Ched Evans

[cider-manc]

For info I believe the twitter info wasn't included in the trial because it was deleted. The defence weren't aware of it until a later date.

It was uncovered by a New York firefighter who did some digging after hearing about the people who got ordered to pay compensation for revealing the victims names. He found the tweets on some French archive

However that info came from the Ched Evans website, so make of it what you will. It wasn't considered in the appeal process because it was impossible to prove for certain what the victim was referring to.

It is slightly stupid to tweet about "big wins" and luxury holidays whilst embroiled in a rape trial against a footballer regardless of what they referred to.

Slightly stupid but the tweets could have been about winning euro millions. Also from what I've read the were tweeted 5 months after they were charged so roughly 5 months before Evans were convicted.

Plus lets be honest... A new York firefighter found them on a french archive. I'm not saying it's not true (i really couldnt tell if its not!) but it sounds very dubious to say the least!

[Red-Robbo]

We need to be looking at the people that have made death threats and other sickening threats to Oldham directors etc here.

Thats the "MOB" mentality that is truly sickening about society at this moment, and #### like this need to be clamped down on.

Yep, they achieved the opposite of what they wanted: made Evans look like the victim.

Threats to kill someone because they have different ideas to you is the road that leads us to what happened in Paris yesterday.

[samo II]

Made an error? Your stating complete rubbish as fact and keep doing to it reiterate a point. If you are going to pick someone up on "making up rumours" I'd suggest you don't make one up yourself

Haha!

Brilliant stuff.

So she wasn't unconscious; error on my part.

But was she able to give consent?

Judge says no, so think Ched Evans' conviction still stands. And after two appeals against it. So I guess we'll see how the 3rd one goes, shall we.

You try and add credence to rumours regards the victim's credibility by generating your own rumour about Evans' girlfriend's family perhaps having the inside line on the victim, hence throwing their weight behind Evans' innocence, because (and this is implied) they know it is worth it (which a good few others also pointed out to you was just a bit wrong, I should add), and you think I'm going to come out of this looking bad? Seriously?

I guess we could both be talking rubbish, I'll admit that, but at the end of the day, I'm not the one doing it to try and smear a rape victim, so I'll sleep okay.

Can't speak for yourself obviously.

[MarcusX]

Slightly stupid but the tweets could have been about winning euro millions. Also from what I've read the were tweeted 5 months after they were charged so roughly 5 months before Evans were convicted.

Plus lets be honest... A new York firefighter found them on a french archive. I'm not saying it's not true (i really couldnt tell if its not!) but it sounds very dubious to say the least!

Your right it could have been about anything and that's why it was dismissed, I've heard the 5 months mentioned but Iv no idea how that would tie up with when the court proceedings started etc.

And yes, pretty random, that's why I thought it worth mentioning my source. Pinch of salt and all that!

[MarcusX]

Haha!

Brilliant stuff.

So she wasn't unconscious; error on my part.

But was she able to give consent?

Judge says no, so think Ched Evans' conviction still stands. And after two appeals against it. So I guess we'll see how the 3rd one goes, shall we.

You try and add credence to rumours regards the victim's credibility by generating your own rumour about Evans' girlfriend's family perhaps having the inside line on the victim, hence throwing their weight behind Evans' innocence, because (and this is implied) they know it is worth it (which a good few others also pointed out to you was just a bit wrong, I should add), and you think I'm going to come out of this looking bad? Seriously?

I guess we could both be talking rubbish, I'll admit that, but at the end of the day, I'm not the one doing it to try and smear a rape victim, so I'll sleep okay.

Can't speak for yourself obviously.

Again, I've still never said I think he is innocent. The judge / jury have decided that regardless of what happened in that room they think she was too drunk to make that choice. They haven't said she didn't give consent, whilst ultimately it leads to the same conviction it's not quite the same thing.

Yes, my suggestion implied the worst of the victim however it was simply a suggestion, not necessarily what I believed though. Surely you can understand it's possible to put forward ideas without actually believing them to be true?

