The return of Ched Evans

[Hope]

offering money for evidence? Citation?

I was referring to Brownie's piece from the Guardian.  Also to john's earlier post: http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10954.msg640458#msg640458

[Owlswing]

offering money for evidence? Citation?

Several papers have carried the story his sister or his girlfriend offered £50,000.00 for evidence to help his appeal.

[Nearly Sane]

I was referring to Brownie's piece from the Guardian.  Also to john's earlier post: http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10954.msg640458#msg640458

No, I was talking about this happening generally which you stated.

[Nearly Sane]

Several papers have carried the story his sister or his girlfriend offered £50,000.00 for evidence to help his appeal.

I know, I was replying to Hope's idea that this was common

[Owlswing]

You could be right that he didn't know much about it, Hope.  However there is a big difference between putting up money to fund deeper investigations and offering a reward, which could be an incentive to someone to bend the truth.  Who knows?

Hope. Brownie

Don't be daft, it was all over the papers and the TV - they get both in prison and they get visitors - of course he bloody knew about it!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Footballer Ched Evans cleared of rape after retrial at Cardiff Crown Court

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

I remember arguing on here that the conviction did not make sense - because it seemed inconsistent for the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that Ched Evans raped her on the grounds that she was too drunk to consent, even if she had consented to the threesome. The reason it seemed inconsistent was that the same jury found his co-defendent, who was having sex with her at the same time as Ched Evans, had not raped her.

It was the CPS that made the decision to charge the footballers with rape on the basis that the girl, who was not accusing anyone of rape, said her bag had been taken and she thought her drink had been spiked and she could not remember having sex or whether she had consented or not consented. When the police questioned the footballers, Evans and his co-defendent willingly admitted to having sex with her because, as they told the police, she was calling the shots during sex and directing what she wanted each man to do to her, which made them believe in their somewhat drunken state that she was not too drunk to give consent and no more drunk than they were.

I think the £50k reward for information was reasonable, given the wealth of the CPS and State being brought to bear against Ched Evans to secure a conviction, and given that he was made a social pariah for cheating on his girlfriend and having a threesome with someone he believed was not too drunk to consent because she asked him to perform oral sex on her.

One of the witnesses said the girl had also done this with him - consented to sex, directed sexual positions, and then said the next morning she could not remember what happened the night before. If the CPS is consistent they should now prosecute the witness for rape - on the same basis as Ched Evans - if she says she can't remember sex with the witness she must have been too drunk to consent to the sex.

For now the law remains as it was - that drunken consent is still consent if the person can't remember NOT consenting and they were not unconscious or asleep during sex. It does not mean that the girl in the Ched Evans case consented - it just means there is enough reasonable doubt to find Ched Evans not guilty. This article sums up the questions the jury had to go through to find the Ched Evans not guilty.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ched-evans-rape-trial-not-guilty-hotel-teenager-judge-remarks-a7361956.html

[Aruntraveller]

Thank you Gabriella for a most informative, sensible and non-judgemental post.

[Nearly Sane]

I remember arguing on here that the conviction did not make sense - because it seemed inconsistent for the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that Ched Evans raped her on the grounds that she was too drunk to consent, even if she had consented to the threesome. The reason it seemed inconsistent was that the same jury found his co-defendent, who was having sex with her at the same time as Ched Evans, had not raped her.

It was the CPS that made the decision to charge the footballers with rape on the basis that the girl, who was not accusing anyone of rape, said her bag had been taken and she thought her drink had been spiked and she could not remember having sex or whether she had consented or not consented. When the police questioned the footballers, Evans and his co-defendent willingly admitted to having sex with her because, as they told the police, she was calling the shots during sex and directing what she wanted each man to do to her, which made them believe in their somewhat drunken state that she was not too drunk to give consent and no more drunk than they were.

I think the £50k reward for information was reasonable, given the wealth of the CPS and State being brought to bear against Ched Evans to secure a conviction, and given that he was made a social pariah for cheating on his girlfriend and having a threesome with someone he believed was not too drunk to consent because she asked him to perform oral sex on her.

One of the witnesses said the girl had also done this with him - consented to sex, directed sexual positions, and then said the next morning she could not remember what happened the night before. If the CPS is consistent they should now prosecute the witness for rape - on the same basis as Ched Evans - if she says she can't remember sex with the witness she must have been too drunk to consent to the sex.

For now the law remains as it was - that drunken consent is still consent if the person can't remember NOT consenting and they were not unconscious or asleep during sex. It does not mean that the girl in the Ched Evans case consented - it just means there is enough reasonable doubt to find Ched Evans not guilty. This article sums up the questions the jury had to go through to find the Ched Evans not guilty.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ched-evans-rape-trial-not-guilty-hotel-teenager-judge-remarks-a7361956.html

You honestly think offering money for evidence is OK? So if I offer a million pounds for evidence to convict Evans and he gets done, you think that's fine?

