Quote Originally Posted by neilw65 View Post
So you made your decision based on media reports, clearly accurate, don't miss anything out and not prone to sensationalism.

based on comments reported by the media, both of those witnesses have said no they would not be receiving any reward
money
Hate to break it to you, but neither are going to say "yes, we want the money" are they?

Did Ched's half brother, at the window, who failed to testify in the original trial now testify in this one?
Did the other man in the room not testify - someone who could have definitively cleared Ched?
Was money offered by the Evans clan in exchange for evidence?

The problem is rape is always difficult to prove. That means a lot of rapists get away with it.

I go back to a woman's house - both of us slightly drunk. She falls asleep. I rape her. No force used ( as in leaving marks ).
Her word against mine.
Goes to court.
I claim she slept with X, Y and Z before and after the night in question. Other people say she slept with X, Y and Z.

Odds would definitely be in my favour of acquital.

I agree with the general sentiment of not wanting one innocent person convicted but the balance is so far skewed it's a serious problem. It generally boils down to one person's word against another - and is even more complex when alcohol is involved. The level of proof required in these cases is simply too high to be achievable in the vast majority of cases.

A woman has to prove she could not have consented. How on earth is that possible? Have video cameras in the room? What does it tell women who have been raped?

EDIT: So what is the solution? I'm wondering if for cases like this adopting the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven", a half way house between guilty / not guilty is the way forward.