I'll sleep fine, thanks for your concern.

[samo II]

Again, I've still never said I think he is innocent. The judge / jury have decided that regardless of what happened in that room they think she was too drunk to make that choice. They haven't said she didn't give consent, whilst ultimately it leads to the same conviction it's not quite the same thing.

Yes, my suggestion implied the worst of the victim however it was simply a suggestion, not necessarily what I believed though. Surely you can understand it's possible to put forward ideas without actually believing them to be true?

I'll sleep fine, thanks for your concern.

To level with you; my issue is that there is some much utter rubbish and out right lies out there about this case, the last thing on God's green earth it needs is more conjecture.

The last thing we need is some Candian firefighter finding this in five, six or however months time, misconstruing it, and it getting fed into the vicious hate machine that is Evans' (unofficial) crusading internet army.

The victim has to live with the fact they were raped, and people using the internet to spread vicious lies about her have already lead to her having to change identity 5 times, apparently.

I have zero time for anyone engaged in attempting to suggest her conduct (getting black out drunk, going home for consensual sex with a stranger) in anyway makes her responsible for her being raped; you might not think it smart, you might not like it, but it in no way validates his action. She can do as she likes, make herself as vulnerable as she likes if she wants, but she is not the responsible if a man rapes her. Doesn't work that way.

And so I jumped at your comment because, in my eyes, you were attempting to sully her in order to strengthen Evans' claim to innocence.

I may have gone overboard, and I'll admit to that and apologise to you. But to me; anyone denying the crime took place is denying the victim the very real suffering they've endured, and I find that abhorrent, and I won't apologise for pointing out that out to people that are trying to denigrate the victim as a means of denying the crime happened.

[LondonBristolian]

I can't help thinking that if someone gets burgled - even if they get burgled when their drunk - people don't usually feel the need to point out the person could be lying about the fact they were burgled.  If someone gets assaulted on a night out, people don't feel the ned to point out that the person could be lying about getting assaulted.  If someone gets murdered, it's rare that people start to speculate on how it could have been suicide.  So why is it that, when a woman gets raped, people immediately feel the need to point out that she could be lying?

 

Yes, people do lie.  But not specifically rape victims.  Studies vary but research suggests somewhere around 1 in 50 rape allegations are false.  In other words, in 49 cases out of 50, the allegation is not thought to be false (even if it's subsequently unproven).  So why is it people feel the need to suggest every rape allegation is one of the false ones?  To put it in context, in anonymous surveys somewhere around 1 in 4 women report having been sexually assaulted and something like 1 in 10 report having been raped.  In other words, around 5 times as many women are raped but don't report it than report rapes that have not actually taken place.  Yet still, every time a rape victim comes forward there are people who feel the need - without knowing much about the case or, in this case, basing their arguments on dismissed evidence, irrelevant internet speculation or simple failure to understand the law - to suggest the woman is lying.  Even in a case such as this when the woman didn't seek to go to the police with a rape allegation, has at no point tried to profit from the story and is merely saying she cannot remember what happened there are people suggesting she made a false rape allegation (for the rape she wasn't actually aware took place when she approached the police), she did it for the money (presumably imaginary money from the story she did not try to sell) and she is lying about the rape (which she does not remember and was not the one who told the police about in the first place).  Meanwhile all other evidence that the jury convicted on is disregarded  to turn it into a mythical "her word vs his" argument and spurious evidence and rumours is believed.

 

The sad thing is I'm fairly sure that the people involved genuinely believe they're 'keeping an open mind' and 'just asking questions', ignoring the fact their mind would not be anywhere near be as open once a jury had pronounced a verdict on most other cases and questions about credibility of victims seem fairly unique to rape cases.

 

To anyone else who brings up this subject:  Yes - the woman COULD be lying.  But there is no valid or logical reason to think she is, other than society's rather disturbing inclination to distrust people who report rape allegations.

[dezgimed]

It would be interesting to know what the outcome would be if it was a drunk man on drugs who chatted up a girl on the street, went back to her hotel, had sex, and then had sex with her mate 30 minutes later. 

