other two men?

Whether she did or didn't doesn't matter because it should be irrelevant.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:

In rape trials, defence lawyers are banned from cross-examining an alleged victim about their sexual behaviour or history to protect them from humiliating treatment.
But there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal said Mr Evans' case was one of those very rare exceptions.
It said that two other men who had sex with the woman had described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were virtually indistinguishable from Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.
One of the encounters occurred days before the alleged rape - and the other in the days that followed.
On each occasion the woman had been drinking heavily and the sex occurred in a very specific way - including the words she used to encourage her partner.
Each time she woke up saying she had no memory of what had happened

Lady Justice Hallett, one of the country's top judges, said that these events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent

From bbc.

nf

Well this seems a tad dodgy to me.

The interesting thing is that I've not seen reported anywhere how she responded to this. Did she deny this happened with the other two men?

Whether she did or didn't doesn't matter because it should be irrelevant.

I would say it's pretty relevant if she said yes this did happen. I'm just interested to know if she even had the opportunity to saw that she even slept with the two men considering it wasn't her that was on trial. She may have said she's never met them, or she may have said she slept with them and remembered or she may have said that what they said was correct. I would say that's bloody important.

Tomous wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:

In rape trials, defence lawyers are banned from cross-examining an alleged victim about their sexual behaviour or history to protect them from humiliating treatment.
But there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal said Mr Evans' case was one of those very rare exceptions.
It said that two other men who had sex with the woman had described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were virtually indistinguishable from Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.
One of the encounters occurred days before the alleged rape - and the other in the days that followed.
On each occasion the woman had been drinking heavily and the sex occurred in a very specific way - including the words she used to encourage her partner.
Each time she woke up saying she had no memory of what had happened

Lady Justice Hallett, one of the country's top judges, said that these events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent

From bbc.

nf

Well this seems a tad dodgy to me.

The interesting thing is that I've not seen reported anywhere how she responded to this. Did she deny this happened with the other two men?

Whether she did or didn't doesn't matter because it should be irrelevant.

I would say it's pretty relevant if she said yes this did happen. I'm just interested to know if she even had the opportunity to saw that she even slept with the two men considering it wasn't her that was on trial. She may have said she's never met them, or she may have said she slept with them and remembered or she may have said that what they said was correct. I would say that's bloody important.

What she did with other men at other times is completely irrelevant to the question of whether she was able to give consent to Ched Evans on the night in question. I've no idea how it was allowed to be submitted in court second time around.

Tomous wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:

In rape trials, defence lawyers are banned from cross-examining an alleged victim about their sexual behaviour or history to protect them from humiliating treatment.
But there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal said Mr Evans' case was one of those very rare exceptions.
It said that two other men who had sex with the woman had described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were virtually indistinguishable from Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.
One of the encounters occurred days before the alleged rape - and the other in the days that followed.
On each occasion the woman had been drinking heavily and the sex occurred in a very specific way - including the words she used to encourage her partner.
Each time she woke up saying she had no memory of what had happened

Lady Justice Hallett, one of the country's top judges, said that these events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent

From bbc.

nf

Well this seems a tad dodgy to me.

The interesting thing is that I've not seen reported anywhere how she responded to this. Did she deny this happened with the other two men?

Whether she did or didn't doesn't matter because it should be irrelevant.

I would say it's pretty relevant if she said yes this did happen. I'm just interested to know if she even had the opportunity to saw that she even slept with the two men considering it wasn't her that was on trial. She may have said she's never met them, or she may have said she slept with them and remembered or she may have said that what they said was correct. I would say that's bloody important.

What she did with other men at other times is completely irrelevant to the question of whether she was able to give consent to Ched Evans on the night in question. I've no idea how it was allowed to be submitted in court second time around.

Tomous wrote:Looking into it, this seems dodgy as strawberry float to me. The "fresh evidence" was the testimonies of two guys who had also had sex with her recently? And because the circumstances matched that was enough to flip the verdict.

This is like the legal equivalent of "she was asking for it".

With the Evans camp throwing out "cash rewards" for new evidence and the fact they don't usually allow a victim's sexual history to be explored in court...seems his legal team have performed wonders.

Tomous wrote:Looking into it, this seems dodgy as strawberry float to me. The "fresh evidence" was the testimonies of two guys who had also had sex with her recently? And because the circumstances matched that was enough to flip the verdict.

This is like the legal equivalent of "she was asking for it".

With the Evans camp throwing out "cash rewards" for new evidence and the fact they don't usually allow a victim's sexual history to be explored in court...seems his legal team have performed wonders.

Shadow wrote:

Tomous wrote:Looking into it, this seems dodgy as strawberry float to me. The "fresh evidence" was the testimonies of two guys who had also had sex with her recently? And because the circumstances matched that was enough to flip the verdict.

