Still a grey area for me. Why didn't the other witnesses appear at the original trial and without a 50k reward. I have genuinely no idea if he did or not but if he is trully innocent he has lost 4 of his best earning years and should go to town on a loss of earnings

I notice you didn't answer the question.

 

 

read it again..

 

"its quite a big issue"..

 

I'm interested in current affairs, cant see how i can answer it more than that tbh

Telegraph can fook off, the lads done 2 years in prison for a crime that he hasn't committed

Was he in the A team?

 

The verdict doesn't mean he didn't commit it

in the eyes if the law it does

in the eyes if the law it does

That didn't matter to many on here when he was a convicted rapist though.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

Good read. If anyone's interested it gets juicy, and particularly relevant to the acquittal on point 6

I notice you didn't answer the question.

 

 

Because it's fucking asinine you clown.

Because it's fucking asinine you clown.

Had to google that word.. now I feel foolish

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

 

1. So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right?

Wrong.  You’d 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”

 

I'm no legal eagle but, legal definitions/splitting hairs apart, it kind of does prove it, doesn't it?!  It says couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt.  So if he's not proven guilty then . . .

 

Seems to me he jumped on the bandwagon of her bent over arse, she loved it and asked him to 'bang her harder' - repeatedly.  She wakes up and thinks - 'Jesus I was pissed last night, hmm shagged some footballers . . . or did I?? ££££'  Is he a sleaze ball - yes of the highest order probably, but don't think he raped her - never did to be fair.

 

What's good about this trial is that anyone who has drunken 'consenting' sex can't be so easily accused of rape further down the line - which is a good thing imo.  I bet we've all had some one night stands where both parties were pretty mashed up.  The thought of a young lady turning round to me the next day and saying I don't remember what happened so basically your a rapist, is a rater disturbing one!  How would the bloke stand if he also said - 'I was that drunk I don't remember - could that be rape then?' Genuine question . . .

 

On the flip side, blokes preying on pissed up, or whatever, girls have a pretty good excuse lined up - i.e. you can't prove that she didn't consent.  Which isn't such a good thing.  Maybe I'm looking at this too simply?

 

How did they come to guilty verdict in the first trial?  I know there was evidence in the appeal that came to light (i.e. the fuck me harder quotes) - but I still don't see how even without that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt . . .

Edited October 17, 20169 yr by madthatter

Why do any of you give a fuck? Seriously, come on now.

 

Interesting choice of words - are you one of those people that post in newspaper comments sections and say "Can't believe there is even an article about this . . . what a waste of time!" 

 

It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife . . .

 

1. So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right?

Wrong.  You’d 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”

 

 

 

 The thought of a young lady turning round to me the next day and saying I don't remember what happened so basically your a rapist, is a rater disturbing one!  How would the bloke stand if he also said - 'I was that drunk I don't remember - could that be rape then?' Genuine question . . .

 

 

How did they come to guilty verdict in the first trial?  I know there was evidence in the appeal that came to light (i.e. the fuck me harder quotes) - but I still don't see how even without that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt . . .

 

 

She never, ever, accused him of rape.

She simply reported her handbag as 'stolen' (I think it had been left in the taxi).

The police referred the cases (him and his mate) to the CPS, who decided to prosecute.

His mate had picked her up and taken her back to the hotel with sex in mind, so the jury did not agree rape in his case.

Evans joined them later and sex with him was not pre-meditated, she was deemed incapable of giving consent at that stage, and the jury in the initial trial  did not harbour any doubt.

The added evidence of the two other one-nighters (one was the previous night, the other a couple of weeks later) indicated that she had a clear idea of what constituted a good night out, and the second jury had some doubt.

1. So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right?

Wrong. You’d 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”

I'm no legal eagle but, legal definitions/splitting hairs apart, it kind of does prove it, doesn't it?! It says couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt. So if he's not proven guilty then . . .

Seems to me he jumped on the bandwagon of her bent over arse, she loved it and asked him to 'bang her harder' - repeatedly. She wakes up and thinks - 'Jesus I was pissed last night, hmm shagged some footballers . . . or did I?? ££££' Is he a sleaze ball - yes of the highest order probably, but don't think he raped her - never did to be fair.