 

Would the second girl be done for rape as the man was too intoxicated to make an informed decision (remember bodily parts can react to physical prompt....). 

[LondonBristolian]

It would be interesting to know what the outcome would be if it was a drunk man on drugs who chatted up a girl on the street, went back to her hotel, had sex, and then had sex with her mate 30 minutes later. 

 

Would the second girl be done for rape as the man was too intoxicated to make an informed decision (remember bodily parts can react to physical prompt....). 

 

You're answering your own question.  By saying "had sex" and then "had sex with her mate" your're implying he's being active here and making a decision.  If someone (whether male or female) had sex with him when he was too drunk to know what he was doing, and he reported that to the police, then yes - that would potentially be rape.  Obviously in practice it's rare for that too happen because men are less likely to go to the police because of embarrassment and because it's practically much harder for a woman to rape a man but, if someone has sex with you, and you either don't consent or are not in a position to consent, then that is rape. 

[And Its Smith]

Lock the thread, lock the thread, lock the thread....

[Guest]

It appears that there are some misunderstandings here about what Ched is trying to do - I believe it is a Criminal case review. It is his last roll of the dice and if he is successful, an appeal will be allowed (again). I don't believe a successful criminal case review leads to an automatic quashing of the conviction?

 

The reason it's a gamble is this: If he is unsuccessful, effectively he has removed all doubt (in the public arena) about the rape conviction. No ifs, not buts, he will continue to be a convicted rapist. It's the old adage of being a fool and remaining silent or opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

 

If he is successful with the review, I believe this goes to appeal again and it is still possible that his guilty verdict is upheld, again removing all doubt.

 

What does he do if after all his efforts of getting the conviction overturned fail? Will he have made himself unemployable in this country (possibly something he could have avoided if he'd have just admitting he was wrong and that he was sorry in the first place)?

 

It appears that he, and his team of advisers, have handled this very poorly.

 

I've already stated that I think he's guilty (because he incriminated himself, it's as simple as that), that I think he should apologise (he's done this in a half hearted way) and show real atonement for what he's done. The only way I can see him back in football now is by going abroad and that won't be allowed until his licence period has expired.

[samo II]

Lock the thread, lock the thread, lock the thread....

Yeah; stopped being about football for the most part, especially now it looks like Evans ain't getting a club.

[dezgimed]

You're answering your own question.  By saying "had sex" and then "had sex with her mate" your're implying he's being active here and making a decision.  If someone (whether male or female) had sex with him when he was too drunk to know what he was doing, and he reported that to the police, then yes - that would potentially be rape.  Obviously in practice it's rare for that too happen because men are less likely to go to the police because of embarrassment and because it's practically much harder for a woman to rape a man but, if someone has sex with you, and you either don't consent or are not in a position to consent, then that is rape. 

 

The woman in this case didn't report rape, she reported her drink spiked didn't she?

 

I think I've made my point anyway, the very scenario I suggested you've already been apologetic towards. 

 

"Embarrassment for the man" "practically harder" "rare to happen"

 

Whereas in the Evans scenario he is instantly a devil. It is societies skewed view I was trying to portray. 

[AshtonGreat]

I saw this post on (yet) another thread about the Ched Evans case. It's an interesting take on the whole thing anyway...

 

"The term "convicted rapist" is unfortunate and political. Ched Evans has been convicted of rape but a conviction for rape does not make one a rapist. Committing rape makes one a rapist. If one commits rape and is acquitted, one is still a rapist. Conversely, if one did not commit rape but is convicted, one is not a rapist."

[Guest]

To anyone else who brings up this subject:  Yes - the woman COULD be lying.  But there is no valid or logical reason to think she is, other than society's rather disturbing inclination to distrust people who report rape allegations.

 

I find this just incredulous.

 

The woman can not remember what took place, she can not be telling a lie. It was Ched and his mate who provided all the evidence for the case and they effectively incriminated themselves.

 

Are you guys doing some sort of yeah but, no but exercise?

