[peiowl]

so if lets say i killed 3 people and went on trial for a fourth killing then my past 3 killings wouldnt matter ? or lets say i robbed 3 banks and went on trial for a fourth then it wouldnt matter or maybe i bribed 3 people and went on trial for a fouth then it wouldnt matter ?

Yep youre talking out of it again  

Anyway i coudnt give a monkeys bollocks about it one way or another there are worst things happening in the world i live in so realy this is feffing triva  

It could matter in the sentencing phase but not in deciding guilty/ not guilty part. What matters there is what did occur on the night in question. Was she in a fit condition to give consent? Even if she had been a prostitute if she hadn't consented it would have been rape.

---

I disagree with all of you, but nothing new about that. The woman's past sexual history, her relations with her boyfriends, had no place in the court room and articles have been written about that aspect.

It's precisely because of how women who do report rape and sexual assault are victimized and pilloried in the law courts and in the court of public opinion that countless other women don't come forward and report them.

Trump and Cosby are prime examples of that and Evans, while a lesser light, epitomizes everything that is wrong with judicial systems that turn the victim into an offender.

So, I know you'll not like this, but I don't care. That's how I feel.

I don't disagree with you on everything but currently the law does!!  At the end of the day many of these sort of trials are based on one persons word against another with little to no evidence of outright positive proof of innocence or guilt!!  Therefore inevitably the general character of both the accused and the accuser has to become part of any trial.  In this one, the behaviour of the woman on that night was shown to be consistent with her behaviour a few nights earlier and less than two weeks after the Evans incident, that iformation surely does have some relevance in this case??

"The law is an ass. (Dickens)" See my comment to imre. It's only the behavior on the night not "a few nights earlier" that should have counted in determining innocence or guilt. And no, it has no relevance whatsoever. A disturbing precedent has been set. Wouldn't surprise me if the judge's decision to allow this kind of evidence were challenged.

http://yoursportsfeeder.com/2016/10/15/c...acquitted/

[St Charles Owl]

Was it correct that the jury wasn't aware that two witnesses were offered £50k by Evans' fiancee to change their testaments for the latest trial?

Worse still perhaps, that the judge felt this was acceptable.

The latest re-trial doesn't prove Ched is innocent, only that on the balance of probability, there wasn't overwhelming proof of his guilt. The girl involved has never changed her testament, she has always said that she remembers nothing. The difference this time was that the jury believed his view that she was consenting.

No if thats the case then that isn't right but my point was the use of character witnesses is used all the time in trials, thats what these statements were. Also I agree with your last paragraph but this also highlights the problem with trials like this, as there is no physical, irrefutable evidence it comes down to judgement and opinion based on what the jury is given and yes this time the jury believed him. He has got this over turned on a technicality, not on proof of innocence.

---

I don't disagree with you on everything but currently the law does!!  At the end of the day many of these sort of trials are based on one persons word against another with little to no evidence of outright positive proof of innocence or guilt!!  Therefore inevitably the general character of both the accused and the accuser has to become part of any trial.  In this one, the behaviour of the woman on that night was shown to be consistent with her behaviour a few nights earlier and less than two weeks after the Evans incident, that iformation surely does have some relevance in this case??

"The law is an ass. (Dickens)" See my comment to imre. It's only the behavior on the night not "a few nights earlier" that should have counted in determining innocence or guilt. And no, it has no relevance whatsoever. A disturbing precedent has been set. Wouldn't surprise me if the judge's decision to allow this kind of evidence were challenged.

http://yoursportsfeeder.com/2016/10/15/c...acquitted/
[/quote]

Its never the one incident that counts, as I said above character witnesses are called all the time, both for and against each party. This case sets a disturbing precedent either way.

[Maddix]

That's a dangerous statement PEI. It gives the gold diggers a free license. I'm sure we've all heard enough about 'entrapment' just lately.

The original conviction was quashed by the appeal court and a retrial ordered. The Lady Justice who ordered it also noted that new evidence in the form of the victims lifestyle was relevant to the case.

I don't want to sound harsh PEI and have every sympathy for victims of rape but this young woman appears to have made a habit of this type of scenario.

And, apparently, she did the same thing two weeks after Chedgate which the appeal judge allowed to be used as evidence in the retrial.

[St Charles Owl]

The new evidence was the whole point of his appeal. Personally I think its weak evidence as it doesn't pertain to the actual night of the alleged offence but it appears it was enough to cast enough doubt on the rape charge, and at the end of the day that is how our justice system works.

[Maddix]

Without being frivolous, perhaps the younger generation should start to tackle their mindsets. The Government needs to forget smoking and eating and maybe attempt to stop the culture of getting absolutely mindlessly pissed on shots before going out at night

[St Charles Owl]

Without being frivolous, perhaps the younger generation should start to tackle their mindsets. The Government needs to forget smoking and eating and maybe attempt to stop the culture of getting absolutely mindlessly pissed on shots before going out at night  

Thats no different here either, my daughters talk about when at college they all drink vodka shots and then go out!!! No I think here is is exaggerated as a problem because of the stupid 21 years old drinking age and by having shots before they go out means if they are caught at a party they are less likely to be drinking there as they did it at home first.

[madsteve]

If his girlfriend's family were not loaded then he would not have had the money to get those two witnesses to make the testamony that they did in this re-trial. Not sure that it is justice when money plays a big part in the outcome.

[Statesideowl]

You've been around long enough, and know better enough to know you get the justice you can afford..

[Imre varadi]

still not giving a xxxx !! worst things happen not feffing bothered by some footballing knobhead and some bling chasing biatch !!

[peiowl]

When the question is was she too drunk to consent character witnesses have nothing to do with it. According to an article in the BBC this decision  has set back rights of rape victims, usually women, 30 years. Entrapment? I don't see this after all the victim has endured. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-37666228

---