Ched Evans cleared.

[Paul6754]

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?

 

It's unclear whether it was the reward that resulted in the two men with the new evidence to come forward. The fact that it was two men (more than one) who came forward was probably significant, both saying their experiences with the girl claiming she had no memory of what happened was the same as Evans.

 

Sadly there was a recent, similar and well publicized incident here in which 3 American football players were found guilty (2 others are awaiting trial) of rape of a female at Duke University who claimed she was too drunk to consent. Video evidence shows the girl being carried from the car to the dorm, being carried out of the elevator and being left motionless on the floor whilst some of the defendants looked up her skirt, she was carried to one of the defendants rooms and raped. It was clear the poor girl was unconsious or close to it and in no fit state to walk let alone consent. Contrast this with the behavior of the girl in hotel lobby in North Wales, the original conviction was unsafe and IMHO has been rightly overturned.

[bookworm]

well there are lessons to be learned ,to all you young bucks, stay away from the town bike and keep it in your trousers.

[Jacko51]

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:

 

If you read through the entire article, it quotes the Facebook messages sent by Evans' girlfriend offering the reward and clearly states, "The jury at Evans' retrial was not told about the Facebook messages after the judge ruled them inadmissible." So the judge and the legal teams knew of the messages bu the jury didn't.

 

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

[Jacko51]

It's unclear whether it was the reward that resulted in the two men with the new evidence to come forward. The fact that it was two men (more than one) who came forward was probably significant, both saying their experiences with the girl claiming she had no memory of what happened was the same as Evans.

 

The cynic in me remembers Mandy Rice-Davies saying "well they would, wouldn't they"!

[bookworm]

The cynic in me remembers Mandy Rice-Davies saying "well they would, wouldn't they"!

 

ah yes I remember it well, Christine keeler and mandy rice pudding,doesn't happen now of course, ladies like those two are all hedge fund managers now.

[TheSage]

I find the whole sordid business from start to finish very distasteful.

And I'm a little uneasy about the 'new' evidence that was found in the wake of multi-millionaire father-in-law spending in excess of half a million quid on private investigators trawling the country to find people to support Evans.

I suspect very strongly that trashing someone's character and revealing their sex lives in court will deter rape victims from coming forward in future. I hope that I'm wrong.

 

The other thing that fills me with dismay is the way in which in some quarters Evans has been portrayed as a whiter-than-white, hero, cult figure whose moral standards are second only to the Archangel Gabriel and who deserves our total sympathy. Well, he doesn't. Whatever the verdict (and he has now been acquitted) his behaviour that night was shameful and reflective of exactly what kind of a person he is.

[For Us All]

What she did prior to or subsequent to the alleged event should be irrelevant but it now opens the door to character assassination as a defense once again.

If she is a slag and he is a slag what does it make of his girlfriend who seems to take his actions as normal?

Both parties should have been afforded anonymity and should be in all cases until after the trial and reporting restrictions should be applied similarly.

What she consented to with others has no bearing on what she didnt consent to with another party [whoever that person may be]

The whole question revolved around the difficult subject of consent... did she give it?... was she capable of giving it?

 

If what he did is normal, acceptable behaviour god help us

 

Talking of anonymity,Sir Cliff Richard is suing the BBC and South Yorkshire police over his treatment,and rightly so in my opinion.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37676833

[geosname]

Talking of anonymity,Sir Cliff Richard is suing the BBC and South Yorkshire police over his treatment,and rightly so in my opinion.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37676833

 

Its a difficult question ... before a conviction its possible to have both sides as a victim, one of the crime and the other from the trial by media and opinion.

Its not really a problem if there is a conviction because it ratifies what the press/public thought [in the general view].

From a different perspective it could be argued that if some high profile names had not been dropped people may not have come forward.

The stigma attached to such crimes doesnt just affect the rich and famous, although they are the ones we generally hear about.

So when should someone be publicly named?

suspected but not yet charged?

charged but no decision by cps to prosecute?

decision to prosecute but not yet at court?

Appearance at court but before conviction?

after conviction?

 

as a personal opinion... the first is far too early and the last far too late

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Once convicted...then other victims will come fwd and further charges can be brought. For me the accused has the same rights as the accuser until found guilty.

[CambridgeDon]

If you read through the entire article, it quotes the Facebook messages sent by Evans' girlfriend offering the reward and clearly states, "The jury at Evans' retrial was not told about the Facebook messages after the judge ruled them inadmissible." So the judge and the legal teams knew of the messages bu the jury didn't.

 

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

 

If you read my email carefully, you'll see the point I was making was that the Court did hear about the #50,000 reward offered by the accused's girlfriend. The article in the DT clearly refers to the Facebook messages being ruled as inadmissible, for reasons best known to the Court, but that did not prevent the jury being told about the #50,000 reward offered by Evans' girlfriend. This was my point in response to your question asking why the jury were not told about the reward on offer (Why were the jury not told that Evans' girlfriend had offered a £50,000 reward for new witnesses to come forward?). They clearly were.

 

Just to further the debate, there's another interesting piece about the case (among the dozens in the media since the trial) here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/rape-suspects-have-a-right-to-challenge-their-accusers--and-to-s/

[JOHNNYAITCH]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041

 

Burden of proof not so great in a civil case

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041

 

Burden of proof not so great in a civil case

 

How on earth did that one not get to court with an independent witness giving such a key statement.

[Bea Smith]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041

 

Burden of proof not so great in a civil case

 

Why has the post from last night that originally showed the link above (since quoted twice) and highlighting the Scottish Goodwillie case, which as a post contained nothing contentious at all, been removed from this thread ?

[Fosse69]

Why has the post from last night that originally showed the link above (since quoted twice) and highlighting the Scottish Goodwillie case, which as a post contained nothing contentious at all, been removed from this thread ?

As it said "inappropriate"

[Bea Smith]

As it said "inappropriate"

 

The post concerned a very similar case to Ched Evans case, so I fail to see how it was inappropriate.

 

I also see that 2 other posters (Johnny Aitch and REP) who are no doubt more allowed more leeway, have quoted the same link and their posts remain, why aren't they also inappropriate ?

 

Some very selective admin actions are taking place lately, or is it not allowed to even question this now ?