I wrote about Ched Evans a year or two ago on here: https://red d.it/2rrdlv (this sub, remove the space)
He was charged with rape and served 2.5 years in jail before release. Then feminists prevented him from returning to football by sending rape and death threats to all the football clubs that considered him. He always said he was innocent. Feminists were furious when he was given a retrial after serving his time.
Today he was found not guilty.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=news&q=%22Ched%20Evans%22&src=tren
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009
A jury of seven women and five men took just two hours to clear him following a two-week trial.
There were gasps and cries in the public gallery when the verdict was read out, with members of Mr Evans's group breaking down.
Ultimately "the jury found they could not be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the complainant did not consent, or that Evans thought she was not consenting."
The major new evidence was CCTV footage of the girl who was "too drunk to consent" entering the hotel. She did not look drunk and at one point quickly squatted in stillettos to pick up a pizza box, then got back up again in a fluid motion. CCTV also showed she did not drink what she claimed in the bar/club, and she lied about taking cocaine.
Anyway the UK feminists are furious at this verdict. But Ched Evans has had his career destroyed and lost millions in potential earnings.
Action Implications:
-
Record yourself during one night stands. Dont ever tell anyone that you have recorded anything. Back it up to a safe place in the cloud (lol).
-
Be extra careful if you are doing something that makes a girl feel really like a slut. Ched had sex with a girl without evan talking to her beforehand. Both him and his friend did not stay the night with her, so when she woke up alone she felt used. This is very risky behaviour and just asking for trouble.
-
If you are accused of anything then find the accusers social media. Then archive all of it. The accuser in this case talked about how she was going to get rich from the accusation. A guy in canada found this from a deleted tweet that was archived on Google cache - on a German server! But unless you are a top footballer you should not expect people across the globe helping you out.
The dude really needs to counter sue to set a precedence. This kind of crying rape bullshit needs to stop.
He can't. SHE never actually claimed she was raped - the Police and Crown Prosecution Service decided it was rape because she said she couldn't remember anything and pulled out the old 'my drink must have been spiked' card. So despite zero evidence other than her word, they charged him.
Regrettably, not so. Chad himself GAVE them all the "evidence" they needed.
"Defence counsel Judy Khan QC said Evans answered every single question during his police interviews and detectives would never have known about the sex session had it not been for the soccer star's
stupidityhonesty."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-raping-teenager-after-two-week/
The BIG mistake Chad made was TALKING TO THE POLICE. When interviewed, he told them that he had had sex with her.
If he had claimed his rights, and just SHUT THE FUCK-UP he would never have been prosecuted.
The police are NEVER on your side. As we have seen, even if they have CCTV footage of your clearly not raping, you WILL be prosecuted.
NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE
Apologies for the caps. But it makes me so angry that men are just walking into these traps. Please, please guys, be careful, video everything, don't fuck crazy girls, don't fuck girls who are drunk - even if they can clearly consent, and DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE.
Exactly. Cops are never on your side. Even if you for a fact didn't do anything and are not even a suspect, they will railroad you.
The only times I ever talk to a cop I always talk about irrelevant bullshit like politics or my time in the army. NEVER anything personal. And this is just shooting the shit. If I was "interviewed" I wouldn't even admit to my name until I have a lawyer. And then, I'd whisper answers to my lawyer and have him speak.
I haven't seen that "Never talk to the police" vid in a while. It's definitely worth watching for most young guys that don't know any better.
Point #1 is all you need to know, though. Talking to the police cannot HELP you in any way, in proving your innocence. It's hearsay that the prosecution can object to. Meanwhile what you say CAN and will be used against you. So if it can't help, and can only do damage to you, then the logical conclusion is to be quiet! NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE!
How does this advice fit with the UK caution : "you don't have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you don't tell us about something you later rely on in court". Genuine question.
That's US advice. The UK abolished the right to silence some years ago. They also made it a criminal offence to refuse to answer questions during interrogations near airports and border points. It's slowly turning into a police state with the acquiescence of a population that lacks a historical understanding of the danger and power of an abusive state.
Nevertheless I think you would still be well advised to assert your right to silence or refuse to answer questions. Your responses can be replayed in court.
