Quote Originally Posted by TruBlue View Post
But you suggested Macdonald could definitely get him off. That's clearly not the case as he testified first time around and he didn't get Evans off.

Additionally Character witnesses have long been a part of British court cases, this one is no different.
First time around it was a joint trial, I do believe? ( Happy to be proven wrong ). That would somewhat affect the weighting of his comments?

The point remains that this trial was about consent. If Ched testifies McDonald asked if Ched could join in, then Ched's testimony is bolstered if McDonald backs that up otherwise it's a hanging question based purely on Ched's words - given other things in the trial, ie admitting a caution relating to an insurance claim on a mobile phone question his honesty.

Were the new witnesses really character witnesses? Nobody has answered how those two knew they'd allegedly slept with the same woman in this case without her identity having been revealed - admittedly we know one side had been leaking it in the past.

I jut find there's plenty that came up as his defence that is highly questionable; the problem with rape cases is that the bar to *prove* in cases like this is almost impossibly high. As I said, imo the Scottish thing of "Not Proven" could well be a more accurate outcome in this case.