[MarcusX]

I can't help thinking that if someone gets burgled - even if they get burgled when their drunk - people don't usually feel the need to point out the person could be lying about the fact they were burgled. If someone gets assaulted on a night out, people don't feel the ned to point out that the person could be lying about getting assaulted. If someone gets murdered, it's rare that people start to speculate on how it could have been suicide. So why is it that, when a woman gets raped, people immediately feel the need to point out that she could be lying?

Yes, people do lie. But not specifically rape victims. Studies vary but research suggests somewhere around 1 in 50 rape allegations are false. In other words, in 49 cases out of 50, the allegation is not thought to be false (even if it's subsequently unproven). So why is it people feel the need to suggest every rape allegation is one of the false ones? To put it in context, in anonymous surveys somewhere around 1 in 4 women report having been sexually assaulted and something like 1 in 10 report having been raped. In other words, around 5 times as many women are raped but don't report it than report rapes that have not actually taken place. Yet still, every time a rape victim comes forward there are people who feel the need - without knowing much about the case or, in this case, basing their arguments on dismissed evidence, irrelevant internet speculation or simple failure to understand the law - to suggest the woman is lying. Even in a case such as this when the woman didn't seek to go to the police with a rape allegation, has at no point tried to profit from the story and is merely saying she cannot remember what happened there are people suggesting she made a false rape allegation (for the rape she wasn't actually aware took place when she approached the police), she did it for the money (presumably imaginary money from the story she did not try to sell) and she is lying about the rape (which she does not remember and was not the one who told the police about in the first place). Meanwhile all other evidence that the jury convicted on is disregarded to turn it into a mythical "her word vs his" argument and spurious evidence and rumours is believed.

The sad thing is I'm fairly sure that the people involved genuinely believe they're 'keeping an open mind' and 'just asking questions', ignoring the fact their mind would not be anywhere near be as open once a jury had pronounced a verdict on most other cases and questions about credibility of victims seem fairly unique to rape cases.

To anyone else who brings up this subject: Yes - the woman COULD be lying. But there is no valid or logical reason to think she is, other than society's rather disturbing inclination to distrust people who report rape allegations.

The only people suggesting she is lying are the ones closest to Evans. I think the general public that are "on his side" aren't accusing her of lying but more concerned that the jury have decided someone's decision making ability based purely on a toxicology report.

She could have said yes, all for it and didn't remember it the next day. The jury have decided she wasn't fit to make that decision - not that she didn't make it one way or the other.

This does not mean I think what Evans did was in anyway right or morally acceptable...

[Manon]

At the end of the day we will never know exactly what happened in that hotel room, unless that is, Mr Evans suddenly makes a u turn and his his hands up and says 'ok, I did it. she didn't consent.'

But that doesn't look a likely out come.

Regardless what your stance on the case, a man is entitled and rightful to stand by his convictions.

To suggest - or worse demand - that he apologize and admit it is ludicrous in my mind. There are dozens, hundreds even, of people convicted of worse crimes (such as murder/manslaughter) who are not harranged and subjected to such public condemnation and vilification, whose right to appeal or plea of innocence is accepted.

It doesn't take an awful lot of imagination to see yourself in a position of wrongful conviction (in any type of crime), and in that circumstance each and every single person on the face of this planet would stand up for themselves.

It doesn't mean he is innocent, of course, and neither am I implying as much. I'm just saying he has the right to his plea, and we have to accept that.

I can see the case both ways:

Either she was clearly beyond consent - unconscious even - which he took knowing advantage of...

... or, she was drunk but coherent and consented either verbally or non verbally, yet can't remember it.

I have seen video footage of myself when completely smashed that I have no recollection of whatsoever, in which I appear coherent, able to coordinate and make apparent sense.

Again, not at all siding with Evans, just explaining how I can see that there is a valid case for both situations.

[samo II]

The woman in this case didn't report rape, she reported her drink spiked didn't she?

I think I've made my point anyway, the very scenario I suggested you've already been apologetic towards.