This:
Police: What's your favourite colour?
You: Should I answer that question?
Lawyer: Don't answer that question.
You: On the advice of my lawyer, I won't answer that question.
Sounds better than:
Police: What's your favourite colour?
You: Fuck off pig.
That wording was introduced to try and intimidate unknowlegable people into talking. Yes, the UK has no 5th Amendment, remaining silent about a fact you knew or should have know can be used against you, especially in questions of intent.
What they don't say to arrested people, though, is the following:
"no inferences can be drawn from any failure occurring before the accused is allowed an opportunity to consult a legal advisor"
In other words, they have to allow you to see a lawyer before they require you to answer questions, or use your silence against you.
ie., in England, the "right to see a lawyer before I talk to you" still exists. But probably a lot of average Joes don't know that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales
It quite nuanced as you will see from the link above.
Bottom line is that a UK jury is unlikely or not-allowed to hold your silence against you in most cases.
Even if they have CCTV footage, they'll doctor it to make you look like rapist.
Remember that rape case from a few months back where some bitch claimed that some guy fingered her on the London Underground (?) when all he did was bump into her?
[permanently deleted]
He could sue the city, and I assume the police dept.
You guys has this legal concept in the UK / US? The one where you sue people for the profit that you WOULD had if the other people hadn't done something to you?
In Brazil we call that "lucros cessantes", and this guy would be able to sue the Governor easily.
at least in the US, the whole system has legal immunity - as far they are concerned, they found him not guilty and let him go free, i.e. working as intended
The "Process IS the Punishment"
Doesn't matter if you're found guilty or innocent.
They don't care!
There's always room to set precedent. The state did unrepairable damage to his career and reputation. That should cost a price to avoid the government from being too facetious with serious prosecutions like rape. This in turn puts pressure on the state to make sure that actual rape victims are tried, and false rape accusers are faced with some sort of punishment for perjuring themselves.
I don't agree. If there were misspteps, he would have a case here. I could be wrong though. Our justice system is trash after all.
You can get compensation for time spent in jail if you are subsequently acquitted. Monetary compensation does not punish the fucked system that did this, or harm the person who made false allegations though so it is inadequate. We need a system where women who make false rape or abuse allegations are jailed, and the members of the police force and prosecutors department who laid charges lose their jobs and pensions.
He won't get compensation, as no miscarriage of justice has occurred.
She never made an allegation of rape, false or otherwise.
I was speaking generally, not about the specifics of this case
In cases like this, the financial gain he should get out of it should be nigh-on ridiculous.
He had a football career in front of him. Figure out the maximum salary he could have made if he played for 20 years, that's what the suit should be for. Any time someone has a lost opportunity it should be paid for to where they never have to work a day in their lives.
Sell shit belonging to the false accuser or in this case police assets. If the laws don't exist to allow such they need to.
Good. Police and Crown should have some money to spare.
And because the Director of Public Prosecutions is a feminazi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TRPl2lQ1GA. Such people should not be allowed anywhere near the criminal justice system or the legislature. She has been actively pushing the police to bring more 'rape' cases to court, which basically means more false rape accusations taken seriously, since any claims that had credible evidence were already taken to court.
It's the same as everything else nowadays. They think the world should conform to some ideology they hold, and genuinely believe it's a good thing to force reality to confirm to their ideology.
Men are naturally scientifically curious, and need no encouragement into university science courses. But clearly we need (at least) half the scientists to be women, because it's [insert current year]. So let's spend millions of pounds on campaigns to get women special education packages and practically pay them to take science degrees, taking up spaces that eager male students should have.
Men are naturally interested and good at tech, and so over 95% of web developers are men. But clearly we need (at least) half the web developers to be women, because it's [insert current year]. So whenever a female applies to our vacancy, damnit we will discriminate hard on gender to make sure she gets it, no matter how qualified the male applicants. And we'll take extra special care of her and make sure her super special and insightful voice gets heard. Boys, if we catch any of you even THINKING of disagreeing with her in a meeting or playing down her ideas, we'll lump you along with the rapists! /s
Point is, people try to make reality fit their ideology, in an often misguided, arrogant, and self-righteous way. When those people get to power, and they often do, you get situations like that. The rise of women and the fall of Rome, and all that.
