Footballer rape trial: Ched Evans cleared, Clayton McDonald cleared

Yes, I believe she has already had to change her name because of the backlash she received, which is so sad to say she was at the time, the alleged victim.

[techguyone]

Originally Posted by Mr Banana

Looks like some senior people are uncomfortable about this whole episode.

http://news.sky.com/story/ched-evans...cuser-10618715

Vera Baird, police and crime commissioner for Northumbria and former solicitor general, told the BBC: "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, 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."

Maybe if some things changed we wouldn't be at this state.

Like

Police not wanting to make a decision so passing onto CPS so they cop it if its wrong
CPS punting everything vaguely sexual related because .. Saville & must be seen to be doing something/anything
Like CPS unhappy that rape convictions aren't fantastic so changing the goalposts to make them higher

The new philosophy of almost having to have signed consent in triplicate to safeguard yourself against any rape accusations.

These muppets aren't the only ones uncomfortable with the here and now aspects of 'justice' in a post-saville world, it's time the pendulum swung back a bit now, it's swung wayyyy over there for the last few years.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by martyh

The whole thing is a mess neither party has come out well from and i don't think they deserve to either .Their own actions created the situation ,no sympathy whatsoever for either of them

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yet one is a "tramp" and a " thing", whereas the other is just a silly boy.

Didn't realise you were a bitter and angry woman hater. I think you need to see someone, it probably all has something to do with your relationship with your mother when you were a child.

Originally Posted by Hugh

On some internet and facebook sites, even though there was a court order banning it.

So never officially. So surely this still applies ;

Originally Posted by nomadking
How could they come forward when her name wasn't published?

Because her name and address were widely available on the internet, so much so she had to change her name and move house.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ed-online.html

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Because her name and address were widely available on the internet, so much so she had to change her name and move house.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ed-online.html

So only if you went looking for her name. It wasn't front page news on newspapers or anything like that. Has she denied or has it been disproved that they had sex with her?

If you apply the same principles to the other men that have had sex with her, it's sounds like dozens of men would have locked up. Then add in similar goings on with other women and there would be more men in jail than outside it.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So only if you went looking for her name. It wasn't front page news on newspapers or anything like that. Has she denied or has it been disproved that they had sex with her?

If you apply the same principles to the other men that have had sex with her, it's sounds like dozens of men would have locked up. Then add in similar goings on with other women and there would be more men in jail than outside it.

If you type ched evans in Google her and her mother's name are in the helpful related searches list iirc

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

If you type ched evans in Google her and her mother's name are in the helpful related searches list iirc

Exactly, you'd have to be looking for something connected. It wasn't something you would casually come across in the normal course of events.

You mean like if someone was offering £50,000 for evidence...

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You mean like if someone was offering £50,000 for evidence...

But you'd have to know about that and somehow know that you possibly had evidence relating to the case.

In the original case she was being judged on her sex life. That is how MacDonald was found non guilty. She was considered to be the sort of person that would go off with a random bloke for sex whilst being too drunk to give consent.

Originally Posted by nomadking

In the original case she was being judged on her sex life. That is how MacDonald was found non guilty. She was considered to be the sort of person that would go off with a random bloke for sex whilst being too drunk to give consent.

I find that part very disturbing. I don't understand why her prior sex life is relevant but as I wasn't in the Court of Appeals or in the Jury I've refrained from commenting on it.

It's also why I don't understand the language and venom directed at this women. There seems to be a double-standard, a nasty one, about woman have many partners and a man having them. IMO both are fine, if everyone consents what's the problem.

Originally Posted by nomadking

But you'd have to know about that and somehow know that you possibly had evidence relating to the case.

In the original case she was being judged on her sex life. That is how MacDonald was found non guilty. She was considered to be the sort of person that would go off with a random bloke for sex whilst being too drunk to give consent.

Do you mean like the people who were issuing death threats and made her change her name and move house five times?

That's why it's called 'social media' - this sort of information spreads like wildfire.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

I find that part very disturbing. I don't understand why her prior sex life is relevant but as I wasn't in the Court of Appeals or in the Jury I've refrained from commenting on it.

It's also why I don't understand the language and venom directed at this women. There seems to be a double-standard, a nasty one, about woman have many partners and a man having them. IMO both are fine, if everyone consents what's the problem.

If she was too drunk with Evans, she was automatically too drunk with McDonald. Yet only one was found guilty. The case was all about being able to give consent.

Originally Posted by nomadking

If she was too drunk with Evans, she was automatically too drunk with McDonald. Yet only one was found guilty. The case was all about being able to give consent.

Again I wasn't in the court so we have to be careful here but....

My understanding was the because she went back to the hotel with McDonald he his defence said that could be taken as consent whereas since Evans was invited later he could not have have assumed consent?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

Again I wasn't in the court so we have to be careful here but....

My understanding was the because she went back to the hotel with McDonald he his defence said that could be taken as consent whereas since Evans was invited later he could not have have assumed consent?

Then why was MacDonald prosecuted? The case revolved her drunken behaviour before Evans saw her. If Evans hadn't been involved in the first place, would MacDonald still have been prosecuted? If events with the other 2 guys had turned out the same way, wouldn't they have also been prosecuted. That is at least 4 possible convictions. The central issue wasn't whether she gave consent, but whether she was too drunk to give consent. MacDonald must have considered that she gave consent with Evans, otherwise why did he leave? If Evans was guilty, then MacDonald was guilty of conspiracy at the very least. Evans was convicted on the basis that he said that she had said X, she said she didn't say that sort of thing, but the retrial found that she did say that sort of thing.