Footballer Ched Evans found not guilty of rape in retrial

Scroll to see replies

So what we have is a verdict that some people agree with and others do not.
Whereas, before the re-trial we had a verdict that some people agreed with and others did not.
However, as the re-trial overrules the earlier verdict, it is irrelevant who agrees with what, only that the jury made a decision based on the evidence put to them.

I do not challenge the jury on deciding that Evans was not guilty on the evidence that was put forward to them.

My issue is that the judge allowed 'evidence' of her past sexual history with other men to be put to the jury. The judge allowed the barrister to question the complainant in court about her sexual history with other men, including what her favourite sexual positions were and what noises and words she made and used during sex.

Whether she consented to having sex with other men at other times has nothing to do with whether she consented in this case. It propels the rape myth that women with more liberal attitudes towards sex are less likely to be raped and more likely to be consenting in any given rape trial.
Imagine it was your daughter being made to detail her sexual encounters in front of a court of law. It must have been absolutely humiliating for her. Stuff like that puts off victims from reporting it, thinking they will have their sexual history brought up in public.

Note I am not saying Evans was guilty or not guilty, I am saying it is awful that she was questioned on her sexual history with other men like that.

Reply 21

AlexanderHam

Original post by Bornblue

I've just responded to your PM, check that out (my first PM was still adhering to my position, I took some time to consider and the second and third accept your position).

I'm sorry for being a total dick, it's totally straightforward and undeniable logic you were advancing. And I read the original CofA judgment denying Evans' permission to appeal a couple of years ago, I'm not sure how I could have been so obnoxious and pig-headed not to accept what is pretty undeniable logic re the consistency of the verdicts (more in my PMs).

Reply 22

unprinted

Original post by AlexanderHam

I'm sorry for being a total dick, it's totally straightforward and undeniable logic you were advancing. And I read the original CofA judgment denying Evans' permission to appeal a couple of years ago, I'm not sure how I could have been so obnoxious and pig-headed not to accept what is pretty undeniable logic re the consistency of the verdicts (more in my PMs).

Oooh, another one :smile:

Seeing people going from 'Of course Evans is totally innocent, because McDonald was acquitted / she only accused him of rape to sell her story / etc etc' to seeing - at least - why he was convicted the first time makes the time spent here pointing out the reasons worthwhile.

Reply 23

AlexanderHam

Original post by unprinted

Oooh, another one :smile:

I'm not 'seeing why he was convicted', I suppose my comment was really to acknowledge Bornblue was entirely correct in pointing out the verdict's were not inconsistent. Given he was subsequently acquitted it would perhaps be inappropriate for me to say the first verdict was justified. But I do acknowledge, after having been completely obnoxious (and illogical) in denying, that the verdicts were not inconsistent as a matter of law.

Reply 24

RVNmax

Original post by Bornblue

My issue is that the judge allowed 'evidence' of her past sexual history with other men to be put to the jury. The judge allowed the barrister to question the complainant in court about her sexual history with other men, including what her favourite sexual positions were and what noises and words she made and used during sex.

Whether she consented to having sex with other men at other times has nothing to do with whether she consented in this case. It propels the rape myth that women with more liberal attitudes towards sex are less likely to be raped and more likely to be consenting in any given rape trial.
Imagine it was your daughter being made to detail her sexual encounters in front of a court of law. It must have been absolutely humiliating for her. Stuff like that puts off victims from reporting it, thinking they will have their sexual history brought up in public.

Note I am not saying Evans was guilty or not guilty, I am saying it is awful that she was questioned on her sexual history with other men like that.

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

Read point 6 in full please.

It has not been stated that consenting to other men had anything to do with consenting in this case. It was put by the defence that the way the alleged victim acted in the act with other men is so similar to how she acted in this case that it could not be so that Mr. Evans was making it up. And of course when you say he is not lying, then he would think that the act was consensual.

Just like AlexanderHam wasn't understanding your point, you are not understanding this one.