If you are on a university campus, just know that the Obama administration sent a Title IX letter of reprimand to certain universities for their low rape conviction rates. If universities don't comply by getting convictions, they lose federal funding. That's a death sentence. All research universities get the majority of their money from the government.
Stanford was one of these places, and they entirely changed their system from the police department to the counseling center to facilitate conviction.
...wtf. Do you mind sourcing that? That's crazy.
Search for "dear colleague letter"
She made a complaint to the police. The exact nature of the complaint is vague.
From: https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
"The complainant said that her next memory was waking up in the hotel room at about 11.30am. She realised that she was alone. She was naked and had urinated in the bed. She had a headache and was confused. She reported the matter to the police."
Why should she go to the police?
To recover her memory?
To complain that she had been sexually assaulted?
Why?
Perhaps because two guys dogged her while their mates filmed it.
Perhaps because she had a clear memory of what happened and was ashamed and needed a slut defense.
Here's a good summary of the legal aspects:
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/
Even better. Sue the state.
Agree, there was compelling evidence of his innocence that was known to the proscution even before he was charged. The police officers who arrested him, the local MPD where he was booked, the prosecutor who charged him, and especially the Director of Public Prosecutions herself, should all be named in a malicious prosecution lawsuit.
Why will this work? Unfortunatley, if it was some unknown Joe Blow who did it, and he couldn't generate media publicity, he would be stonewalled and driven bankrupt by the crown driving up legal costs.
A well-known footballer suing them, though. That would be a different matter. The publicity would be huge, especially in the tabloids. They would settle with the guy just to get the DPP out of the newspaper headlines. Also, for the short amount of time it would be in the news cycle, it would publicise the dangers of being railroaded by the prosecutors & police in FRA cases to the average guys who don't usually think much about shit like that.
I always found the more interesting aspects of this story came in-between his original 'guilty' verdict, and now. Nearly two years ago, he was all-set to sign for Oldham Athletic - essentially a provincial football club, who were prepared to take a risk on a man who had served his time (in the eyes of the law) and give him an opportunity to resurrect his career. Everything was agreed and he was set to sign, but Oldham backed out of the move after the enormous backlash from feminists, celebrities, other leftist crazies, who felt that it was improper for a professional to continue his career, because footballers are role models in the community. So he couldn't earn a living. You know, in his chosen profession. He was hounded out of earning a living from the one thing he was good at, even though he had served his time and been released from prison, simply because of societal pressures.
Now, take the example of Luke McCormick, another professional footballer who currently plays for Plymouth Argyle. His return to professional football came without fanfare, without any great media, without any real outrage. I think he is currently captain at Plymouth, although I wouldn't want to be quoted on that because I'm not 100%. He served time in prison because he crashed into two kids and killed them both, while under the influence of alcohol - he was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Where was the issue with role models in the community when it applied to crimes other than rape? Personally, I have no problem with either man playing the game but I never understood why there was such outrage about a man who was convicted because of fairly tame evidence playing football again.
Another thing about this latest trial is the facts regarding the young, erm, lady involved in this incident, and her sexual exploits either side of her dalliance with young Ched (Chad?). If you ever wanted confirmation of the kinds of behaviours young women are involved in when their SMV is at their highest, they're all there for you to absorb ...
Interestingly, the BBC is already moralising, as if the not guilty verdict still somehow makes footballers morally guilty of taking advantage of young women:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37624008
In what way is it men's fault that women throw themselves at wealth and power? The simple fact is that somebody like Evans is good-looking, wealthy, and unsurprisingly, that gets women wet and excited. So much so that his girlfriend stuck with him even when he was, at best, unfaithful to her, and, at worst, a rapist. It turned out to be the best-case scenario for her, but his girlfriend spent her own time and money trying to prove that he only cheated on her. Think about that.
edit: swapped "him" for "her"
Which is why feminists are pushing hard to prevent rape "victims" being questioned (or other accounts provided) on their sexual history and promiscuity in these cases. We all know it's very very relevant, but they would have it inadmissible in court as "slut shaming".
