Woman who accused Ched Evans of rape used same phrase during sex with other man, court hears

Woman who accused Ched Evans of rape used same phrase during sex with other man, court hears

The woman who accused footballer Ched Evans of raping her slept with another man two weeks after the alleged incident and used the same phrases during sex, a court has heard.

Giving evidence in the player’s retrial at Cardiff Crown Court, the man who cannot be named for legal reasons, said he had gone home with the complainant “two or three times” and believed she was lying about having being raped by the player in a hotel in Rhyl in May 2011

But the key defence witness, who did not give evidence at the original trial, denied coming forward after the footballer offered a £50,000 reward for fresh information,.

Prosecutors claim the woman, who was 19 at the time was too drunk to consent to sex with Evans and had no memory of doing so.

But the witness said the woman, who he had known for a number of years, had once woken up in bed with him with no memory of what had happened the night before.

He told the jury that she had used the same sexual phrase that Evans had claimed she had used while with him and believed she was lying about not consenting.

But under cross examination from the prosecution, he denied being motivated by the £50,000 reward offered by Evans for information that would lead to his acquittal.

Simon Medland QC, prosecuting, asked him: “Have you received any money?”

The witness replied “no”, but Mr Medland pressed on: “Would you agree with me that £50,000 is a lot of money,” to which the man agreed “yeah”.

Mr Medland also accused him of “inventing” the phrase that Evans had told jurors the woman had called out during sex.

Mr Medland said: “You invented that phrase out of a desire to help Ched Evans. She did not say that to you did she?”

The witness replied: “She did.”

Evans was convicted of raping the woman after joining in while she was having sex with his best friend, Clayton McDonald in a hotel room in Rhyl, North Wales.

The original conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal however and a retrial ordered after the footballer claimed to have found new evidence that the woman was lying.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/woman-who-accused-ched-evans-of-rape-used-same-phrase-during-sex/

Is this still going on? I thought it was all a bit dodgy at the time.

Seems a bit odd. If the guy took the 50k though, makes his testimony rather weak to say the least.

He's been acquitted then.

I always thought the conviction was unsafe really. The man behaved like a moron, and goodness knows why any woman would want a relationship with him, but I think his behaviour fell short of rape. Women who get that drunk shouldn't go to hotel rooms with any men.

Raggamuffin wrote:He's been acquitted then.

I always thought the conviction was unsafe really. The man behaved like a moron, and goodness knows why any woman would want a relationship with him, but I think his behaviour fell short of rape. Women who get that drunk shouldn't go to hotel rooms with any men.

You kinda made that sound like it's a woman's fault, if she gets drunk and goes to a hotel room with a guy, and he rapes her...?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:He's been acquitted then.

I always thought the conviction was unsafe really. The man behaved like a moron, and goodness knows why any woman would want a relationship with him, but I think his behaviour fell short of rape. Women who get that drunk shouldn't go to hotel rooms with any men.

You kinda made that sound like it's a woman's fault, if she gets drunk and goes to a hotel room with a guy, and he rapes her...?

The point is that he didn't rape her, and neither did the other guy. As I said, it's not a great idea to get drunk and go to a hotel room with any old bloke.

Right. Yes I know we aren't talking about this story Rags, but my point still remains.
It's not a woman's fault ever, if she gets raped.

eddie wrote:Right. Yes I know we aren't talking about this story Rags, but my point still remains.
It's not a woman's fault ever, if she gets raped.

And this case has just taken back the Justic system for women 50 years in the case of rape, and will stop other victims coming forward.

eddie wrote:Right. Yes I know we aren't talking about this story Rags, but my point still remains.
It's not a woman's fault ever, if she gets raped.

It depends on what you mean by "raped". If she goes to a hotel room and consents to sex, and then claims she doesn't remember the next day, it's not really rape is it?

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:Right. Yes I know we aren't talking about this story Rags, but my point still remains.
It's not a woman's fault ever, if she gets raped.

And this case has just taken back the Justic system for women 50 years in the case of rape, and will stop other victims coming forward.

Maybe it will stop women getting drunk, picking up men in the street, and going back to a hotel with them. He was acquitted by a jury which heard all the evidence, so he spent time in prison for a crime he didn't commit. However, men should think twice before they behave like morons too - they could end up in prison, depending on who a jury believes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Right. Yes I know we aren't talking about this story Rags, but my point still remains.
It's not a woman's fault ever, if she gets raped.

It depends on what you mean by "raped". If she goes to a hotel room and consents to sex, and then claims she doesn't remember the next day, it's not really rape is it?

When it's the woman's word against the man's then yes, I believe Quill once told me that in the US it was called "The Romeo and Juliet clause" or something similar, I may have got that wrong but it rings a bell.

It's hard to prove rape but if a woman is really that drunk then the guy should have the good sense to not touch her at all.

If she is that drunk she can't give consent, and if she can't give consent it's rape.   Utterly disgusting they were allowed to talk about her previous sexual history but were not allowed to bring his up, that has been a legal no no for so many years now.   Plus, the jury were not allowed to be told about the rewards offered.

sassy wrote:If she is that drunk she can't give consent, and if she can't give consent it's rape.   Utterly disgusting they were allowed to talk about her previous sexual history but were not allowed to bring his up, that has been a legal no no for so many years now.   Plus, the jury were not allowed to be told about the rewards offered.

Clearly, the jury decided that she wasn't too drunk to give consent.

Tbh, I think this case says more about the drinking culture than anything else. Isn't it time that women and men stopped drinking when they feel a bit tipsy. There's nothing more embarrassing that seeing people get drunk and making idiots of themselves. The whole episode was totally sordid.

