Ched Evans

[drew]

If what Ulrika said was true, then she's a rape victim, don't you think you could cut her some slack? She decided that she didn't want her life to be defined by it, she would live her life as she wanted and not have a rapist ruin it, and for her that meant not going to trial.

I don't think it's that similar because Esther wasn't a victim.

I agree, and if he's not guilty of rape then I would hope he gets a job as a footballer again.

Ulrika decided to use the incident in a book from which she profited. I have every sympathy with every rape victim and cannot imagine how hard it would be to come to terms with something like that let alone go through the court system. However, what if she was raped by someone who had raped before but wouldn't have been had that person been caught following the first incident. I do sympathize with her but it is tempered by the fact she brought the incident to the public domain.

The reference to Esther was on the basis that the knowledge they had may have prevented others being victims.

 

[nwgull]

My hope is that the truth comes out and this Ched Evans saga can be put to bed finally. If found guilty again put him back in side if not let him resume his career at the best available level.

I agree with you on the first but that the hope is that the truth becomes clearer.

However, it'd be a bit unfair to put him back in prison after he's already served the custodial part of his sentence!

 

[Bold Seagull]

I agree with you on the first but that the hope is that the truth becomes clearer.

The hope is that justice is properly fulfilled. Unlikely we'll get any more truth than the first trial, the appeal evidence will probably just raise the 'reasonable doubt' sufficiently for his conviction to be overturned if that is to be the outcome.

Don't think the appeal decision either way will put the saga to bed to be honest. They'll be equally enough people upset over an acquittal as there were who doubted the conviction.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Doesn't the appeal just determine whether there is a re-trial or not ?

 

[Triggaaar]

Ulrika decided to use the incident in a book from which she profited.

So? Why shouldn't she?

However, what if she was raped by someone who had raped before but wouldn't have been had that person been caught following the first incident.

Of course it would be good if all rape victims who knew their attacker felt able to prosecute, but the fact is some don't, and if Ulrika had it could well have negatively affected her life, so I'm not going to judge her negatively for it.

The reference to Esther was on the basis that the knowledge they had may have prevented others being victims.

I know, I just feel it's quite different as one claims to have been a victim, the other doesn't.

Doesn't the appeal just determine whether there is a re-trial or not ?

3 options - uphold original decision, quash it, or order re-trial.

The third is less likely as he's served his time, but I can't see what new evidence can have the conviction quashed without a re-trial.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So? Why shouldn't she?

Of course it would be good if all rape victims who knew their attacker felt able to prosecute, but the fact is some don't, and if Ulrika had it could well have negatively affected her life, so I'm not going to judge her negatively for it.

I know, I just feel it's quite different as one claims to have been a victim, the other doesn't.

3 options - uphold original decision, quash it, or order re-trial.

The third is less likely as he's served his time, but I can't see what new evidence can have the conviction quashed without a re-trial.

New evidence could mean that the defence have got proof that the victim lied, or a witness who saw the victim taking drugs which she denied, for example?

I'm not saying that she did lie, but it would be new evidence.

 

[Triggaaar]

New evidence could mean that the defence have got proof that the victim lied, or a witness who saw the victim taking drugs which she denied, for example?

I'm not saying that she did lie, but it would be new evidence.

Ched was found guilty of having sex with someone who wasn't fit to consent, I'm not sure how her taking drugs would prove that she was capable of giving consent. Of course it could be grounds for a re-trial, so a jury can decide if they believe her version etc, but on it's own I don't see how it can prove he's not guilty.

It's possible they've got something that proves his innocents, but you'd think it more likely they just have a little piece of new evidence that means the case should be heard again. The unlikeliness of a re-trial is simply (I think) because he's already served the sentence.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Ched was found guilty of having sex with someone who wasn't fit to consent, I'm not sure how her taking drugs would prove that she was capable of giving consent. Of course it could be grounds for a re-trial, so a jury can decide if they believe her version etc, but on it's own I don't see how it can prove he's not guilty.

It's possible they've got something that proves his innocents, but you'd think it more likely they just have a little piece of new evidence that means the case should be heard again. The unlikeliness of a re-trial is simply (I think) because he's already served the sentence.

She could have lied about not knowing she'd given consent. There was a lot of debate about how much, if any alcohol she had consumed. There was no alcohol found in her system when the doctors took blood samples.

 

[Triggaaar]

She could have lied about not knowing she'd given consent.

That would be fairly dramatic new evidence, and you wouldn't think it would require a re-trial. I'm guessing the new evidence is quite minuscule in comparison. Hasn't the case been sent to the court of appeal by the CCRC - they wouldn't have been needed if there was new evidence that she knew she'd given consent.

 

[symyjym]

She could have lied about not knowing she'd given consent. .