Just to clarify, I don't think this evidence/claim by the defence was at all proof that what Mr. Evans had said was the truth, after all it seems like a common way of acting and dialogue; it's not specific enough in my eyes for full proof. I'm not a legal expert and I'm not sure if this evidence could be enough to create doubt in the prosecution's case. I suspect that 'unprinted' was correct in saying the omission of the key witness's statement could have been the key in the differing verdict. Although note, not hearing that something was said doesn't mean that it wasn't said.

Reply 25

unprinted

Original post by RVNmax

It has not been stated that consenting to other men had anything to do with consenting in this case. It was put by the defence that the way the alleged victim acted in the act with other men is so similar to how she acted in this case that it could not be so that Mr. Evans was making it up. And of course when you say he is not lying, then he would think that the act was consensual.

Well, even his mate in the room says he's lying about one critical bit and it should be clear what I think the right verdict was, but if we go 'the first jury unanimously found she lacked capacity, so it's likely that the second did too, therefore they were looking for a reasonable but mistaken belief...'

... even if his belief in consent was reasonable in the later parts of having sex with her, I don't see how his initial belief was.

I'm still very interested in knowing how she reacted when he stopped having sex with her. IME, women who are enjoying the sex as much as he says she was are not silent if you stop it without a very good reason. Here, he's stopped before coming and then gone for the door. That was unlikely to have gone without comment... unless she was at best semi-conscious.

Although note, not hearing that something was said doesn't mean that it wasn't said.

Yep, however it's not that McDonald says he didn't hear Evans ask her if she wanted to have sex with Evans (or vice versa), it's that both deny, including on oath, that they asked her. Both know she should have been asked, but both know that they didn't do it.

And in the case of what happened after McDonald left the room, Evans' story is that she was 'repeatedly' 'crying out' "**** me harder", not whispering it in his ear. Anyone who could hear the sounds that told them sex was happening would have been able to hear that.

Reply 26

RVNmax

Original post by unprinted

... even if his belief in consent was reasonable in the later parts of having sex with her, I don't see how his initial belief was.

I had this thought as well, but I'm not sure what the law says on this matter.

And in the case of what happened after McDonald left the room, Evans' story is that she was 'repeatedly' 'crying out' "**** me harder", not whispering it in his ear. Anyone who could hear the sounds that told them sex was happening would have been able to hear that.

They would have been able to hear it assuming ceteris paribus, but it's not necessary even then that they actually heard it. A bit like the invisible gorilla illusion, but for hearing; if you're attention is some place else then you can easily miss something that would have been blindingly obvious otherwise.

Reply 27

unprinted

Original post by RVNmax

I had this thought as well, but I'm not sure what the law says on this matter.

It's clear that consent is necessary from initial penetration, no matter how slight, to withdrawing. Normally, this becomes an issue when the person on the receiving end goes 'stop' and the penetrating partner ignores them, but this is - at best - the other way around: there was no reasonable belief when the sex started, even if there may have been up at the other end.

I'm still not convinced that there was, of course. The first jury definitely found she lacked capacity despite knowing she could (barely) walk and talk, so why couldn't she also stay bent over?

Original post by RVNmax

A bit like the invisible gorilla illusion, but for hearing; if you're attention is some place else then you can easily miss something that would have been blindingly obvious otherwise.

In this case, there was someone actively listening to what was happening with her in the room, because they'd been told she was sick.

Reply 28

RVNmax

Original post by unprinted

In this case, there was someone actively listening to what was happening with her in the room, because they'd been told she was sick.

You are saying that this someone had no other job to do. Do you never completely miss what was said in a conversation where you were actively involved. Or have you not heard about drivers not seeing things right in front of them even though they know they are supposed to be paying attention to the road. I question how much attention this someone could be giving to her, anyway. You'd need to go through the details of how this person was feeling, what they were doing and what exactly was heard that indicated sex. Just saying that it's not as straightforward as you are implying to prove conclusively, but then nothing ever is.

Reply 29

unprinted

If he'd heard any sort of 'crying out', he'd have said, even if he couldn't make out the words. In that case, it'd be very likely that Evans would never have gone to court.