[Brownie]

Hope. Brownie

Don't be daft, it was all over the papers and the TV - they get both in prison and they get visitors - of course he bloody knew about it!

He may have known about the money put up for further investigation, Owl, and there's nothing wrong with that, but the suggestion is that a reward was offered to witnesses which puts a different slant on it. 

Gabriella, just read your post and agree with what Trent said.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You honestly think offering money for evidence is OK? So if I offer a million pounds for evidence to convict Evans and he gets done, you think that's fine?

It depends on the particulars circumstances of the situation. In this case yes I honestly think offering money for evidence to clear Ched Evans is ok. It is not ok to bribe someone to lie as a witness in court. According to the witnesses who testified at the retrial, they did not receive any money for their testimony.

So if your million pounds was used to pay someone to lie as a witness to convict Ched Evans that would not be ok. If your million pounds was used to help find witnesses who presented evidence without getting paid for their testimony and that evidence somehow managed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was too drunk to consent to Ched Evans while not being too drunk to consent to Clayton MacDonald who was having sex with her at the exact same time as Ched Evans, then fair enough.

ETA: I was referring to the £50k reward offered on the website for evidence to clear Ched Evans. I do not think it is ok to pay witnesses.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

He may have known about the money put up for further investigation, Owl, and there's nothing wrong with that, but the suggestion is that a reward was offered to witnesses which puts a different slant on it. 

Gabriella, just read your post and agree with what Trent said.

Thanks Trent and Brownie for that.

Just wanted to add that in theory a jury could think that it was reasonable for Clayton McDonald to believe that the girl was consenting to sex with him while at the same time think it was unreasonable that Ched Evans believed the girl was consenting to sex with him, Based on what had been reported in the original case though, I could not understand how the jury in that case had been so sure that Ched Evans' belief in her consent was unreasonable that they returned a guilty verdict. Especially given that she was not accusing Ched Evans of raping her or saying that she had been too drunk to consent or that she had not consented, but was saying she could not remember what happened that night.

[Owlswing]

ETA: I was referring to the £50k reward offered on the website for evidence to clear Ched Evans. I do not think it is ok to pay witnesses.

You what! What was the reward if it was not paying the witnesses who received the reward?

For fifty grand I'll testify that Jesus Christ was resurrected and swear to it on the Christian oath. I will also swear on oath that the noon landings were faked - anything the donor of the fifty K wants me to swear to.

This does not make it the truth - why did these witnesses not come forward at the original trial?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It is possible witnesses lie - the trial is about whether the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. If the jury have a reasonable doubt about whether the girl was too intoxicated to consent or a doubt about whether Ched Evans unreasonably believed he had her consent, they will return a verdict of not guilty.

The question for the jury is how sure are they that she was too intoxicated to consent and how sure are they that Ched Evans' belief that she was consenting to sex with him was an unreasonable belief - she says she had a blackout so she can't remember the night, and thinks her drink might have been spiked.

There is video evidence of her squatting down in heels to pick up a pizza - so she could balance and squat and walk when she went into the hotel room.

Two other men who had sex with her around the same period as Ched Evans had sex with her described her saying very similar things during sex that Ched Evans reported she said during sex with him, that led to his belief that she was consenting. One of the witnesses in the retrial said he had gone to the police during the initial investigation but that he had been questioned about her loss of memory after sex, not about what she said during sex. The witnesses, Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald could all be lying and have somehow communicated before being questioned by the police or before the retrial and agreed their story about what she said during sex in order to make it seem like she was not too intoxicated, was aware of what was happening and consented  - it's possible. So I am NOT saying that it is NOT POSSIBLE that she was raped  - but it does create reasonable doubt IMO, which means the prosecution haven't proved Ched Evans raped her beyond reasonable doubt.

This is why rape cases are so difficult to prove when it is unclear if someone had sex consensually or not. It's not like being mugged - getting assaulted and having valuables taken is not something people sometimes consent to and at other times don't, depending on the person assaulting them. If there is evidence that someone dishonestly took goods belonging to someone else - you have the basis for a conviction. If there is a reasonable doubt they may not be convicted.

But being mugged or robbed is a lot less intimately invasive than rape, hence people find it harder to accept that if there is reasonable doubt the accused, who might be a rapist,  is found not guilty. Especially when idiots then claim this proves the woman was lying and start abusing her. Especially in this case, where she has not accused anyone of rape, but just kept saying she can't remember what happened.

[Hope]

Re the 50K, was this separate from the fund that was set up to pay for Mr Evans' appeal?  In other words was it a stand alone 'reward', or was it part of the expenditure by his legal team, and perhaps paid as expenses (for legal services?) to the people who came forward.

[jeremyp]

Which goes to show that mud sticks. 

