What makes me laugh is his Missus front and centre of every public appearance and defending him to the hilt and yet he still had sex with an inebriated 19 year old girl while they were together.
I think with how unsuccessfully rapists are generally dealt with by the law, the fact that he served 2 and a half years could be seen as a victory, sadly.
Regardless of whether or not you think he is guilty, what is undeniable is the fact that his behaviour was sketchy and unethical, at best. He's got the Not Guilty verdict and I'm fine with him pursuing a career as a footballer, in contrast to how I felt before the verdict had been quashed but he had 'done his time'; a convicted rapist should never be playing professional football, though I still would never want to see him wearing my club's shirt.
So, in an effort to extinguish at least some of the stupid, herewith 10 myths we can squash at the outset:
1. So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right?
Wrong. Youd be forgiven for thinking this, given that it was in the prepared statement read out by his solicitor, but Ched Evans has not demonstrated his innocence. That is not how our criminal justice system operates. It is not a means by which the truth of a situation or event is conclusively and fully determined. Rather the jury are asked one simply question are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (or, as juries are commonly instructed, so that you are sure)? Not guilty means just that. The jury were not sure that he was guilty. They may have decided that he was totally, utterly innocent, but we dont know. All we know is that they considered the evidence, and were less than sure of his guilt. As I tell juries in every closing speech if you think the defendant probably did it, hes still not guilty.
2. Well at the very least, the verdict means that the complainant has lied, surely?
No. Absolutely not. A not guilty verdict in most cases is insufficient to safely infer that the jury have concluded that a complainant lied (as opposed to the jury not being sure one way or the other), but in this case the facts suggest the opposite. As the Court of Appeal made clear in its judgment allowing the appeal, X has never asserted that she was raped. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. It was the prosecution case the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service that she was raped. The defence case was based not on the usual he said/ she said dispute over consent, but rather he said/ she cant remember. There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied, or, to quell the more hysterical calls, that she should be prosecuted on the basis of Evans acquittal.
More on the website, some pretty disturbing stuff:
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/