"Embarrassment for the man" "practically harder" "rare to happen"

Whereas in the Evans scenario he is instantly a devil. It is societies skewed view I was trying to portray.

Nowt to do with society's view; Ched Evans had sex with a woman without her consent, so he's a rapist. That's the way it works.

If you were blackout drunk, went back to a hotel with a girl you just met, had sex, then her male pal arrived who she'd invited, she left, and then he had sex with you, and after you woke up and realised you didn't remember the night before, you reported being spiked and discovered the facts of the matter, wouldn't you want something done about it?

[LondonBristolian]

The woman in this case didn't report rape, she reported her drink spiked didn't she?

 

I think I've made my point anyway, the very scenario I suggested you've already been apologetic towards. 

 

"Embarrassment for the man" "practically harder" "rare to happen"

 

Whereas in the Evans scenario he is instantly a devil. It is societies skewed view I was trying to portray. 

 

I'm not sure if you misunderstood my answer but, if you've made a point, I'm afraid I've spectacularly failed to spot what it was.  As I said, if you're not in a position to consent (as the jury agreed the woman was not) then it's rape.  And that's true whether it's a woman or a man.

 

If, in your slightly different scenario you put seemed to be putting forward, someone is drunk but still able to actively consent to what they are doing, it is not rape.  But that's not the scenario we're dealing with here.  The fact that it's harder in practice for a woman to rape a man does not change the fact that, if a woman did do what Evans did in a reverse scenario, it would be rape.

 

It's nothing to do with society's skewed view.  It's to do with the fact that having sex with someone who is not in a position to consent is rape, even if some of the other men on this thread seem rather uncomfortable with that fact.

[LondonBristolian]

I find this just incredulous.

 

The woman can not remember what took place, she can not be telling a lie. It was Ched and his mate who provided all the evidence for the case and they effectively incriminated themselves.

 

Are you guys doing some sort of yeah but, no but exercise?

 

I realise she can't remember what took place  yet somehow a lot of people on this thread are nonetheless accusing her of lying, which is why  I was simply pointing out the disturbing tendency to claim that women who report rape are wrong or mistaken, far more so than people would do the same with other crimes.

[Aaron-Bcfc]

Yeah; stopped being about football for the most part, especially now it looks like Evans ain't getting a club.

 

It was inevitable as soon as the thread was started that things would spill over. I'd agree about locking it, but as soon as another club becomes interested another thread will be started and the whole debate will begin once again.

[NiceRed]

On a separate note, Greater Manchester Police have confirmed Oldham have not reported any threats made against any of their employees. Which I believe was one of the reasons given for withdrawing the offer of a contract to Evans. Which either means that threats were made and have not been reported, which seems very irresponsible, or that they made up the fact that threats were made in the first place. All a bit strange.

[AshtonGreat]

I'll have a pint of whatever you are on.

 

Its simple - he's a convicted rapist.

 

Amanda Knox is a convicted murderer. Oscar Pistorius was acquitted of murder. So was OJ Simpson. 

[TauntonTA2]

Read a lot of valid posts Re people's opinions on wether they believe CE is guilty or not.

As I have in the media, one thing that does worry me is the argument about CE not being allowed to play pro football again using the "role model" argument.

Imo if any parent let there child look up to a footballer in terms of being a role model, then they need to have a word with themselves, a child's role model should be the parents, not some footballer or celebrity!

Getting back to the whole debate of CE playing pro football again, my opinion is that he should be entitled to.

Would I take my kids to watch City against a team that CE plays in? Yes

What would I say to them if they asked questions why he was getting abused?

He has been convicted of rape (they are old enough to understand the severity of this) but he has paid his debt to society in which the law of the land had imposed and it is his human right to "work" again, hence why he's playing football.

Can you honestly say that a child or young person would look up to him???

I'd like to think not, though, again that would partly be down to the up bringing they have had.

My own personal opinion from what I have read/heard is that I am open minded in regards of If I believe he is or is not guilty of rape and don't feel I should or could say he is or isn't.

