Ched Evans

[BigAl]

Cleared of rape after retrial.

Wonder if he will now be able to restart his career

[Stupie82]

No on ever knows the truth of these cases. The only two people who know for certain are those involved or if the evidence suggest so. If he is not guilty then he deserves to restart his life and career. If the girl has been deemed to be lying, she should receive the same sentence as he did. The legal system is bizarre. I never know how someone could be charged, jailed and then released again. The evidence either proves he did it or he didnt, i dont see how there can be a middle ground.

[RicoS321]

Worth a look?

[tom_widdows]

Admits he lied to get the girls hotel room key

Admits he never spoke to her before, during or after sex

Admits he left via the fire escape

 

And yet the judge ruled the girl had given 'drunken consent'?

 

That is a fucked up precedent to set for any future cases 

 

Hope he never kicks a ball again and hope his lawyers, who's conduct is a fine example of pure evil end up going financially bankrupt, after all their moral currency vanished a long time ago

[cupidstunt]

Admits he lied to get the girls hotel room key

Admits he never spoke to her before, during or after sex

Admits he left via the fire escape

 

And yet the judge ruled the girl had given 'drunken consent'?

 

That is a fucked up precedent to set for any future cases 

 

Hope he never kicks a ball again and hope his lawyers, who's conduct is a fine example of pure evil end up going financially bankrupt, after all their moral currency vanished a long time ago

 

Not quite.

He was found not guilty by a jury after being granted retrial because the previous judge had led the jury in his closing. The jury only took 2 hours to reach their decision. Guilty has to be beyond reasonable doubt, I can see why there is reasonable doubt.

 

It was proven that the language he claimed she used during the encounter had been used previously with other sexual partners. While that doesn't prove she wasn't raped it does add weight to his side of the story.

Other ex's testified that she became very sexual and adventurous when drunk and remorseful when sober.

 

There is no denying he used his money and being a footballer to pick up and use girls with his team mates and friends. How willing those girls were and what they thought they might get out of it before they had sex with them v how ashamed they were after when they realised they'd been used is a different story.

 

 

[manc_don]

Not quite.

He was found not guilty by a jury after being granted retrial because the previous judge had led the jury in his closing. The jury only took 2 hours to reach their decision. Guilty has to be beyond reasonable doubt, I can see why there is reasonable doubt.

 

It was proven that the language he claimed she used during the encounter had been used previously with other sexual partners. While that doesn't prove she wasn't raped it does add weight to his side of the story.

Other ex's testified that she became very sexual and adventurous when drunk and remorseful when sober.

 

There is no denying he used his money and being a footballer to pick up and use girls with his team mates and friends. How willing those girls were and what they thought they might get out of it before they had sex with them v how ashamed they were after when they realised they'd been used is a different story.

 

Absolutely, although I do find all a bit convenient that this came to fruition after a reward was put up. Regardless, he doesn't sound like a good person so I'll happily see him being abused in the stands. You reap what you sow...

[tom_widdows]

Other ex's testified that she became very sexual and adventurous when drunk and remorseful when sober.

 

That is the part I have the biggest problem with.

'Your honour, Ladies & Gentleman of the Jury,, according to this bloke she liked this sort of thing (WITH HIM!), and she liked this sort of thing with that guy over there. Therefore that shows she has a history of certain sexual preferences and should any man choose to do the same with her in the future they can presume she automatically consents to it.'

 

As Alex brooker pointed out on the Last Leg, Ched Evans Fiance's father funded his defence campaign so  last night their celebration would be for clearing his future son in law of raping the woman he cheated on his daughter for. 

 

I fear we are edging towards Sharia law when women must find 4 trustworthy men to testify on her behalf.

 

 

 

 

[InversneckieDob]

The whole thing is a fucked up wye o' deein' ad naebody comes out of this looking good.

 

Ched Evans is a loathsome, self-entitled, morally bankrupt snake.

 

Whether or not he is also a rapist, as was said higher up, only 2, well, maybe 3, people know.

 

And to be honest it sounds like even they might not have the clearest recollection.

 

In Scotland, due to different rules on evidence, I'm pretty sure this case would never have got anywhere near a court.

 

I'm nae saying I agree or disagree with that, but I reckon it's the factual position.

 

One of the main points of contention seems to be the use of the lassie's previous sexual history.

 

Now, that's a highly vexed issue.

On one hand, rape is rape, whether the victim is historically promiscuous or not.

