Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[Bazile]

I haven't been following this story , myself

He has been found not guilty


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009

[Prudie]

I would think most on here do have sympathy for the woman however the reason Andy that you keep thinking they don't is this completely illogical insistence you have that she reported a lost handbag and absolutely nothing else and on that basis the police charged someone with rape. I said the same yesterday - how can you not see this as an impossible chain without her knowledge and agreement? That's why you keep getting the comments you perceive as anti her and pro him.

[Zacs-Master]

I think the Duraglit he uses to polish his halo must have gone to his head Prudie. It's the only explanation.

[andy-hughes]

trt - //Going back to the case, why weren't the two men, who said they had sexual intercourse with the girl, before and after the rape, called as witnesses in the first trial, or was there a bit of skulduggery going on? //

There is legislation designed to protect alleged victims in rape cases that means that their previous sexual history cannot be divulged in court because it may prejudice the perceptions of the jury about the evidence, and thus taint the verdict.

In exceptional circumstances, the defence can appeal that the sexual history of the alleged victim is pertinent.

The request to hear that history is put before a body of Appeal Court judges and if they decide that it is in the interests of a fair trial that such evidence is heard, then it is admitted.

It may be that the defence were unable to get that ruling for the first trial, but they did get it for the second trial.

That is why evidence about the alleged victim's sexual behaviour was used as evidence, which in turn allowed Evans acquittal.

[Barmaid]

A-H, we have no idea what was said at the police station when she went in. But at some point, the police have identified there is sufficient evidence to charge with rape.

In general victims very often do not know the extent to which they have been offended against and it is up to the police and the CPS to identify the correct charge and bring it. That does NOT make the police the complainant since the evidence that leads to a charge must (certainly in this type of case), have come from the complainant (and that indeed was a carefully chosen word on my part given CE's aquittal). Whilst it may be that she never actually said "he raped me", she will have been the one who gave the initial evidence (which is known as a complaint) which led to the arrest and charge. She undoubtedly will have given an initial statement, followed potentially by other statements - she will also have been asked whether she would be willing to attend court. Because of the seriousness of this offence she will have had an OIC (Officer in the case) in regular contact with her. To suggest she has been in some way "over-ruled" by the police is, frankly, naive. I have seen no suggestion that she was in any way an unwilling participant. Not only that, but for the second trial, she will have been forewarned that she was going to be subject to cross examination about her previous sexual history and still she chose to turn up.

I am in no way supportive of CE - I merely seek to correct the fact that you see my point as having a flaw.

I think it was a bad bad day for British justice. Strangely, I can find NO case report on the CA hearing at all.

[andy-hughes]

Prudie - // would think most on here do have sympathy for the woman ... //

The posts from a cerain group of AB'ers proves otherwise - feel free to read back through the thread if you don't believe me.

//however the reason Andy that you keep thinking they don't is this completely illogical insistence you have that she reported a lost handbag and absolutely nothing else and on that basis the police charged someone with rape. I said the same yesterday - how can you not see this as an impossible chain without her knowledge and agreement? That's why you keep getting the comments you perceive as anti her and pro him. //

That is not what I have said.

What I have said is that the woman went to the police station to report a missing bag - she did.

What I have also said is that she did not accuse Evans of rape - she did not.

And then I have gone on - twice in fact - to offer the suggestion that the police, based on her statement about the evening - brought a charge of rape against Evans.

Now we have no idea what that conversation was, and I am not doggedly insisting that I do know what must have happened - unlike some who 'cannot believe' that her interview did not lead to the rape charge.

What I have suggested - and it is only a suggestion - is that the police took what she said and made the charge, and that she may not have known that this would be the outcome, and furthermore, she may have protested that she did not wish that to be done, and was over-ruled by the police.

I repeat again, in case my point is being lost - I am suggesting that this may have happened - nothing more.

None of us know - which makes my point as valid as anyone else's.

The only difference is, I am not trying to argue in defence of a man who has been convicted of rape, only the defence of a woman who has made no accusation of it.

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //Andy. You don't know what you are talking about. There was no attempt to trawl through her sexual history and destroy her credibility. //

Indeed there wasn't - which is why I didn't say there was.

