The defence barrister said: “So, what happened after sex?
“The prosecution case is that Mr Evans left through the fire exit for a sinister reason.
“What would be the point of that when Mr Evans had given all of his details - address, bank details, driving licence.
“He was entirely traceable. There would have been no reason to do that.”
She added: “Mr Medland said he was avoiding being filmed, but as the defendant pointed out, he was filmed.”
Ms Khan suggested he did not want to walk out with Clayton McDonald because he had booked the room for one person, not two.
She added: “If the suggestion is being made, and it is a serious suggestion, that he was sneaking out because something untoward had happened in that room, the last thing he would have done is to leave through two doors that said they were alarmed.”
The defence barrister is now addressing the jury about the complainant’s sexual behaviour with others.
She said: “What Mr Evans described is how others describe it.
“There are common features, like her saying ‘f*** me harder’ and ‘go harder’, taking control and changing positions.”
Two witnesses gave evidence regarding relationships with the alleged victim.
Prosecutor Simon Medland QC emphasised there were inconsistencies in their statements.
Ms Khan said: “If you put yourself in the shoes of those men and a solicitor rings you up, you will give the details you are asked for.
“What Mr Medland says - if it’s not in the statement, it’s a lie - is a fallacy.”
Two men gave evidence about sexual relationships with the complainant - we can’t name either for legal reasons.
Prosecutor Simon Medland QC suggested they were both motivated by a £50,000 reward.
The court heard the reward was advertised on the Ched Evans website for information that could lead to his acquittal.
Referring to the first of those witnesses, Ms Khan said: “Why would he lie? It’s suggested he was in it for the money.”
She emphasised he had no criminal record.
She added: “You are asked to believe he has chosen to perjure himself and pervert the course of justice.”
Ms Khan said the witness approached the police with information before the post about the reward was published on the website.
When asked why he had come to court, the man said: “Because I think she [the complainant] is lying.”
The defence barrister added: “It is not about the money at all. He gave a wholly credible account.”
Ms Khan said: “The suggestion that these men were telling lies for money is simply not right.”
She suggested if they had been lying deliberately, there would have been “an easier lie” they could have told to help the defendant.
The defence barrister said: “Their evidence undermines the prosecution case.
“[The complainant] liked to engage in sex at that time. She did so two days before, she did so two weeks after.
“It was consensual two days before, it was consensual two weeks after and it was consensual on the night in question.”
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/live-jury-ched-evans-rape-12017943
