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

[naomi24]

Prudie, //I'm confused "the woman at the centre of this case did not accuse Mr Evans of rape" so who did? //

???

[Prudie]

Naomi it's a paste from the 7th para of Andy's last post. If she didn't accuse him of rape then who brought the case in the first place? I am genuinely asking.

[naomi24]

Sorry, that was confusing. I'm asking too.

[andy-hughes]

For those asking politely – and less politely – who brought the rape charge against Evans and Macdonald, it was the police.

The woman involved went to the police station the following day because she believed her bag had been stolen. She was interviewed by the police, who then arrested Evans and Macdonald and charged them
The woman herself has never accused either man of rape.

Hope that’s a ‘proper grasp’ of the law.

I do admit when I don’t know something – but I am delighted to confirm facts when I do.

I know that the woman has not accused Mr Evans of anything, and perhaps those who want to have a snide dig at her, or indeed at me, might like to acquaint themselves with the facts first.

[Prudie]

Really? Really? So the police made up the charge in the first place on guesswork and that's the law? Did she deny it?

[naomi24]

She went to the police only to report her bag stolen. How on earth did the police conclude that she had been raped?

[andy-hughes]

Prudie - //Really? Really? So the police made up the charge in the first place on guesswork and that's the law? Did she deny it?

I doubt they asked her if it was OK with her for them to do their job - don't you?

I am seriously keen not to join in with those determined to attack this woman, and by default defend Evans, based on media reports.

But I very much doubt that the police bring charges and cases to court on the basis of ‘guesswork’. Do you not think Mr Evans’ defence would eviscerate any case not brought with proper police procedures being completed?

They interviewed the woman, and on the basis of what she told them, they charged Evans and Macdonald with rape.

Now we can go round the houses again if you want – hopefully you don’t – but these are simple provable facts and because a section of people on here think the initial trial was wrong does nothing to alter those facts.

The woman did not accuse Evans or Macdonald of rape.

Sorry if that shatters some peoples' perception that she is a vicious conniving immoral nasty piece of work, but it remains a fact.

Get over it.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes. He's been acquitted. Get over it. Hope that’s a ‘proper grasp’ of the law.

[Prudie]

Andy I am neither one of those trying to slander the woman nor particularly defend Ched Evans. I was reading the end of the thread and couldn't understand why you said she never claimed rape.

You need to step back from this thread and then re-read what you've written:-
"They interviewed the woman, and on the basis of what she told them, they charged Evans and Macdonald with rape"
" The woman did not accuse Evans or Macdonald of rape"

"I doubt they asked her if it was OK with her for them to do their job - don't you?" - this verges on snotty.

Can you not see that the rape charge didn't come from nowhere and the police didn't make it up? I wouldn't go to the police and claim my handbag had been stolen and then with no further comment from me they arrested whoever I'd spent the previous night with for rape. Ludicrous.

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //The fact that she said she did not consent to intercourse is to accuse him of raping her. //

I would dispute that, but the inescapable fact is that, in law she did not accuse him of rape, the police did.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, The inescapable fact is that in law he has been acquitted.

[andy-hughes]

Prudie - //Andy I am neither one of those trying to slander the woman nor particularly defend Ched Evans. I was reading the end of the thread and couldn't understand why you said she never claimed rape.

You need to step back from this thread and then re-read what you've written:-
"They interviewed the woman, and on the basis of what she told them, they charged Evans and Macdonald with rape"
" The woman did not accuse Evans or Macdonald of rape"

"I doubt they asked her if it was OK with her for them to do their job - don't you?" - this verges on snotty.

Can you not see that the rape charge didn't come from nowhere and the police didn't make it up? I wouldn't go to the police and claim my handbag had been stolen and then with no further comment from me they arrested whoever I'd spent the previous night with for rape. Ludicrous. //

My apologies for my sharp tone, which on reflection was inappropriate.

As I see it, this woman has been interviewed, and based on the events she has described, the police concluded that she did not give consent for intercourse with Evans, and legally, that is classed as rape.

That does not mean that she accused him of rape, or that the police suggested that to her. It would appear that she was interviewed, and advised that she could not remember what had happened. Under the law, that means she did not give consent, and that makes Evans' actions a criminal offence.

So I am left with the conclusion that she was asked what happened the previous night, and answered, and the police drew their conclusions from what she was told.

Let's hypothesise a step further shall we?

Let's ponder the possibility that, when she was advised that Evans was being charged, she advised that she did not want the charge to be brought - she accepted responsibility for her part in the event, that she was intoxicated and had placed herself in the situation - and wished to put it down to experience.

And the police told her that the matter was now out of her hands, they were charging, and there was nothing she could do.

Now the scenario looks a lot different doesn't it?

A woman who wanted to report a missing bag is suddenly on an unstoppable legal train that takes her into court twice, and having to move house five (that's five!) times because of being identified by internet trolls.

It's a hypothesis, but it no more outrageous than the speculation that has gone on since this case first came to court.

Food for thought maybe.

Oh, and to anyone who thinks I should 'get over' Evans; acquittal, none of my posts have complained about the judgement, or said that he should still be viewed as guilty.

I respect the rule of law - unlike those who think he should not have been charged and convicted in the first place.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes. //Under the law, that [a failure to remember what happened] means she did not give consent, and that makes Evans' actions a criminal offence. //

If that were true he'd have been found guilty.

[jim360]

Andy's first post in this thread was a comment that "justice has been done". I'm surprised he is now spending so much time apparently trying to argue, effectively, that this was not the case -- and indeed has since done a massive volte-face.

Incidentally, on the subject of facts in this case, there's another mistake worth pointing out: the evidence in the second trial about previous sexual encounters wasn't available in the first trial because it hadn't been uncovered yet, not because it was previously deemed inadmissible and this was overturned on appeal.

But there's plenty to discuss from this case. Not the issue of legal guilt of Ched Evans, which has now been settled, but whether the fresh evidence should have been allowed, or what the undisputed parts of the story reveal about our society and how to address that, and so on. For example, I may need to read up more on the decision of the court of appeal about the new evidence, but when I first heard about it my reaction was that I couldn't totally see why it was relevant to what happened that night specifically (or, if it was, why it didn't just reveal that the woman was habitually incapable of consent and therefore effectively raped three times).

I'm not quite sure of the timing of the case, but A-H is correct at least when he says that the woman's evidence is basically that she could not remember anything about the incident at all. If that were true then any sex that took place at the time was unconsensual and therefore rape; at any rate it means that the specific allegation isn't hers. However it's not about the police making anything up. Ched Evans admitted having sex, both in court and in police interviews, and the woman's story implied that the sexual activity was rape. That's enough for a charge to be brought, and it was entirely correct to do so.

[andy-hughes]

The way the law works is that a charge is brought if the police or CPS believe there is a realistic chance of a successful prosecution.

The nature of the charge is decided by either body - and in this case, the police decided that sufficient evidence was present to bring the charge.

As to whether Evans was guilty of not - that depends on the decision of a jury, based on pro and con evidence presented at the trial.

So it is ludicrous to state that Evans would be found guilty simply because he was charged - that would make every accused guilty every time, and negate the need for a trial.

The charge is the charge, and the verdict is the verdict, and the second does not - as in the case of Evans' second trial - necessarily follow because of the first.

[naomi24]

Jim, //the woman's evidence is basically that she could not remember anything about the incident at all. If that were true then any sex that took place at the time was unconsensual and therefore rape//

That can't possibly be right. She can't remember anything about the incident so she may well have agreed and if she did then it was consensual - whether she remembers it or not.