All for people having opinions, seems a few on here in all their greatness and knowledge of the ins and outs the case, have made there mind up on him being guilty.

Yes a jury convicted him, though we all know that jury's in the past have got it wrong.

Would like to get your thoughts on wether the profile of CE maybe had any influence on his verdict- being a pro footballer, not being a nice character by all accounts, would you think the jury members sub consciously already had him down as guilty regardless of the trial??

Example of this, the original conviction of the Guildford 4 - British public perception of 4 Irish being put on trial for the bombings, witch hunt of the media over this, do you think along with the evidence presented (be it false) do you think the jury sub consciously already had these people down as guilty ??

[LondonBristolian]

The only people suggesting she is lying are the ones closest to Evans. I think the general public that are "on his side" aren't accusing her of lying but more concerned that the jury have decided someone's decision making ability based purely on a toxicology report.

She could have said yes, all for it and didn't remember it the next day. The jury have decided she wasn't fit to make that decision - not that she didn't make it one way or the other.

This does not mean I think what Evans did was in anyway right or morally acceptable...

 

If they'd made the decision purely on the toxicology report, I'd share your concern.  Given that there's no evidence that they made the decision based on the toxicology report alone, I'm not really sure where you've plucked this out from.

 

As you say she "could" have done all number of things.  But I still find it interesting how people feel the need to conjecture reasons why women who accuse men of rape might be wrong or mistaken, far more so than they would if someone reported a burglary or a physical assault. 

[samo II]

It was inevitable as soon as the thread was started that things would spill over. I'd agree about locking it, but as soon as another club becomes interested another thread will be started and the whole debate will begin once again.

After Oldham's experience, I don't foresee that happening anytime soon, but agree; despite having nothing to do with Bristol City, feel this will haunt this forum for a while.

[AshtonGreat]

I'm sure this point has already been raised, but surely the whole "he shouldn't be allowed to play again because that would send a bad message to kids" argument is daft - wherever he plays, he's going to be roundly booed (to put it mildly). Surely any kid is going to see that and realise that, hey, doing what Evans did might actually be a bad idea.

[Guest]

I realise she can't remember what took place  yet somehow a lot of people on this thread are nonetheless accusing her of lying, which is why  I was simply pointing out the disturbing tendency to claim that women who report rape are wrong or mistaken, far more so than people would do the same with other crimes.

 

But this is the crux of he matter.

 

I don't think she even offered any evidence or provided any evidence and yet she is the one who is taking the flak (character assassination is taking place) for a decision made by a jury.

 

I'm surprised the jury haven't been offered up to the internet trolls yet because that is the way this is going.

[MarcusX]

If they'd made the decision purely on the toxicology report, I'd share your concern. Given that there's no evidence that they made the decision based on the toxicology report alone, I'm not really sure where you've plucked this out from.

As you say she "could" have done all number of things. But I still find it interesting how people feel the need to conjecture reasons why women who accuse men of rape might be wrong or mistaken, far more so than they would if someone reported a burglary or a physical assault.

Probably worded badly, I'm trying to say that the jury have decided she was too drunk based on how much alcohol was in her system, short snippets of CCTV and her lack of memory. The point is the haven't said she didn't consent, they have simply taken the power to make that decision away from her based on how drunk she was (rightly or wrongly). I would suggest you need to know someone on a personal level to know how they handle their drink (and drugs). You can also argue that some nights it's possible to drink a substantial amount and feel fine, remember everything, do nothing stupid and yet other nights drink considerably less yet react worse to it.

As for the rest of your point, I can't comment on that because i don't really make a habit of questioning any particular type of crime - if I had an opinion I would base it on each individual situation.

[LondonBristolian]

But this is the crux of he matter.

 

I don't think she even offered any evidence or provided any evidence and yet she is the one who is taking the flak (character assassination is taking place) for a decision made by a jury.

 

I'm surprised the jury haven't been offered up to the internet trolls yet because that is the way this is going.

 

I completely agree with you, which is why I was baffled by the comments that I was responding to.