Ched Evans Case To Be Looked At Again

[in a mo]

New evidence has come to light regarding the Ched Evans Rape Conviction as reported in the Guardian and The Observer.The case is to be Fast Tracked by the body who look at unsafe convictions .

One of Mr Evans fierce critics from his own club has Tweeted that she met Mike Tyson in a Hotel Lobby but missed the opportunity to have her photo taken with him ,Mike Tyson as we all know is a convicted Rapist.A case of Double Standards !

[jim360]

Yes it is a puzzle on the face of it, although since we can't know what went on in the jury room we may never understand the decision. It's possible that the jury felt that she had consented to sex with the first man with no knowledge that he was going to invite a second person out -- in which case, there is a natural reason why only the second person (ie Ched Evans) would be found guilty.

Regardless, traditionally rape conviction rates are low so whenever a guilty verdict is delivered it's highly suggestive that the evidence as presented was particularly convincing. When there is not much support and it's come down to defendant's word v. complainer's, usually the defendant is acquitted.

[jno]

jim, the fact that Evans was a late arrival wouldn't alone make him guilty of rape. My guess is the jury saw him and heard him and didn't believe him. As you say, it's rare for this to happen when it's one person's word against another, and I don't see what sort of evidence would show that the verdict was wrong.

[jim360]

In the case as I understand it I would have expected both men to be found guilty, or neither, so yes I am surprised. What I'm saying is that one reason the jury might have found against one but not the other is that Ched's arriving last means that if it was found that she was capable of consent with the first person, she would still not have been intending to have sex with both men; and so Ched, being second to arrive, might well be expected to be found guilty of rape while McDonald was acquitted.

I think this makes some sense: you can consent to sex, but only with one person while having no intention to have sex with anyone else who walks into the room. Granted this may not be the basis for the jury's decision, but it's one plausible explanation.

[jno]

yes, perfectly reasonable to consent with one person and not with another. But as I recall, both men said that wasn't what happened?

It's odd, but then, a lot of court cases are.

[jim360]

Quite. Again, without having attended the case myself, nor been in the jury room for this one, it's hard to comment properly; but yes, one wonders what new evidence can come out about this one. Better analysis of toxicology reports on the woman, indicating that she was after all not drunk beyond consent? Something she has said since? We'll have to wait and see, I suppose.

[jno]

possibly something a juror said in the pub.... I don't know if this is actually the grounds for reconsideration, anyway; nor do I know why the fast-tracking, though they insist this is according to their rulebook. I'll be surprised if the verdict is overruled, though.

[in a mo]

UMMMMMMMMM Just show's we all make mistakes as the Hegehog said getting off the Scrubbing Brush,

[in a mo]

JIM360 You do raise a valid point although as far as I understand both men and the young lady went back to a Travelodge with the intention of having sex, as far as I know they only had one room so all three were involved from the start.

[hc4361]

inamo, she went with ONE man, the man who was found not guilty.

He invited Evans to the 'party' by text and he joined them when she was already having sex with the first man.