If I had the funds to defend myself then I really don't think I would . Any damage that has been caused is history . An expensive chase through the courts would only line a solicitors pocket and bring it all up again . It really is better to just shut up and put it all down to experience .
The people that know me , and the people that really matter to me know the truth . I am lucky that I had such a supportive family , a partner that found it amusing when i handed her the phone when the first accusation was made , a boss and colleagues that backed me , and so many witnesses to prove she was making up the allegation . It could have been a lot worse if she had named somebody else . They might not have had the support I had .
She has moved darn sarf now , so hopefully our paths will never cross again .

Is it wrong for me to wish something bad really would happen to her ?

No, not at all.

Have you spoken to your MP about this, not just for your personal situation (but obviously with the emphasis on it) but for all victims of false rape accusations ?

If you still live in this area then you either live in the same constituency as me or the next one along, LibDem or Tory, believe it or not both MP's are decent blokes and very active with personal "issue" campaigns and I wonder if they'd be interested in this as their next cause, our MP has just succeeded in getting his private members bill against the beer tie through the Commons, the Tory took up the fight last year against the closure of the childrens heart surgery unit in Leeds and won and neither are afraid of using social media and the BBC for their cause, might be worth an email ?

Consent in itself is a fairly straightforward concept and is defined in English Law Section 74 Sexual Offences Act 2003 as "where a person agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

I don't think there's any doubt that alcohol or other substances can impair the capacity to consent

Agreed. But drunken consent is still consent. And quite rightly so. Otherwise every man who takes a woman out for a drink or two, then has a bit of hanky panky, would be a rapist.

You have to be so drunk you pretty much have absolutely no idea what you are doing, before you are deemed too drunk to consent.

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of sexual intercourse that takes place in the UK, on a Friday and Saturday night, is actually rape then?? ....

And equally obviously, at some point as you get increasingly drunk, you eventually reach a point where you are so extremely drunk, that you can no longer give consent. Until you reach that level of drunk, drunken consent is still consent.

The samples taken from woman Evans is convicted of raping tested Zero for alcohol content which is one major reason I can't understand how at 4am she could have been paralytic and incapable.

Mention nothing of the 'when I win big' tweets she made, which were only recovered by some American computer hacker who investigated her Twitter account.

And also, when the police went through her Facebook she had deleted all records of conversations between her and a friend that took place in the immediate aftermath of the incident.

The whole Ched Evans case screams unsafe conviction, It will be interesting to see how the public react if / when it is overturned on appeal.

I wonder what the "victim" makes of it all? She is in the weird situation of having seen a man convicted of raping her, when she never accused him, and does not remember any rape (or indeed, apparently, anything). It's a weird situation where CPS has decided for her that there's a reasonable prospect she was raped, and that it was appropriate to ask the audience.

Wasnt it reported that she'd gone out late and had about 10 drinks in less than an hour? Which might have left her system by the time she was tested (i dont know when that was), but would probably have affected her quite badly when it was all absorbed. It doesnt appear to be disputed that she was sick and wet the bed which suggests she was paralytic and incapable at some point.

I have observed many people, in my time, who were so drunk as to be incapable of any meaningful consent, and they are not hard to spot. In the video of the "victim" arriving at the hotel:
[urlhttp://chedevans.com/index.files/html5video/travelodge.webm[/url
... I do not see such a person. I see a woman in towering heels waling back out of a hotel, squatting down on the pavement, picking up a pizza box and walking back in to the hotel, all unaided, and all seemingly under perfect control. I would never expect a drunk and incapable person of being able to do this. I discuss this as a lay person who could equally have been on such a jury, and what I would have made of it had I been, not as any sort of claimed expert.

As to whether on her own evidence she could have been paralytic:



She had quite a lot for a slight female in quite a short time, and I can believe that at max alcohol (which would have been around 3 am when she had her last drink, she would have been the most affected. I can accept she may have been unsteady at that time. She was not incontinent at that time, as she was on CCTV going into a doorway and urinating there.

But she didn't drink anything else. And then she spent an hour eating a kebab in a kebab shop. She approached footballer 1 (not the other way around) and at some point they went and bought a pizza. They did not arrive at the hotel until 04:08 and that is what you see on the video.

Her "when I win big" Tweets that came to light only months after the verdict remain unexplained. But what I find the most difficult to accept is how the jury reached a conclusion that the woman in that video was able to give consent to footballer 1 yet immediately afterwards, somehow became incapable of giving consent to no. 2. It is completely and fundamentally illogical, even if you ignore the fact that the ONLY evidence re consent was that of the footballers.

Presumably, the jury decided that in going back to the hotel with footballer 1 they both went with the intention that sexual activity would occur. Why else would 2 strangers get a taxi to a Premier Inn outside Rhyl at 4am?

Footballer 2 just turned up at the hotel uninvited by the victim, invited by footballer 1 with the message "i've got a bird". When she went to the hotel with footballer 1 the jury probably decided that she hadnt consented to a 2nd person joining them.

Not probably, but certainly, as that point (consent) was the single issue in the case. The point is, ON WHAT REASONABLE BASIS could they be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the "victim" - who never alleged she was raped, attacked, or anything else - hadn't consented, when the only evidence on consent was of the footballers, who both said she did?