I would have thought that the only new evidence of her admitting consenting, that could be put forward, would be if they obtained a recording of her saying as such. Evans's legal team would have paid a lot of money to one of her close circle of friends if that is what they are putting on the table.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

That would be fairly dramatic new evidence, and you wouldn't think it would require a re-trial. I'm guessing the new evidence is quite minuscule in comparison. Hasn't the case been sent to the court of appeal by the CCRC - they wouldn't have been needed if there was new evidence that she knew she'd given consent.

We don't know what new evidence is being offered. I very much doubt it would be a retrial but a conviction being quashed as happened with the Birmingham Six, for example.

 

[nwgull]

That would be fairly dramatic new evidence, and you wouldn't think it would require a re-trial. I'm guessing the new evidence is quite minuscule in comparison. Hasn't the case been sent to the court of appeal by the CCRC - they wouldn't have been needed if there was new evidence that she knew she'd given consent.

Going to review by CCRC is the only way that a case can referred back to the court of appeal. They are made up of a variety of independent legal experts and will only refer a case to the court of appeal if they believe that new evidence has a 'real chance' of overturning a conviction.

To give an idea of the significance, the CCRC have only referred 595 cases to the appeal courts in 18 years, in which time they have received 19733 applications for review. Of those 595 cases referred, 392 have been successful - just over 2/3rds.

 

[drew]

She could have lied about not knowing she'd given consent. There was a lot of debate about how much, if any alcohol she had consumed. There was no alcohol found in her system when the doctors took blood samples.

I don't think there is any dispute she had drunk that evening. The reason that no alcohol was found was because she reported it to the Police long after she had woken up in the hotel room, ie she did a a shift at the hotel where she worked during the day so the alcohol would have been 'processed' by her body.

 

[drew]

So? Why shouldn't she?

Of course it would be good if all rape victims who knew their attacker felt able to prosecute, but the fact is some don't, and if Ulrika had it could well have negatively affected her life, so I'm not going to judge her negatively for it.

I know, I just feel it's quite different as one claims to have been a victim, the other doesn't.

3 options - uphold original decision, quash it, or order re-trial.

The third is less likely as he's served his time, but I can't see what new evidence can have the conviction quashed without a re-trial.

She's entitled to publish what she wants, I didn't say she couldn't. However I'm sure she would have been fully aware of the consequences of putting that in her book. It's your prerogative not to put a negative slant on it just as it is mine to think otherwise.
Same applies to Esther Rantzen. Personally, I think it is irrelevant as to whether she is a victim or not. If she was in a position to do something then she should have done. Maybe she was too concerned about the adverse effect on her media career.

 

[One Love]

I think this is a really unusual case and for me there are some major issues that need addressing. Obviously if he is guilty then fair enough.

The only reason the police know what happened is because the blokes have admitted to it which firstly shows complete naivety and you wonder why they were giving statements without legal advice. It also makes you think they thought they had done nothing wrong by freely owning up to having sex.

She has also gone up to the guy in the street, had a little chat and agreed to go back to his hotel room. Take Ched Evans out of the situation, would she have woken up in the morning and complained to the police that some random guy had raped her when she went back to his room?

Also this testimony of "I don't remember anything" is just too convenient for me. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been drunk enough to forget stuff on a night out but it's usually that your memory of events is a bit patchy not that the whole evening has gone from your memory.

Anyhow I'm not endorsing his behaviour I'm just a bit perplexed with some facts of the case.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I don't think there is any dispute she had drunk that evening. The reason that no alcohol was found was because she reported it to the Police long after she had woken up in the hotel room, ie she did a a shift at the hotel where she worked during the day so the alcohol would have been 'processed' by her body.

She didn't meet McDonald until the early hours of the morning, going to the hotel with him at 4am. She didn't wake up until 11.30am so she didn't do a day's shift at work.

 

[drew]

She didn't meet McDonald until the early hours of the morning, going to the hotel with him at 4am. She didn't wake up until 11.30am so she didn't do a day's shift at work.

She worked at a hotel! Her mother picked her from the hotel where she woke up. She did her shift at the hotel where she worked then went back to the other hotel to view the cctv! There was apparently no evidence that she drank anything after she met McDonald.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

She worked at a hotel! Her mother picked her from the hotel where she woke up. She did her shift at the hotel where she worked then went back to the other hotel to view the cctv! There was apparently no evidence that she drank anything after she met McDonald.

Yet she claimed to have been given a spiked drink.

 

[drew]

Yet she claimed to have been given a spiked drink.

Not entirely sure what your point is. There was apparently no evidence of that. Whether she said it to try and hide her cocaine use, one can only guess.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Not entirely sure what your point is. There was apparently no evidence of that. Whether she said it to try and hide her cocaine use, one can only guess.

Indeed. That's one of the reasons I have my doubts about her testimony, having read it on the crimeline.