Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,333
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I'm pretty sure 9/11 happened
Ched Evans
- Thread starter Ricochet J
- Start date
I'm pretty sure 9/11 happened
*SLOW CLAP*
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Opinion is fine, I have repeatedly stated that I don't know if he raped her or not, just that there is zero evidence he did. The problem is Tummy is not saying, in my opinion she was raped thus ...... He's saying, she flat out was raped, she was a victim, she did go through something horrific and then from there stating things like, everything the defence said was to justify a rape. In reality the defence was trying to prove their wasn't a rape but his twisted belief that it's simply a known fact she was raped and the defence knows this also means that beyond a doubt they are only trying to justify that rape, not disprove there was a rape.
That is the difference, I'm not claiming to know either way, none of the evidence points to her being raped, she herself can't remotely say if she was raped or not as she has no memory. I concede freely that he may have raped her, he could also have not raped her and nothing at all in the trial was attempting to justify rape.
The girl has no idea if she was raped, thus the only people that could possibly know is Evans and the other guys, none of them say she was raped... but Tummy knows she was raped... it's beyond ludicrous, it's beyond ridiculous, it's just delusional. Tummy knows she was raped, but the girl doesn't.... sure.
Further, Tummy attacked anyone who questioned the initial situation. When someone is so emotionally invested that they respond with such knee JERK comments, it's gratifying that they are proven to be spouting *****.
It's pretty spurious that her sexual history was brought as evidence.
It's also a bit weird if he's genuinely innocent that he's now giving interviews saying he was never taught about consent, as though he wasn't even qualified to know that he hypothetically shouldn't have had sex with her.
All that being said... if you're so drunk that you don't remember what happened, then what is anyone supposed to do about it? At that point it's anyone's guess what happened and all the court has to go on is an absence of evidence from one party and - presumably - a denial from the other. The problem then is that in the absence of any other argument you're basically left with the idea that you shouldn't have sex with anyone who's drunk, which I personally don't think is terrible advice, but which is totally impossible in practise.
It's also a bit weird if he's genuinely innocent that he's now giving interviews saying he was never taught about consent, as though he wasn't even qualified to know that he hypothetically shouldn't have had sex with her.
All that being said... if you're so drunk that you don't remember what happened, then what is anyone supposed to do about it? At that point it's anyone's guess what happened and all the court has to go on is an absence of evidence from one party and - presumably - a denial from the other. The problem then is that in the absence of any other argument you're basically left with the idea that you shouldn't have sex with anyone who's drunk, which I personally don't think is terrible advice, but which is totally impossible in practise.
To be fair to Ennis, she presumed him guilty.... after he'd been found guilty. Which is probably a close-to-optimum position to take, really.
I've got a mate who blacks out on alcohol every time he has about 5+ pints. He's perfectly coherent and pretty well co-ordinated, even if his character is a little different to usual.
To be fair, only around 1 in 18 rape accusations end in conviction. If it's an advantage, they're not using it well.
But we have no way of knowing how many of those accusations were actually founded / truthful, so that statistic in this context is meaningless.
I think this is going to wander into deranged MRA territory if pursued much further. It'll probably turn out it's actually the women raping the men.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,377
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
My understanding is that it was relevant in this case. Not, as evidence against her character, but as evidence of consent. What seems to have happened is this woman has had some very specific likes in the bedroom. These other men have corroborated these likes. The defence argument is that by expressing these likes with Evans it shows evidence of consent.
Imagine that she has a fondness for being in a position called the "Wibbly Wobbly Wonder". The argument goes that Evans had sex with her in the WWW position. These other chaps have also stated that she insisted on having sex in the WWW position. She was together enough to want sex in the WWW ergo she was together enough to consent.
Last edited:
But couldn't Evans have just bunged them some cash to claim that she acted in the same way as he described with them?
I still don't think he should've been found guilty the first time but it is a bit concerning the way in which it's been overturned.
I still don't think he should've been found guilty the first time but it is a bit concerning the way in which it's been overturned.
As I've said before I don't know every detail for the case but I'm sure Evans family were offering money for evidence that helped overturn his conviction.
Edit: Here
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...retrial-accused-of-lying-to-land-50000-reward
Edit: Here
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...retrial-accused-of-lying-to-land-50000-reward
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
That's life really, cops offer rewards for witnesses, prosecutors offer deals for lesser convictions for their testimony against other criminals. Both prosecutors and defence can hire expert witnesses for which there is a very very long history of paid experts miraculously finding for the side they are being paid from, with different experts paid by the opposing sides finding different results. There is really no line, they can be called rewards/fair payment, or bribes/payment for lies and frankly you'll never know one way or the other if they are lying or not.
Key thing is though, surely the 'victim' has the chance to say she didn't sleep with those men in that way. Presumably the jury found that evidence compelling because she didn't deny it.
The prosecutor was able to tell the jury they thought it was a bribe, the jury had to make up their own minds, I'd guess that, or lets say if it was me and there was evidence from guys and a prosecutor saying they were bribes, that if the prosecutor couldn't also get the woman to discredit these men on the stand that I'd believe their testimony. I don't know what she said on the stand regarding the other men, maybe she did say they were lying, maybe the prosecutor never asked her because it was true.
Realistically all testimony can be lies, as said it's up to the other side to say they think they are lying and then the jury to make up their minds for themselves.
Key thing is though, surely the 'victim' has the chance to say she didn't sleep with those men in that way. Presumably the jury found that evidence compelling because she didn't deny it.
The prosecutor was able to tell the jury they thought it was a bribe, the jury had to make up their own minds, I'd guess that, or lets say if it was me and there was evidence from guys and a prosecutor saying they were bribes, that if the prosecutor couldn't also get the woman to discredit these men on the stand that I'd believe their testimony. I don't know what she said on the stand regarding the other men, maybe she did say they were lying, maybe the prosecutor never asked her because it was true.
Realistically all testimony can be lies, as said it's up to the other side to say they think they are lying and then the jury to make up their minds for themselves.