What's good about this trial is that anyone who has drunken 'consenting' sex can't be so easily accused of rape further down the line - which is a good thing imo. I bet we've all had some one night stands where both parties were pretty mashed up. The thought of a young lady turning round to me the next day and saying I don't remember what happened so basically your a rapist, is a rater disturbing one! How would the bloke stand if he also said - 'I was that drunk I don't remember - could that be rape then?' Genuine question . . .

On the flip side, blokes preying on pissed up, or whatever, girls have a pretty good excuse lined up - i.e. you can't prove that she didn't consent. Which isn't such a good thing. Maybe I'm looking at this too simply?

How did they come to guilty verdict in the first trial? I know there was evidence in the appeal that came to light (i.e. the fuck me harder quotes) - but I still don't see how even without that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt . . .

 

The phrase is "not guilty" rather than "innocent"

She never, ever, accused him of rape.

She simply reported her handbag as 'stolen' (I think it had been left in the taxi).

The police referred the cases (him and his mate) to the CPS, who decided to prosecute.

His mate had picked her up and taken her back to the hotel with sex in mind, so the jury did not agree rape in his case.

Evans joined them later and sex with him was not pre-meditated, she was deemed incapable of giving consent at that stage, and the jury in the initial trial  did not harbour any doubt.

The added evidence of the two other one-nighters (one was the previous night, the other a couple of weeks later) indicated that she had a clear idea of what constituted a good night out, and the second jury had some doubt.

 

Fair enough, and I didn't realise she didn't accuse him - which makes it even more bizarre to me that he was convicted first time round!  

 

Without knowing what the jury were seeing/hearing at the first trial exactly it's hard to say for sure, but the link above suggests that being drunk does not necessarily excuse one from ones actions in the eyes of the law i.e. you can still make a decision when pissed!  He didn't force her so . . . I guess maybe I'm not seeing how that could be rape then - which is what he was convicted of wasn't it?  

 

How did they know beyond reasonable doubt she couldn't make that decision?  I knew they deemed she was incapable to give consent, but how?  I assume she was conscious and aware of what has happening before Ched came on the scene (phrasing). .  . 

The phrase is "not guilty" rather than "innocent"

 

Aye hence the definition/hair splitting comment.  For all intents and purposes if someone is found not guilty we generally assume that they were innocent, don't we?  Or is it just me then?

 

Innocent until proven guilty?  Or does that not apply here?  

I always thought it was illegal to bring n the victims sexual history in relation to a particular case.

She might be a dirty slutbag who will shag any fucker, but if on that particular occasion she said no, the other instances have no relation to the accusation.

Aye hence the definition/hair splitting comment.  For all intents and purposes if someone is found not guilty we generally assume that they were innocent, don't we?  Or is it just me then?

 

Innocent until proven guilty?  Or does that not apply here?  

 

The Scots system has a 'not proven' alternative verdict, the English system does not.

In criminal cases guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required.

In civil cases judgement is based on balance of probabilities, i.e. more likely than not - clearly that cannot be applied in criminal cases.

I always thought it was illegal to bring n the victims sexual history in relation to a particular case.

She might be a dirty slutbag who will shag any fucker, but if on that particular occasion she said no, the other instances have no relation to the accusation.

 

See the link above - as I understand it her pleas to be 'fucked harder' on more than one occasion, with different men and close to the night spent with Ched and his mate was deemed relevant to the case.

 

In general though, no, it shouldn't be brought in.

Edited October 17, 20169 yr by madthatter

I always thought it was illegal to bring n the victims sexual history in relation to a particular case.

She might be a dirty slutbag who will shag any fucker, but if on that particular occasion she said no, the other instances have no relation to the accusation.

 

She didn't say no, or ever claim to. The prosecution case was she was too drunk and thus incapable of giving consent, which she may have done the hour before with his mate, and the night before with the new witness. 

The Scots system has a 'not proven' alternative verdict, the English system does not.

In criminal cases guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required.

In civil cases judgement is based on balance of probabilities, i.e. more likely than not - clearly that cannot be applied in criminal cases.

