The return of Ched Evans

[Brownie]

I didn't remember that jeremy, thanks, but where does 'there is new material not considered by the jury' come from?  Though presumably if there was going to be a new trial anyway, it would be happening with or without new evidence.

[Sebastian Toe]

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

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

[wigginhall]

Surprising new evidence from sexual partners of complainant, normally not allowed in rape trials, as it can be used to blacken the name of the victim.   Quite complicated reasons for allowing it, but feminists will object all the same.   Basically, they testified that she used similar words to that alleged by Evans, during sex, 'fuck me harder' basically.     

[floo]

Even though Evans was found not guilty of rape he is still a very unpleasant lecherous creep! 

[john]

Haven't followed this case to closely but I seem to remember that some time ago Evan's fiancée had offered a £50,000 reward to anyone who had new evidence to offer.

Does anyone know if the 2 guys who gave evidence at the appeal about the victims previous sexual activities would be eligible to get this "reward".

[floo]

Haven't followed this case to closely but I seem to remember that some time ago Evan's fiancée had offered a £50,000 reward to anyone who had new evidence to offer.

Does anyone know if the 2 guys who gave evidence at the appeal about the victims previous sexual activities would be eligible to get this "reward".

One wonders if they will, and if they do if they would be in bother for doing so?

[Brownie]

Even though Evans was found not guilty of rape he is still a very unpleasant lecherous creep! 

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.  The jury have to do their best and obviously if there is any shadow of a doubt, they've no choice but to find 'not guilty'.   As that is what has happened I sincerely hope he is not guilty and can move on; it won't be easy.

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.

[Hope]

Haven't followed this case to closely but I seem to remember that some time ago Evan's fiancée had offered a £50,000 reward to anyone who had new evidence to offer.

Do you have any link to such an offer, john?  Can't say that I'd heard of it.  As someone who lives in Wales and watches the Welsh news most days, I think I'd have seen something about it.

[Hope]

Even though Evans was found not guilty of rape he is still a very unpleasant lecherous creep! 

You've met him, Floo?  Whilkst not condoning what appears to have been pretty murky - if legal - behaviour, we have to accept that this is one possible outcome of the way in which society - via its media and educational outlets, not to mention sexualisation of young people - seems to be moving.

[floo]

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.  The jury have to do their best and obviously if there is any shadow of a doubt, they've no choice but to find 'not guilty'.   As that is what has happened I sincerely hope he is not guilty and can move on; it won't be easy.

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.

I hope mud stick to him, I really do!

[Hope]

I hope mud stick to him, I really do!

Why?  Is it the fact that he took part in a 3some, seemingly consensually, or is it because the legislation over rape might finally be revisited and clarified?

[floo]

Why?  Is it the fact that he took part in a 3some, seemingly consensually, or is it because the legislation over rape might finally be revisited and clarified?

For the disgusting things he has admitted to doing with women!

[Hope]

For the disgusting things he has admitted to doing with women!

But they are perfectly legal, under current social mores and laws.  They take place day in and day out, if the media and social media are to be believed.

[floo]

But they are perfectly legal, under current social mores and laws.  They take place day in and day out, if the media and social media are to be believed.

They might be legal, but they don't show him up in a good light at all!

[Hope]

They might be legal, but they don't show him up in a good light at all!

In no less a 'good' light as many people we never quibble with/about, Floo. 

[floo]

In no less a 'good' light as many people we never quibble with/about, Floo.

As  a footballer he is in the public eye and not a good role model for young people, imo. I am surprised with your take on faith you appear to be sticking up for him!

[Hope]

But as a footballer, he is in the public eye and not a good role model for young people, imo.

So why haven't you latched on to the many comparable media stories about other people in the public eye - be they footballers or whatever?

[Nearly Sane]

So why haven't you latched on to the many comparable media stories about other people in the public eye - be they footballers or whatever?

whether Floo has or has not, does not invalidate her position on this.   If it did it would make your charitable work meaningless because you have not done charitable work for all equivalent issues.

[floo]

So why haven't you latched on to the many comparable media stories about other people in the public eye - be they footballers or whatever?

I probably have if I have seen them, anyone behaving like that is despicable!

[Owlswing]

The worst part of the re-trial is that, according to the Metro, the jusge stated tht "drunken consent is still consent".

If he actually said this it sets a legal precendent, a dangerous legal precedent and is a rapists charter!

[Brownie]

You're spot on there, Owl! 

Floo, Evans may be an unsavoury character in many eyes but I see no point in relishing the idea of a young man suffering because of an alleged assault, when he has been found not guilty.

If he really is guilty the chances are he'll do it again;  a horrible thought but these things are not usually one offs.   However I sincerely hope the jury was correct in this case and that we never hear allegations of him doing anything like that in the future.
--------
Later:  Just read a Guardian article from yesterday about Ched Evans and here is an extract:

"Following his conviction, a well-funded legal and PR campaign that included the offer of a £50,000 reward for information leading to his acquittal was launched by family and friends. The campaign eventually resulted in the case going to the court of appeal in London, where his conviction was quashed."

So it seems there was an offer of a 50 grand reward.  That seems wrong to me.

[Hope]

I wonder how much he would have been aware of the fund - after all he was in prison by that time.  I believe that many other convicted criminals have had similar funds established by friends and families - perhaps even cronies - to seek acquittal.

[Brownie]

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]

It is interesting that the person who pushed for the change in the law - allowing previous victim behaviour - has said that this case puts us back 30-odd years.  If she believes this, why push for the change of the law?

The evidence concerned two other men who claimed they had sex with the woman around the same time of the alleged offence and who described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were similar to Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.

Former solicitor general Vera Baird QC said the details of the woman's past should not have been heard in court.

She told the BBC's Today programme: "How, in this case, it was ever allowed for evidence that this woman had allegedly had sex with other men, when the questions in the trial were was she so drunk that she lost the capacity to consent and did he reasonably believe that she was not that drunk and in fact she was consenting?"

Since 1999, defence lawyers have been banned from cross-examining alleged rape victims in court about their sexual behaviour or history but the Court of Appeal said Mr Evans' case was exceptional.

Lady Justice Hallett ruled that the events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent.

Northumbria police and crime commissioner Ms Baird, who was instrumental in bringing about the change in law, added: "The only difference between a clear conviction of Mr Evans in 2012 and the absolute refusal of him having any leave to appeal at that time, and his acquittal now, is that he has called some men to throw discredit on [the woman's] sexual reputation.

"We've gone back, I'm afraid, probably about 30 years."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37666228

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder how much he would have been aware of the fund - after all he was in prison by that time.  I believe that many other convicted criminals have had similar funds established by friends and families - perhaps even cronies - to seek acquittal.

offering money for evidence? Citation?