The problem with rape allegations like this is that there are only two people who know the truth.

Why is not in dispute is that his mate picked up a woman who was extremely drunk and he and Mr Evans had sex with her even though Mr Evans already had a girlfriend.

You can be an arsehole without breaking the law.

I hadn't heard about the fiancee offering a big reward to people to come forward in his defence, in all honesty that sounds like an untrue rumour.

It's absolutely true.

[jeremyp]

You honestly think offering money for evidence is OK?

People often offer rewards in order to obtain convictions. Crime Stoppers do https://crimestoppers-uk.org/give-information/rewards/ Why shouldn't the offer money for information that leads to a acquittal?

[Brownie]

jeremy:  You can be an arsehole without breaking the law.

Certainly can!

As to the fifty grand, I've read up about it since I first posted.  Agree with what you said about it being quite reasonable to put up money to further an investigation, as they do in Crime Stoppers.  The police are particularly good when it comes to crimes of violence but they have limited resources so anything that can be done to help is useful.  I think most of us would do our utmost to help someone we cared about, if we believed they were innocent.  Ched Evans served two and a half years in prison, a lot seem to forget that.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Why is not in dispute is that his mate picked up a woman who was extremely drunk and he and Mr Evans had sex with her even though Mr Evans already had a girlfriend.

You can be an arsehole without breaking the law.

In that case what should not be in dispute is that the girl and the two men are all assholes, unless her drink really was spiked.

Knowing that alcohol impairs your judgment, she made the decision to get drunk, put herself at risk of meeting an asshole, and then decided she wanted to climb into a taxi with said asshole - a man she had never met before - and go have sex with Clayton McDonald, who was also under the influence. Neither Clayton McDonald or Ched Evans are responsible for her poor decision-making - otherwise that would set back the equality of women if we treat them like children who are incapable of making decisions about not drinking too much because it makes them hornier than they would have been if they were sober.

[wigginhall]

I thought one flaw in the initial trial was that the woman had not alleged rape.  The police had inferred it, based on her being drunk, and so on.   But to be sure that it was rape?   That's a helluva judgment call, but the jury made it. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree that it sounds illogical for a jury to be so sure she didn't consent that they found him guilty of rape, given she could not remember whether she consented or not.

Juries are human - apparently Ched Evans did not come across well in the first trial - maybe he has had presentation and deportment lessons prior to the 2nd trial. His statements to the police about how women throw themselves at footballers probably made him sound entitled and led to the jury making the judgment that they were sure he had not obtained consent before having sex with the girl.

Or maybe the jury were under the impression that a girl would have to be drunk to the point of where she was incapable of giving legal consent for her to agree to having sex with a complete stranger who had walked into a hotel room. Not sure why they would think that - if Ched Evans could have sex with a complete stranger while being drunk, it seems plausible that a girl could behave the same way. 

The CPS were the ones who decided to take this to court - maybe the prosecution influenced the jury by spinning them some story about sending a message that drunk men need to be protective of drunk women and sober up enough to NOT act on both of their lowered inhibitions and greater risk-taking behaviour brought on by alcohol. Which sends the message that men are required to be more responsible while drunk than women.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I did wonder if there was an element of moral indignation, that people have multiple sex, while being filmed, and so on, and therefore, somebody should be punished?  However, there is no way of knowing this, unless one of the jurors coughs up.   But for some reason, people seem to find it untoward.   Maybe it's envy!

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting blog on the case

https://thesecretbarrister.com

[Brownie]

I doubt many women would envy that!  It's the sort of situation sometimes shown in drama series or written about in a certain genre of popular fiction.   Ched Evans was in a world he was ill equipped to deal with - how many young men of 21/22 would have the opportunity to do something like that?  Most wouldn't, they might have a little fantasy about such things if that is their wont but a guy working in an insurance company or as a bricklayer is not going to have it handed to him on a plate.    The football world is something different and so many otherwise quite ordinary young men, who happen to have a talent for the game, get into similar hot water because they cannot handle the lifestyle.  It's tragic.  Tragic too for the girl whose life is, by all accounts, ruined - she can't go home!  People forget she was 19 at the time, a lot of girls of that age have not long left school.

They were not much more than kids when it all happened, whatever it was.  They're different now but no-one is going to let them leave it behind.  Curse of being in the public eye.

NS, excellent blog.  This bit is so true: (10.) What does this whole affair say about our society?
Christ knows. Nothing good.

[Hope]

Interesting blog on the case

https://thesecretbarrister.com

Thanks for that NS.  It is what I had understood from listening to various reports - but to see it all together in this way is very helpful.

[wigginhall]

Brownie, I remember stuff like this 50 years ago.   It wasn't in hotels, the people were not millionaires, and there were no phones to film things with, but I remember people having multiple sex. 

Yes, good blog.