You really must try and lose this habit of reading what you want to see into what I write, and then responding to that, instead of what I have actually said.

//The two witnesses were allowed to be heard purely because their evidence supported Evans statement that he reasonably believed she was consenting.

Which it did. //

I have said that the woman's sexual history was deemed relevant, and evidence of it was admitted to court.

That does not contradict what you said in the slightest - like I said, try reading what I write - perhaps twice - before launching in with an unwarranted attack based on a point I have not made.

[andy-hughes]

Zacs-Master - //I think the Duraglit he uses to polish his halo must have gone to his head Prudie. It's the only explanation. //

If all you have to add to the debate is pointless snide nonsense, why not go somewhere else?

[Zacs-Master]

'in defence of a man who has been convicted of rape'..... or in defence of a man acquitted of rape? I think you're unable to make the distinction.

[andy-hughes]

Zacs-Master - //'in defence of a man who has been convicted of rape'..... or in defence of a man acquitted of rape? I think you're unable to make the distinction. //

Evans is both.

The fact that he was acquitted the second time does not mean his first conviction ceases to have happened.

I am fully aware that legally Evans has been acquitted of the charge - but he did have a charge, he was convicted and imprisoned for it, that remains a fact.

[jim360]

As I understand it the evidence of the two men was not used at the first trial because it simply wasn't available, not because it was deemed inadmissible. It took some investigations in between trials, by Ched Evan's legal team, to uncover this evidence and then argue (successfully) that it was relevant, and grounds for a second trial.

I can't comment on why the initial conviction was quashed -- Barmaid, you wouldn't happen to know if the two parts of the story are linked, or at least if they could be?

[Barmaid]

The conviction was quashed. That's as if it never happened.

Only report I can find is here:-

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-v-chedwyn-evans/

[jim360]

Thanks. So it doesn't say, but presumably that means it *was* the fresh evidence that allowed Lady Justice Hallett to deem that the original conviction was unsafe.

[Barmaid]

"He appealed to this court against conviction on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (the “CCRC”) under s.9 Criminal Appeal Act 1995 on the basis that relevant and admissible evidence has come to light, that was not available at trial, and that undermines the safety of his conviction."

I think that bit probably is the nub of it, Jim. I understood that Evans sacked his defence team after his conviction and the new defence team tracked down these two witnesses.

[trt]

I was wondering after reading the last 5 post.

When the woman went to the police station to report a missing bag, and more of the incident, circumstances came out, would the police have not taken it further if the name Ched Evans had not been mentioned?

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //You can't just keep on saying he was convicted. The acquittal on appeal had the effect of wiping out the previous conviction with retrospective effect. //

Er - I can, because he was.

I am not saying he remains convicted - he doesn't, but events don't vanish unless you are in the business of airbrushing history, and Ched Evans is nowhere near important enough for anyone to bother doing that.

The legal niceties mean that he has no criminal record, but the fact that he was convicted is just that - a fact.

[jim360]

trt -- I suppose you are suggesting that he was only charged because he was a footballer, but that's an unfounded accusation. Rape cases come to court because there are accusations made of rape, regardless of the status of the accused.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //The legal niceties mean that he has no criminal record, but the fact that he was convicted is just that - a fact. //

Timothy Evans was tried and wrongly convicted of murder. He was hanged. That's a fact too - but it doesn't mean the initial conviction was right.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, //The legal niceties mean that he has no criminal record, but the fact that he was convicted is just that - a fact. //

Timothy Evans was tried and wrongly convicted of murder. He was hanged. That's a fact too - but it doesn't mean the initial conviction was right. //

Unwillingness to get into an argument with you notwithstanding, I can't let that pass with out a response.

Divebuddy is saying I can't keep saying Evans was convicted, I was, because he was. The rights and wrongs of that conviction are not part of either point.

You chime in and say that Timothy Evans was convicted and hanged, but that doesn't mean his conviction was right.

Of course it doesn't - but neither does it erase the fact that he was convicted!

My point is not the correctness of the conviction of Evans, just the fact that it did take place.

Your analogy is pointiness, or as you might say, you are being silly.

OK - as we were.