The mirror reporting in today's paper on what this allegedly new evidence is.
No suprise to me or anyone who has had dealings with North Wales police & there role in this conviction the way they conduct business is abysmal & corrupt to the core.

[Link]

Yes there is. And it would appear the court of appeal agree.

From reading the articles floating around and the court transcripts how any one can still think this wasn’t a fit up is beyond me.

I Mean FFS she didn’t even report it as rape until she found out who it was she’d had sex with, as apparently she couldn't remember anything, because she was spiked, funny how the toxicology report showed no such thing, only that she was a massive coke head, and a liar.

Now I'm no druggie, but I do know that one or two whiffs of the old devils dandruff puts you straight even if your pissed. Seeing as she was only 2.5 times the limit, which is f*** all, and she'd had a nose full there is no doubt in my mind at all that this women was coherent, and in complete control of her actions. Maybe she was coached by another on what a gold mine she was sitting on who knows, but the truth will out as they say and I have no doubt she will be shown to be the opportunistic snake with tits that she really is.

Victim my arse.

Depends who you want to rely on, a jury of peers, or personal assumptions. The toxicology report showed she was 2.5 times over the legal limit, the following day. You have to then compensate for the pace at which alcohol is metabolized (although cocaine will affect that).

The follwoing day, she didnt stop drinking until 0300 so hardley hours and hours, and we both now that there is no chance she passed out if she'd been on the marching powder. Just to put it into persepctive 2.5 times the limit after say a 6 hour gap, plus food (she ate the pizza) is the equivalent of drinking 4 average size glasses of wine, hardley the levels of someone who passed out with a blank memory. Evry body deals with alcohol differently, but even you've got to admit it's a stretch to say she was unable to "know what she was doing"

Also, lets not get carried away in terms of 'opportunity' its Ched Evans, who played for Wales and a league 1 side. And of course its irrelevant to whether she was raped anyhow. Hardly a gold mine, plus of course there is the fact that when she was going back to the hotel, McDonald by his own statement never told her about Evans, nor let Evans into the room.

Lets not also forget that his long term partner and now fiance is the daughter of one of the richest families in the UK, and that knowledge was widley known.

So its irrelevant as to whether she could give consent, you'd have to prove she was not intoxicated significantly (which the prosecution presented independent witnesses and video of, as well as Evans own statement to a member of staff on departure).

No it isnt, there where physical signs of rape, She never even reported it as such it was the female officer who interviewed her that decided it was rape.

If someone decides to prosecute because they find out who the assailant was, that is generally considered how most rape cases a pursued.

fair enough, however we still have to go back to the police deciding it was rape, NOT the alledged victim.

Also its a massive deception that cocaine 'sets you straight', its an illusion created by the rush of the stimulant. It feels like your no longer drunk, but your now under the influence of cocaine and alcohol (and I was a right old druggie). Also how much cocaine showed up in her toxicology is really important, as would be when.

She denied ever taking it on the night, and that didnt do drugs, the expert witness stated that the amount found in her blood, meant that she had used Coke in the last 3 days, or if not, she was a very heavy user, either way she lied on oath.

Of course even if she was intoxicated with cocaine and alcohol, it makes no difference to the case. She would still be unable to consent, and by his actions it would be unreasonable for Ched Evans to believe he had consent. Its also debatable whether she would have passed out if she'd been chaining lines of cocaine.

My point exactly. She didnt pass out, because she was high and in that state she would have been in control to a degree of what she was doing and with who. But she claims to have passed out on a nose full, good luck with that bulls***.

The problem is obfuscation around who the person might be, doesn't change the events of the night. Nor does her decision when discovering that the individual was Ched Evans.

Jamie I will point this out once more, and then you are either ignoring it becuase you cant answer it, or being delibertaly obtuse. She never reported it as rape. The Police farce decided it for her.

And that's Evans real problem. Unless he can either demonstrate that she wasn't intoxicated, that he lied about having sex with her (under oath), then it doesn't really change the case.

So the fact he could've just denied it and not gone to prison means nothing to you about the level of actual proof of rape taking place ? There was no proof other than his own idiotic statement that he had sex at all.

She could be the biggest liar liar pants on fire. The fact of the matter is that as long as the prosecution shows sufficient intoxication and that its unreasonable for Evans to believe he had consent, its rape. Attacking the character of the accuser is just a tactic that is very useful in rape cases, the last defense usually of the guilty.

So effectively you are saying it doesnt matter how much of a proven liar you are, we should all belive you when you cry rape, even if your the biggest bulls***ter on Gods Green Earth. That is beyond stupid, which I know you are not.

And how is it the defence of the guilty to attack someones charactor ??? if someone has form for being an asshole and kicking the s*** out of people his charactor obvioulsy gets called into question if he has previous, it's absurd to suggest otherwise.

But there are way to many points that just stick in throat (no pun intended) for a street wise old dude as myself to swallow

To sue the (alleged now) victim, I guess he would have to prove that she acted maliciously.

Apparently this is based on new evidence, I wonder where that came from.