The Independent's main view on this was an op-ed that this case set things back '30 years', because the (female) judge allowed an exception so that the accuser could be cross-examined. Normally rape accusers aren't allowed to be cross-examined, but the judge said that her ex-boyfriends' accounts were so similar to Evans' that it was alright.
In our current society it takes a female judge to treat women of suspicion with full neutrality under the law.
This case exposed a large body of opinion that actually testing a woman's claims for their truth is wrong. Fortunately, the judge disagreed, and hopefully set a precedent for future cases.
To those people, I say this:
Stop thinking of the law as a tool to mould reality to your ideology. Each legal case must be taken on an individual basis. It's wrong for juries to 'see the bigger picture' at the expense of basing their judgement on the principle of beyond reasonable doubt.
Ray Lewis pleaded guilty to his involvement in a double murder, and he's a hero to these psychos.
Bro. Vick is still getting death threats after serving time, and doing lots of work to remedy what he's done.
Meanwhile I can name several NFL players who have killed people and no one cares.
People have their priorities fucked up. It's just virtue signaling faggots.
Where can you read about her exploits?
I look forward to her being prosecuted. Hahaha just kidding folks, obviously women are not held responsible for their actions.
It's crazy that as men we have to prove our innocence, and that we can be held to be guilty when there is (as in this case) no evidence of guilt.
This probably wouldn't even undermine her legal position.
The new evidence that allowed the retrial also included private investigators who tracked down her previous sex partners many of their stories were so strikingly similar to what Ched described in his statement that it was deemed admissible. Fucked up thing about this is that most people can't afford a private investigator, while she filled against him cos he was rich and premier league star, most girls usually file these type of charges against average dudes when they want to protect their reputation or relationship with a bf, or they just regret it the next morning.
A Saudi Business man took two girls from a night club back to his apartment, he fucked one consensually with no problem but the second filled rape charges against him... his seamen was on her! His explanation "she pull me into her when I went to ask her if she wanted a cab, cum must have been on me cos I was fucking the friend all night"
Went to to trial, produced private evidence ( no one knows what) and the case was dismissed after 20 mins of deliberatuin. The media were up in arms, esp the feminist talking about corruption, but reality is he produced a tape that proved his version was the truth.
Update: BBC now hamstering that the false accuser shouldn't have had her sexual past dragged into the case despite it being used as evidence that her 2 former "partners" had the exact same experience with her as Ched.
FALSE ACCUSATIONS THOUGH? Who cares!?
She never accused him of rape. She maintains that she can't remember the night's events.
It might be hard to record good video at all times, but background audio might prove useful for off-feeling one-night stands.
Motion-activated video is not hard to set up. Have it record all motion to a secure drive and self-delete after a set period. When you have a girl over, save that section of video. Boom. Time-stamped audio and video. You're not going to have to fight to prove it's her since she claims herself that she was there, all you have to show is consent. Hard to claim rape with video of you sucking a dude's dick and then begging him to treat you like his filthy fuck doll.
only thing is now you are in danger of being guilty of a different crime involving filming someone without their consent.
You ever heard "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6?" It refers to bullshit laws that impede self-defense. It is better to be alive and beholden to a jury of peers than dead. It's the same here. It may be illegal to record someone, but no DA who gives a shit about their career will pursue the charges if you present that tape as evidence. Even if deemed inadmissable all you have to do is get it to a couple media outlets and they'll do the work for you. And worst case scenario, better to be known as the guy that likes to tape his encounters than a rapist.
Yes of course. There just seems like there should be a better way. Like letting them know they are on camera. Or something. I don't know. The fact that this is even something needed, secretly recording sex, to make sure you're not prosecuted as a rapist ... is the kind of thing that made me stay out of the dating game a long time.
There "should" be a better way. Like women not playing with men's lives.
You can lay all your cards on the table and trust a female if you want. Tell her she is being recorded and point out all the blind spots on camera. That way she can fill in any holes when she cries rape.
Or you could just record what happens on your property and not ever think of even looking back on the tape until the one time you need it.