Raggamuffin wrote:Tbh, I think this case says more about the drinking culture than anything else. Isn't it time that women and men stopped drinking when they feel a bit tipsy. There's nothing more embarrassing that seeing people get drunk and making idiots of themselves. The whole episode was totally sordid.

Alcohol doesn't make people into idiots. People are either idiots, or not.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Tbh, I think this case says more about the drinking culture than anything else. Isn't it time that women and men stopped drinking when they feel a bit tipsy. There's nothing more embarrassing that seeing people get drunk and making idiots of themselves. The whole episode was totally sordid.

Alcohol doesn't make people into idiots. People are either idiots, or not.

They're idiots for drinking so much in the first place obviously, but people do make idiots of themselves when they're drunk more often than when they're not.

Go to a room with a footballer, drunk or not, surely she's heard about other cases. She went there of her own free will knowing what to expect.

She was not raped,she had sex willingly, with the idea she could make a few quid by a bit of blackmail. Any woman that goes to room with a man she's only just met must know what's going to happen.

I only read the bare bones of this case so I might have it entirely wrong.

She was incredibly drunk, she went back to his hotel, he should've had the good sense to know not to fuck her.
There's a world of difference between being merry and being fall-down drunk.

ahh the world loves a "victim"

get a bit pissed...shag a guy...regret it in the morning and scream rape...

suddenly she's a Victim and justice goes out the window...(except this time it didnt)

I KNOW theres a balance needed to be struck but hell its gone too far the "other way" the automatic assumption that all men are monsters etc

she got pissed..and made the invite...NOW it seems to me, subject to any evidence to the contrary that she cant have been THAT pissed that she was out of her mind when she made the invite, since she made her way back to the room one supposes un aided......and it should be considered at THAT point that she gave consent...I mean...what did she THINK was on offer??

Hells bells its even "rape" not to pay a whore??? wtf no its not ...its gaining goods or services by deception i.e FRAUD

I'm going on the assumption that she was falling down drunk. It's just common sense, from a man's point of view, to not go there. Fall asleep, see how you both feel in the morning...

eddie wrote:She was incredibly drunk, she went back to his hotel, he should've had the good sense to know not to fuck her.
There's a world of difference between being merry and being fall-down drunk.

Yes he should, but she was still deemed to have consented. The law isn't there to protect women who have sex and then say they wouldn't have done if they had been sober, or who forget that they consented because they were drunk at the time. It's a very difficult situation because there generally aren't any witnesses, but the jury can only go on what's reasonable according to the evidence.

yeah sure...the fact the man is not so far behind in terms of drunk doesnt come into it???and thus "his common sense" isnt so active either doesnt count....Its a bloke ..its his fault....


and yes its a BIG MYTH that a drunk bloke cant "get it up"

eddie wrote:I'm going on the assumption that she was falling down drunk.  It's just common sense, from a man's point of view, to not go there.  Fall asleep, see how you both feel in the morning...

She walked into the hotel so she was standing then. If had been unconscious, that would have been different, but she wasn't.

If a woman can have the plea of "I was drunk" to claim "victimhood"
a man should have the defence of "so was I"

nicko wrote:Go to a room with a footballer,    drunk or not,    surely she's heard about other cases.   She went there of her own free will knowing what to expect.

She was not raped,she had sex willingly, with the idea she could make a few quid by a bit of blackmail.  Any woman that goes to room with a man she's only just met must know what's going to happen.

I only read the bare bones of this case so I might have it entirely wrong.

As I understand it, she went to the hotel room with his mate and had sex, to which she apparently consented, but then Ched Evans went into the room and had sex with her as well, possibly after his mate had left. He says she consented.

Lord Foul wrote:yeah sure...the fact the man is not so far behind in terms of drunk doesnt come into it???and thus "his common sense" isnt so active either doesnt count....Its a bloke ..its his fault....


and yes its a BIG MYTH that a drunk bloke cant "get it up"

No one said a man couldn't get it up. Slow down there Victor.

yeah but you miss the point....

the bloke could be just as drunk

why should it therfore be HIS responsibility....??????????????????

you are arguing they her judgement was rendered faulty by drink....
well so was his......

six of one and half a dozen of the other??????

If she was too drunk to consent to one then she must have also been too drunk to consent to other...


But only one is being accused...

Tommy Monk wrote:If she was too drunk to consent to one then she must have also been too drunk to consent to other...


But only one is being accused...

Yes, that did cause some confusion. McDonald was acquitted at the first trial, presumably because she was sober enough to consent, but Evans was not because she was too drunk to consent. That didn't make much sense. I think McDonald was acquitted because she willingly got into a taxi with him and walked into the hotel with him.

Well that's a bit shady if you ask me! A guy fucks a girl and then another guy fucks the same girl but only one gets done for "fucking without consent"?

eddie wrote:Well that's a bit shady if you ask me! A guy fucks a girl and then another guy fucks the same girl but only one gets done for "fucking without consent"?

Well that's what happened. They were both in court for rape but McDonald was acquitted. The question is - why was she deemed to be sober enough one minute and too drunk to consent the next?

Drinking on the job?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Well that's a bit shady if you ask me! A guy fucks a girl and then another guy fucks the same girl but only one gets done for "fucking without consent"?

Well that's what happened. They were both in court for rape but McDonald was acquitted. The question is - why was she deemed to be sober enough one minute and too drunk to consent the next?

And it's a good question.

This case is a disgrace. So much damage done.
Anyone watch National Treasure?

Miffs2 wrote:This case is a disgrace. So much damage done.
Anyone watch National Treasure?

Hallo you x

No. Why?

X

eddie wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:This case is a disgrace. So much damage done.
Anyone watch National Treasure?

Hallo you x

No. Why?

Hello X
Excellent drama concerning allegations of rape against a celebrity. Won't spoil the ending.

Oh yes! Gonna watch it on catch up