 

On the other hand, if a girl has previous for consenting then regretting, then crying rape....

 

Look at it this way, if one Saturday night some guy tried to brain you with a bottle in front of nae witnesses.

 

You defend yourself, using reasonable force, in the course of which the first guy is injured.

 

You get charged with assault and need to defend yourself.

 

Transpires you find many other witnesses that say this guy attacked them with a bottle on previous occasions.

 

Is that relevant to the present case?

 

I'm nae expressing an opinion here, one way or t'other, I just think this is a really, really gray area legally.

 

 

[rocket_scientist]

In Scotland, due to different rules on evidence, I'm pretty sure this case would never have got anywhere near a court.

 

What are these differences?

 

 

On one hand, rape is rape, whether the victim is historically promiscuous or not.

 

Correct.

 

 

Look at it this way, if one Saturday night some guy tried to brain you with a bottle in front of nae witnesses.

 

You defend yourself, using reasonable force, in the course of which the first guy is injured.

 

You get charged with assault and need to defend yourself.

 

Transpires you find many other witnesses that say this guy attacked them with a bottle on previous occasions.

 

Is that relevant to the present case?

 

Yes it is, in Scots law as per HMA v. Moorov, known as the Moorov doctrine.

[InversneckieDob]

Moorov is usually used as an evidential tool, rather than a defence mechanism (basically, course of conduct used as corroboration).

 

The reason this probably would never have come to court here is due to the requirement for corroboration.

 

Bit like the Goodwillie case.

[rocket_scientist]

Moorov is usually used as an evidential tool, rather than a defence mechanism (basically, course of conduct used as corroboration).

 

The reason this probably would never have come to court here is due to the requirement for corroboration.

 

Bit like the Goodwillie case.

 

I don't understand? What's an "evidential tool" and what is a "defence mechanism"?

 

Are you saying that there is no requirement for corroboration in English criminal law?

[InversneckieDob]

No I don't believe there is (though I'm nae expert).

 

Put simply, Moorov is used by the Crown to convict, rather than the defence to establish reasonable doubt.

 

Moorov is used as a  source of corroboration, basically a series of events, or a "course of conduct", can be viewed as corroboration for individual single events.

[rocket_scientist]

No I don't believe there is (though I'm nae expert).

 

Put simply, Moorov is used by the Crown to convict, rather than the defence to establish reasonable doubt.

 

Moorov is used as a  source of corroboration, basically a series of events, or a "course of conduct", can be viewed as corroboration for individual single events.

 

You sound like an expert to me. How do you know all this about Moorov?

[InversneckieDob]

I work within the legal system.

 

Nae an expert, but I come across it often in the course of my work.

 

 

[rocket_scientist]

I work within the legal system.

 

Nae an expert, but I come across it often in the course of my work.

 

As a clerk of the court I'm surprised you come across Moorov that often. Then again, it's such a magically well thought out and simple principle of justice, it's encouraging to hear it gets used more than I imagined.

[InversneckieDob]

Doesnae come up that often, to be fair, but I have encountered it.

[rocket_scientist]

Doesnae come up that often, to be fair, but I have encountered it.

 

This could be a remarkably coincidental day. I may have just discovered that I know another poster and if your first name begins with G and is sometimes misspelled starting with a J and you grew up in the flats at Hazlehead, I may know you too!

[RicoS321]

if your first name begins with G and is sometimes misspelled starting with a J

 

Is that you Jraham?

[InversneckieDob]

This could be a remarkably coincidental day. I may have just discovered that I know another poster and if your first name begins with G and is sometimes misspelled starting with a J and you grew up in the flats at Hazlehead, I may know you too!

No, I'm nae but I know the guy you mean very well, if we're talking about a formerly moustached volleyball player who liked a bet on the horses.

Worked with him for the best part of a decade before moving to the Highlands.

[TheDeeDon]

I think the guy Evans is a tool of the highest order, but nobody has come out of this smelling of roses. As said in the thread earlier only a few folk know the truth, but if there was drink involved I doubt anyone really knows what happens.

 

The one thing which has surprised me is his girlfriend has stood by him through all this, my wife would have had my balls off.

 

 

[cupidstunt]

What are these differences?

 

 

Correct.

 

 

Yes it is, in Scots law as per HMA v. Moorov, known as the Moorov doctrine.

 

You seem the sort that takes interest in this.

 

I was reading this today, might help explain the decision to allow the evidence of previous sexual behaviour.

 

https://thesecretbarrister.com