This guy has an audio recording of a girl falling off his balcony on her own and they're still trying him for murder. He might still get convicted --- think how screwed he would have been if he hadn't been recording. There should be a better way but there isn't. Don't play dice with this stuff.
http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/courts-law/counsel-says-victims-fear-so-great-it-was-as-if-tostee-pushed-her-from-the-balcony-himself/news-story/19a591e6fb11771abac98cdce4b816b8
You're using a pretty bad clip for this example-- this guy sounds like a fucking serial killer to me. Seems like a normal tinder hookup then full psycho once he's in a private setting. He just walks to a pizza shop right after seeing his hookup kill herself?
But who knows, maybe the girl was a basket case and offed herself after beating him up. For the jury to decide like any other murder.
Therein lies the problem, though. Most of our media outlets are jewish owned, liberal propaganda stations. If you think that they'll present anything that will help a "potential rapist," you're reaching. I'm sure there are some news stations that would take it and try to disseminate it, but they'd get marginalized quickly by the PC/SJW goon squad.
Audio should be sufficient. If she's asking for your dick then that's reasonable grounds to assume consent
Not if she's drunk and slurring
Well still use some fucking common sense.
But you can protect yourself in cases where you're not raping girls.
A few things stand out about this that are shocking:
Wait. So even if there's no evidence, the plaintiff gets anonymity? Even if she's blatantly found to be lying? (She was clearly not drunk). Think about that. She can attempt to destroy his life at no personal risk to herself. Why not? There's no risk to her -- even if she lies, her anonymity is guaranteed.
Adding even more absurdity to the unequal nature of these witch hunts:
Wait. So not only is no evidence required. And not only is the plaintiff protected even if the case is lost because she's lying, but the defense can't even establish character at any point?
This is an absurd travesty of justice -- all designed to protect the feeeelings of females at the expense of a man's life and freedom.
Let's hope someone figures out that Reddit doesn't have to uphold UK law and posts her name here for the public shaming she deserves.
Europe in general is ridiculous. Outrage is feigned over this guy's release but everything is whisper quiet when it comes to the mass molestations in Cologne, rapes in Sweden allegedly tied to the migrant crisis.Typical feminist/SJW schizophrenia commonly known as law in Europe.
The not guilty verdict does not, in fact, mean that she was lying.
This case was one of the rare exceptions where this rule was set aside in the interests of a fair trial. Evidence from the complainants previous sexual partners was adduced as the details of their (consensual) encounters were very similar to those of the sex she had with Evans.
This is interesting because Ched looks like a Chad, thus would have unending stream of women ready to suck his cock even if dirt poor. But given that he became rich, the temptation to claim "rape" and cash in the benefits proved greater than any tingles he was able to produce...
Morals of this story: don't fuck sluts!
No need to feel too bad for him. I'm sure the dude's still swimming pussy, though he's probably more careful about who he sleeps with now.
The complainant never alleged rape.
Nah man. He's still a rapist. That poor girl is the real victim here. Why? Cause when a woman speaks all must obey.
Why feel sorry for a guy that got his life ruined and lost out on time at no fault of his own? He has a penis. He surely raped someone at some point.
Vote Hillary.
Check out this article: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ched-evans-trial-masterclass-why-women-dont-report-rape-1586457
Feminists pulling amazing mental gymnastics and twisting the case in favor of the woman who falsely accused him.
God this shit makes me mad.
That's the thing about feminists. Every rape case that results in a guilty verdict is PROOF of rape cultureTM and every rape case that results in a not-guilty verdict is proof of rape cultureTM. You just can't win.
She never accused him, falsely or otherwise.
Don't have sex with drunk girls. Not worth it. I keep my dates to non-drinking ones, or I let them have a glass of wine or two before escalating.
Also, kind of funny that this guy's name is Ched. Because he's literally a Chad. Dem facial aesthetics.
Yea... you're missing out on a TON of one night stands. I've said it before, i'll say it again. Don't give them your last name, don't take them to your place. That's it. That is all. If she can't find you after a one night stand, she can't false report anything.
