Ched Evans cleared.

[geosname]

Why? What she did before and after shows what kind of person she is. Let's not forget that he has been found not guilty which means the jury believe that she consented.

 

Sent from my HTC 0PGQ1 using Tapatalk

 

What sort of person she is is totally irrelevant

[P.E. ST6]

What sort of person she is is totally irrelevant

Why is it? In this case it shows that she has a history of going out getting 'drunk' and sleeping with any Tom dick or Harry

 

Sent from my HTC 0PGQ1 using Tapatalk

[geosname]

If a womans past sexual experiences are used to discredit her honesty then surely a mans should also be used to discredit his.

If someone has sex with multiple partners every night of the week does that make raping that person impossible?... does the question of consent become obsolete?... do we then move on from consent to a place where if someone is incapable of giving consent its acceptable?... children cant give consent... drugged/unconscious cant give consent... Alzheimer/dementia sufferers?

[geosname]

Why is it? In this case it shows that she has a history of going out getting 'drunk' and sleeping with any Tom dick or Harry

 

Sent from my HTC 0PGQ1 using Tapatalk

 

she has the right to do that if she chooses... and gives consent.... but didnt he do the same?... doesnt that show what sort of person he is?... does that make him guilty?

[P.E. ST6]

she has the right to do that if she chooses... and gives consent.... but didnt he do the same?... doesnt that show what sort of person he is?... does that make him guilty?

Exactly they are both as bad as each other, but no rape took place. OK let's not mention her past, but how about days after this incident she went and did it again.

 

Was she or wasn't she in any state to give consent, only him her and Clayton now the truth. The jury believe the evidence put forward and they believed she was able to give consent.

 

Also how is a Ched to know how much she drank and whether or not she was able to give consent when he too was intoxicated.

 

Sent from my HTC 0PGQ1 using Tapatalk

[Mattholl]

What sort of person she is is totally irrelevant

 

See im afraid it does, would you be shocked to know this isn't the first rape allegation by this person against a professional sportsman? She did it 18 months previously with a rugby player. The case was dropped after statements said she was all over him all night.This evidence was not allowed to be used in this case for fear of effecting the juries image of her. At best you could say she has a habit of getting herself into situations she cant control, at worst you could say she is aiming to make herself famous

[geosname]

See im afraid it does, would you be shocked to know this isn't the first rape allegation by this person against a professional sportsman? She did it 18 months previously with a rugby player. The case was dropped after statements said she was all over him all night.This evidence was not allowed to be used in this case for fear of effecting the juries image of her. At best you could say she has a habit of getting herself into situations she cant control, at worst you could say she is aiming to make herself famous

 

I disagree... whether she was all over "him" or not does not exclude the possibility of rape... she may well have cried rape before, she may well have been raped before, evens could have done it before but never got charged.

The question isnt did they have sex, did they want sex or who started what when.... its a complex question of consent... she may well have initiated and run the situation up to the point of entry... then says NO.. if he continues its rape... if she is incapable of saying no... its rape

[mr.hobblesworth]

if she is incapable of saying no... its rape

Isn't it more a case of 'if she is incapable of saying yes, it's rape'?

[mr.hobblesworth]

Completely agree with your posts, by the way...

[Jacko51]

Vera Baird, Police Commissioner for Northumberland, and former Solicitor General, was talking this morning about how the case takes criminal law back by about 30 years by allowing the girl's sexual history to be admitted in evidence.

[Jacko51]

Why? What she did before and after shows what kind of person she is. Let's not forget that he has been found not guilty which means the jury believe that she consented.

 

Sent from my HTC 0PGQ1 using Tapatalk

 

Are you saying that a woman with an "interesting" sexual history can never be raped? Does rather give carte blanche to any bloke doesn't it - find a lass who is known to put it about a bit, rape her and it'll be OK because she does it all the time? Very dangerous road to go down.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Why is it? In this case it shows that she has a history of going out getting 'drunk' and sleeping with any Tom dick or Harry

 

Sent from my HTC 0PGQ1 using Tapatalk

 

I have no idea if she was raped but I do know he is no longer a convicted rapist so should be treated as such

 

Using her history is a risk as it gives a rapist the defence of "she is that kind of girl and what we did she has willingly done before"..all about placing doubt in a jury's mind rather than looking at the hard evidence. Concerns me that rape victims will not come forward for fear of having their past raked up....she could have consensually had sex with 1000 men, an elephant, the whole Rhyl Town squad and a Ford Focus in the week before she was raped...she still could have been raped...Her previous and post behaviour does not exclude the possibility and is dangerous evidence to use.

[Paul6754]

The BBC website says, "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's case was one of those very rare exceptions".

 

IMHO, given the doubt in this case it was entirely appropriate in the interests of a fair trial to raise this particular piece of her past history.

[Jacko51]

Why? What she did before and after shows what kind of person she is. Let's not forget that he has been found not guilty which means the jury believe that she consented.

 

Sent from my HTC 0PGQ1 using Tapatalk

 

Why were the jury not told that Evans' girlfriend had offered a £50,000 reward for new witnesses to come forward. Surely if they allow evidence that casts doubt on the girl, they should also allow evidence that casts doubt on the defence witnesses?

[CambridgeDon]

I make no comment on the outcome of the case but the following article explains (i) why the three Justices in the Appeals Court allowed the woman's previous sexual behaviour and history to form part of the evidence; and (ii) that the Court did hear about the #50,000 reward offered by the accused's girlfriend:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-raping-teenager-after-two-week/

 

And a second article setting out the damage Evan's behaviour has done to English football:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/10/14/team-ched-show-just-how-sick-football-culture-in-britain-is/

 

A really sordid affair.