The General Football Thread

Read the website I posted. Some of the evidence that was presented in court was disgusting. They asked two guys about her sexual history... anti rape charities are disgusted and going mad.

 

Evidence should only have been presented about that night. Juries are usually not permitted to hear about the past of the accused (even when many might think it is relevant) so how is her private life relevant. Disgraceful.

 

Forgive my ignorance here, or maybe my too simplistic mind, but in some rape cases, how can guilt or innocence be proved? This is a worrying thing to me.

From what I've read, the only people who know are the three people who were in that room and one says they remember nothing. This then comes down to the lawyer with the most convincing theory/evidence/character assassination/story to 12 people who make a decision that they've been convinced or not, one way or the other.

This offers very little for either party.

 

The police were going by the video which they said showed she was incapable of consent and by the fact that she remembered nothing. What a sordid affair this was...how his fiancée has stuck with him (rape or not) I have no idea.

It does reinforce my view that women have to stop getting bladdered on nights out....it may be their human right to, but being in the right won't help you if things like this happen. Drink makes you vulnerable and prone to making wrong choices....she could have ended up dead.

 

The vast majority of rape cases reported are either not prosecuted, or the defendant found not guilty. When there is no DNA evidence of sexual contact, and when it is simply a case of one person's word against the other's, it would be almost impossible to convict. This is absolutely correct as far as British justice goes, but sadly many rape victims just don't bother telling the police about their assault because of the odds against a conviction.

 

Usually there is evidence of injury in forced rape, but this would be absent in the rape of someone unconscious or cooperating in fear of their lives. The fear of the court case puts some women off....remember that they are traumatised and seeking to put it behind them (sadly some carry the mental scars for the rest of their life). We all go through life feeling invincible in this country.... imagine what it feels like to realise you are vulnerable and how this would affect the rest of your life. Could you go out at night again...could you go on a date again...how do other people view you?

 

From BBC Wales:

A former solicitor general has said she is concerned the Ched Evans rape case could discourage victims of sexual offences from coming forward.

The 27-year-old footballer was cleared on Friday of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room.

Vera Baird told the BBC that details of the woman's sexual past should not have been heard in court.

Mr Evans was found guilty of rape in 2012, but that conviction was quashed in April.

The Chesterfield striker was accused of attacking the woman at a Premier Inn in Rhuddlan, Denbighshire, on 30 May 2011.

The original conviction was referred to the Court of Appeal following a 10-month investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which found new information not raised at the original trial.

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.

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 these 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, told the BBC's Today programme: "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.

"That, I think, is pouring prejudice in, which is exactly what used to happen before the law in 1999 stopped the admission of previous sexual history in order to show consent.

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

Sadly, this case has gone back to the "Well, she's a slut anyway so I can do anything I want to her," attitude. I'm afraid that Vera Baird is sadly right and there'll be even fewer women reporting rape now.

 

I still can't believe they had two ex sex partners basically slut shame her in court. It's ****ed up.

 

Having read that website, they gave evidence that they had consensual sex with her around the same time and that the sex and her behaviour during that consensual sex was very similar to what Evans described. I don't know the law in detail but at first glance it seems to me that that's relevant to the question of whether she consented and whether or not it was reasonable for Evans to think she had consented.

 

Except that giving consent to sex on one occasion has absolutely zero bearing on whether consent is given on a different occasion with different people. It is an absolute outrage that this was permitted.

 

No it doesn't but that's not the point. He gave evidence that they had sex in a certain position and she used the words "**** me harder." If true that would mean she pretty much explicitly consented to having sex and I t would certainly be reasonable to believe that someone asking you to **** them harder was consenting to have sex with you.

The other two men were giving evidence they had virtually the same experience with her, which gives his account more credibility (assuming he gave his account when first questioned about the night). In a case where it's one person's word against another's that seems to me to be relevant.

 

As I said earlier I accept the point that it's quite often one person's word against each other in cases where the consent to sex is in dispute. Where that difficult line gets even more blurred, though, is when the woman is intoxicated, in which case she may or may not actually know whether she is consenting. Again, previous behaviour shouldn't be used to paint a black and white picture of her, she is entitled to behave differently on different occasions.

 

Its so sordid, nobody comes out of this with any credit.
But, the thing that I found most disturbing from the original case is how Clayton had no case to answer when such a serious case was brought against Ched.

 

It isn't relevant at all. You are not allowed to bring in the accused ex partners (unless they are part of the trial) as it is seen as not relevant to the case and could lead to the jury being led.

 

You are not even allowed to mention if the accused has been similarly charged in the past. I can remember one case where the jury found someone innocent and the judge was so angry that he told them the man had been found guilty of rape before....basically they were wrong. The basis of our justice is that you have to produce evidence for the charge in front of the court...cannot bring in evidence that prejudices the jury....even if it would be very relevant. The jury here were influenced by these statements...as they would assume they were admissible if the judge allowed it.

 

Play has been delayed for five minutes while several hundred pink plastic pigs were cleared off the pitch by stewards and officials.
"The pigs were hurled on to the pitch from all sides of the ground, in a joint protest by Charlton and Coventry fans against both clubs' owners.

"It followed a well-attended joint march from Charlton railway station by Addicks and Sky Blues fans."

 

Both club fans have been treated very poorly, I have a lot of sympathy for both.......but especially Cov as a lot of you will understand.

 

You are allowed to do raise this stuff in some, very limited, cases. That website Beefy linked to explains the legal situation in detail under point 6.

Basically, for the evidence about previous sexual behaviour to be presented in court the defence have to - and did - convince a judge that it relates to the issue of consent and concerns sexual behaviour that was so similar to her behaviour on the night in question that it cannot be a coincidence. In the vast majority of cases you wouldn't be able to do that.

 

I have been talking to a lawyer I know about it. She said she wants to look into why they used ex sexual partners. As this is the first time she has seen it done. She also says it doesn't matter how she was or what she liked in past sexual encounters.