She'll have your number and you can probably be tracked that way
Use a burner phone. In the UK you can just walk into a phoneshop and buy a "Pay as you go" phone, no contract, no paperwork, nothing.
I second this bit of advice. There is no need to fuck drunk chicks.
Seems to have been missed but the evidence that aquitted him was that a witness said she was saying "fuck me harder."
Christ almighty. If that isn't consent nothing is. ;p
http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/05/woman-who-accused-ched-evans-of-rape-asked-him-for-rough-sex-6174126/
Nope. Ched maintained she was saying "fuck me harder" and so defence found two of her ex boyfriends to get up and say she told them "fuck me harder" during separate instances of sex with them in her past relationships. This is after Ched's girlfriend pleading via Facebook for new "evidence" and 50k reward
She never made a rape allegation.
Jog on.
Very wise. I know a lot of people that were exonerated by chick's social media posts gloating about getting with them.
However, DAs get wise to this and fight for precedent to consider this inadmissible evidence, especially if it has anything to do with sexual behavior because there are laws about that. This is the only type of crime where the accused cannot bring certain evidence to their defense. Complete fucking abomination of justice.
Fucking embarrassing justice system, poor bastard lost some of the best years of his life
This is super important. Even in so-called two-party consent states, including California, the worst one, guys have saved their asses from FRA with recordings. The problem is, if you admit to even a single person that you've recroded a conversation, not even a sexual one, you've confessed to a crime.
Do not save sexual recordings in the cloud or any other online-connected place, like a hard drive with web connectivity.
If even 1 of your recordings gets hacked & stolen, you are up shit creek. If the stuff gets posted, as in some amateur porn site, you've opened yourself up to a lawsuit. In some states it's illegal to publicice sexual materials about another person without obtaining a legal release form. Criminal shit could follow.
Keep it the fuck offline. MicroSD cards come to mind, easily stored in a hidden place. Or if you have a lawyer who will keep material under attorney-client priviege that's the best (in America, in England this might be more problematic, talk to your attorney first.)
i would probably have that bitch murdered in a very brutal way if i was ched.
This is evidence obtained illegally and therefore inadmissible in a court of law. It's illegal to record somebody having sex without their knowledge.
Instead, send them a text after you leave. Something like "I had a great time tonight!" and she'll respond with "Me too!"
It's not bullet-proof, but it will probably help your case a lot.
Don't be an aspie. 'Hurr durr its illegal to record somebody having sex without their knowledge'. And moreover,
Are you one of those AM I BEING DETAINED folks? The illegaly obtained evidence is inadmissible against the accused, when brought forward by state servants. The rules are much more lax when it's for defense, and they are easily circumvented
--
First of all, damage control. You will never say that 'you record all hoes getting fukd cuz you want to prevent rape claims'; you will claim that you managed to recover the video from your security camera, which is there for anti-theft and insurance purposes.
Second, the legality of recording inside of your own home varies a lot by jurisdiction; for example, even if it's a two-party-consent state, just having a small, barely visible sticker on/next to your door that states 'these premises are recorded' makes it legal in most of those jurisdictions.
And third, it doesn't matter; it is not about is it legal or not, it is about if the punishment for 'illegal recording' is less than for 'rape'. Even if they follow the feminine imperative and refuse it as evidence, just post it on youtube and make yourself the victim. No judge would risk their career nor the state's money after that.
Some judges have held people in contempt of court for less.
They do care about their rulings on admissibility and its effect on jury influence.
Are you a lawyer?
Hmm, good point. I learned something today.
I am not an aspie and I am not one of those "AM I BEING DETAINED" folks.
My understanding of the law is clearly not as advanced as yours.
Go fuck yourself and thanks for the advice
Man, what's with the easily butthurt folks around here lately?
The only problem is this:
Then don't offer 'legal advice' that will be harmful for men's cause.
I thought I understood the law and I didn't.
Not butthurt.
Furthermore, putting a video on youtube of you having sex with someone sounds like terrible advice.
In general, of course I would agree with that.
However, when it might be the only thing saving you from going to prison after you've exhausted all other venues, priorities are much different.
I will concede that point. Well done.