Specifically, my concern is that, having decided that she WAS in a fit state to consent to sex with no.1 (which the jury did, as they found him not guilty), it can ONLY have been her capability to give valid consent that potted Evans. And I can't see how logically her ability to consent suddenly can be proved to have ceased, in the total absence of any evidence that it did, or even why it may have done.

when and where did consent with footballer 1 take place? was it "implied" in the kebab shop when one of them suggested going back to the Premier Inn, or do you have to ask further consent at each stage in the process?

Drugs were found in her system the morning after, when did she take those? Was it after consent with no.1 but before no.2 turned up? In which case she may have been fit to give valid consent to no.1 but not to no.2 when he turned up. There is no evidence to suggest that she knew no.2 was coming to join in.

Fact is, only 3 people know what happened in that room that night, but I can see a number of reasons why no.1 was found not guilty yet no.2 was found guilty.

2 people say they know what happened that night. The "victim" said she had no memory of what happened.

If Evans was guilty of rape then McDonald should have been done for conspiracy to rape/being an accomplice.

As far as I'm concerned Ched Evans guilt simply hasn't been proven. Having said that, I think it is entirely possible that both men were actually guilty and are very lucky that the evidence wasn't there to prove what they'd done.

If Evans and McDonald raped her then TBH I couldn't care less if they died. But if Evans is actually innocent he's had his life massively hampered by this wrongful conviction and now people are wishing to further punish him by not allowing him to rebuild his life.

I think you are mistaking me for a member of the jury. So far as I know, (and as is not unusual) I don't think footballer 1 ever actually said "Do you consent to sexual intercourse with me".


You're being ridiculous.


I know of no evidence that any drug taking went on that night. She was apparently a habitual drug user and that accounted for some traces of drugs in her system. What she went to the police for was claiming she could remember nothing at all (which I find hard to believe) for which reason thought she had been given date rape drugs, but tests confirmed there was no trace of any date rape drug. Curiously the tests also confirmed a blood alcohol level of Zero.


"Fact"? But she claims she doesn't. Ah, so like me you suspect the "victim" is not being candid when she claims to have absolutely no memory of events? If she DOES know what happened, why did she not allege that she had been raped? Why did she not tell the police and the court that she had not given consent if that was something she could state? And then it would also follow she committed perjury in claiming she doesn't know and that alone would make the conviction unsustainable.

The more I read about this case the more sympathy I have for Evans.

As stated, small residual quantities of drugs and no alcohol was present when she was examined after complaining to the Police, thus suggesting she was in a fit state to give consent. Certainly in video footage I have seen on another forum purporting to be her and player 1 entering the hotel she does not appear to be legless as she is walking in high heels and showing no signs of falling over.

Player 1 was found not guilty of rape though I don't know why he wasn't charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting given that he called Evans over.

The more I look at it it appears she either regretted her actions after giving consent or made a complaint when she realised that the players were only interested in a one night stand.

And this is one of the many difficulties I have with the case.

She never actually made a complaint of rape. She woke up in the Premier Inn and initially made a complaint that her handbag had been stolen from her on the night out. The police reviewed the CCTV to see if anyone had taken her handbag and identified the footballers.

They admitted sex with her, after which the whole thing became a rape investigation.

At no point did she make a rape complaint. As FA pointed out earlier in the thread, the police basically told her she had been raped and decided to run the case on that basis. The CPS then jumped on board, no doubt excited at the prospect of having a crack at 2 footballers.

Indeed. On the sheet of initial notes written by the police, a copy of which can be seen on Evans' website, at the top is written "Titus Bramble". Bramble had absolutely no connection whatsoever with the case in any way. But those with long memories might remember he was once charged with, but acquitted of, sexual assaults and once arrested for, but not charged with, rape (his brother was convicted). What possible reason would a police officer have for writing the name "Titus Bramble" on the notes?

For the sake of completeness, in fact she had in the past made a rape complaint, in another incident. Nobody was convicted. The jury were not allowed to be told of this.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... story.html I hesitate to link to the DM. But the guy in the De Fratis has given his version of events, clearly in response to her father going to the press.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... story.html I hesitate to link to the DM. But the guy in the De Fratis has given his version of events, clearly in response to her father going to the press.

The green dress picture perfectly illustrates why she was 'HUGELY popular'.

Seems like The Wail taking another opportunity to post some salacious but family-friendly photos & copy with no concern for whom they may hurt.

They, along with the police, seem to be the only people in denial about the fact that the girl needed professional help far more than she needed a court appearance

It could be argued that most people who end up in the dock actually need professional help more than they need a court appearance - However, should people, whose lives have been massively disrupted, really be denied justice simply because the alleged perpetrator is 'unwell' in the head??

Only by an imbecile

50% of people who are brought before the Courts have problems with either mental health, drugs or alcohol. Or a combination of all 3.

The 'unfit to stand trial' bar is a high one to clear. And quite rightly so.

The girl in question made a groundless and incredibly serious allegation against a man, which could have resulted in him serving a substantial prison sentence, mention nothing of all the other difficulties he would have experienced after a conviction for rape.

The decision to prosecute her was entirely correct And there would have been preliminary hearings at which the defence could have raised any issues about public interest / fitness to stand trial.

I definitely agree she should've been prosecuted if that's what the bloke involved wanted, however she deserved some help alongside being prosecuted. But, sadly, those kind of services are virtually non-existent or inaccessible to most people.
As the VR points out, there are lots of people involved in the criminal justice system who require and deserve some kind of help.