This is like the legal equivalent of "she was asking for it".

With the Evans camp throwing out "cash rewards" for new evidence and the fact they don't usually allow a victim's sexual history to be explored in court...seems his legal team have performed wonders.

Whether or not "she was asking for it" is a really important detail in a rape trial.

Ironhide wrote:

Tomous wrote:Looking into it, this seems dodgy as strawberry float to me. The "fresh evidence" was the testimonies of two guys who had also had sex with her recently? And because the circumstances matched that was enough to flip the verdict.

This is like the legal equivalent of "she was asking for it".

With the Evans camp throwing out "cash rewards" for new evidence and the fact they don't usually allow a victim's sexual history to be explored in court...seems his legal team have performed wonders.

I think the issue is that the alleged victim had done exactly the same thing with two other (that we know of) men and didn't accuse them of rape yet when she slept with the semi-famous footballer she then claimed it wasn't consensual at all. Its not hard to see how an expensive legal team can spin that to Evans' favour

Even if what she claims happened is true it brings the reliability of her testimony under question.

Albear wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:

In rape trials, defence lawyers are banned from cross-examining an alleged victim about their sexual behaviour or history to protect them from humiliating treatment.
But there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal said Mr Evans' case was one of those very rare exceptions.
It said that two other men who had sex with the woman had described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were virtually indistinguishable from Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.
One of the encounters occurred days before the alleged rape - and the other in the days that followed.
On each occasion the woman had been drinking heavily and the sex occurred in a very specific way - including the words she used to encourage her partner.
Each time she woke up saying she had no memory of what had happened

Lady Justice Hallett, one of the country's top judges, said that these events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent

From bbc.

nf

Well this seems a tad dodgy to me.

The interesting thing is that I've not seen reported anywhere how she responded to this. Did she deny this happened with the other two men?

Whether she did or didn't doesn't matter because it should be irrelevant.

I would say it's pretty relevant if she said yes this did happen. I'm just interested to know if she even had the opportunity to saw that she even slept with the two men considering it wasn't her that was on trial. She may have said she's never met them, or she may have said she slept with them and remembered or she may have said that what they said was correct. I would say that's bloody important.

What she did with other men at other times is completely irrelevant to the question of whether she was able to give consent to Ched Evans on the night in question. I've no idea how it was allowed to be submitted in court second time around.

You think the fact she had a sex a few days before, and then also a few days after the alledged rape, That all 3 scenarios were almost identical, and that she claims she doesn't remember after each time is irrelevant?

I'm not sure I can even debate against that opinion it's so alien to me.

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:

In rape trials, defence lawyers are banned from cross-examining an alleged victim about their sexual behaviour or history to protect them from humiliating treatment.
But there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal said Mr Evans' case was one of those very rare exceptions.
It said that two other men who had sex with the woman had described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were virtually indistinguishable from Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.
One of the encounters occurred days before the alleged rape - and the other in the days that followed.
On each occasion the woman had been drinking heavily and the sex occurred in a very specific way - including the words she used to encourage her partner.
Each time she woke up saying she had no memory of what had happened

Lady Justice Hallett, one of the country's top judges, said that these events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent

From bbc.

nf

Well this seems a tad dodgy to me.

The interesting thing is that I've not seen reported anywhere how she responded to this. Did she deny this happened with the other two men?

Whether she did or didn't doesn't matter because it should be irrelevant.

I would say it's pretty relevant if she said yes this did happen. I'm just interested to know if she even had the opportunity to saw that she even slept with the two men considering it wasn't her that was on trial. She may have said she's never met them, or she may have said she slept with them and remembered or she may have said that what they said was correct. I would say that's bloody important.

What she did with other men at other times is completely irrelevant to the question of whether she was able to give consent to Ched Evans on the night in question. I've no idea how it was allowed to be submitted in court second time around.

You think the fact she had a sex a few days before, and then also a few days after the alledged rape, That all 3 scenarios were almost identical, and that she claims she doesn't remember after each time is irrelevant?

I'm not sure I can even debate against that opinion it's so alien to me.

In what ways were they identical exactly? I find it extremely suspect they had two people spin that in the second case when the Evans family were offering large cash rewards for new evidence.

if you think the defendant probably did it, he’s still not guilty.

Blue Eyes wrote:People calling her a slag when sweet innocent Ched strawberry floated her when she was blind drunk when he had a girlfriend. He's a strawberry floating slag.

Hexx wrote:https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

Excellent read - esp 5 & 6

captain red dog wrote:

Hexx wrote:https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

Excellent read - esp 5 & 6

Great read, really interesting.

From the evidence we know, the jury's verdict seems sound. I suspect they probably had more evidence too that isn't in the public domain.