 

So Ched Evans is a non-guilty rapist then?  

Fair enough, and I didn't realise she didn't accuse him - which makes it even more bizarre to me that he was convicted first time round!  

 

Without knowing what the jury were seeing/hearing at the first trial exactly it's hard to say for sure, but the link above suggests that being drunk does not necessarily excuse one from ones actions in the eyes of the law i.e. you can still make a decision when pissed!  He didn't force her so . . . I guess maybe I'm not seeing how that could be rape then - which is what he was convicted of wasn't it?  

 

How did they know beyond reasonable doubt she couldn't make that decision?  I knew they deemed she was incapable to give consent, but how?  I assume she was conscious and aware of what has happening before Ched came on the scene (phrasing). .  . 

 

i am sure he also admitted he did not speak to her before or after the sex.

 

He got into the room using a key he persuaded the hotel to give him and left using the fire escape.

 

Sex is consentual , the jury in the first trial decided it was unreasonable for Evans to conclude she was consenting, in the second trial they did not find in the same way.

 

So she is hammered, ends up shagging first bloke who she met in pizza shop (i think) traveled back to hotel with him so jury decides that is enough to say she was consenting...she could not remember either way.

 

As she is being shagged another blokes enters the room (and her) then leaves via a fire escape, the jury decide that is those circumstances consent was not given so classed as rape.

 

In the second trial jury conclude differently.

 

None of us know the full details given to the court so impossible to say why first lot said it was rape and second lot did n't, but the justice system in this country says that is how we resolve decisions in court. So he is Not Guilty, the court can not find someone innocent, they can only decide if the case against him has been proven or not.

 

If in a case the forensics say fuck up and some evidence becomes inadmissible that would have proven 100% someone committed a crime, they do not become innocent all of a sudden, but they can be found Not Guilty.

And the 2 witnesses only came forward after a big reward was offered.

 

So whatever the rights and wrongs of the decisions in each trial probably fair to say justice is NOT the bigger winner out of all this.

i am sure he also admitted he did not speak to her before or after the sex.

 

He got into the room using a key he persuaded the hotel to give him and left using the fire escape.

 

Sex is consentual , the jury in the first trial decided it was unreasonable for Evans to conclude she was consenting, in the second trial they did not find in the same way.

 

So she is hammered, ends up shagging first bloke who she met in pizza shop (i think) traveled back to hotel with him so jury decides that is enough to say she was consenting...she could not remember either way.

 

As she is being shagged another blokes enters the room (and her) then leaves via a fire escape, the jury decide that is those circumstances consent was not given so classed as rape.

 

In the second trial jury conclude differently.

 

None of us know the full details given to the court so impossible to say why first lot said it was rape and second lot did n't, but the justice system in this country says that is how we resolve decisions in court. So he is Not Guilty, the court can not find someone innocent, they can only decide if the case against him has been proven or not.

 

If in a case the forensics say fuck up and some evidence becomes inadmissible that would have proven 100% someone committed a crime, they do not become innocent all of a sudden, but they can be found Not Guilty.

 

OK but if I am on that Jury I'm not sure I could ever be beyond reasonable doubt.  What he did looks bad but as I mentioned above she wasn't forced and was conscious even if extremely pissed - as was he I imagine.  I guess that's why you have 12 jurors and need 10/12 but still . . . just my opinion.   If she was passed out and he took advantage that's completely different.

 

And the 2 witnesses only came forward after a big reward was offered.

 

So whatever the rights and wrongs of the decisions in each trial probably fair to say justice is NOT the bigger winner out of all this.

 

Aye, but do you blame them?  Especially if they're married or what have you.  Not saying I agree with it but . . .

 

This whole case seems a bit of a fcuk up to me (phrasing - again  

And the 2 witnesses only came forward after a big reward was offered.

 

So whatever the rights and wrongs of the decisions in each trial probably fair to say justice is NOT the bigger winner out of all this.

Not true, the first witness came forward the first time around

Not true, the first witness came forward the first time around

According to the link above both were new evidence, there has to be new evidence for a retrial.