Ched Evans signing for.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
HellsBells said:
Surely that's the very definition of prejudicing the case??

How do you know what the info is if it's not in the public domain?
Click to expand...

The information is in the public domain.

I was saying that if the jury had been in a position to take the or leave the information and decide whether it was relevant, I think they would have considered it pretty relevant, particularly when it the whole case comes down to deciding whether the victim is a credible witness.
 


JumpingAnaconda said:
The information is in the public domain.

I was saying that if the jury had been in a position to take the or leave the information and decide whether it was relevant, I think they would have considered it pretty relevant, particularly when it the whole case comes down to deciding whether the victim is a credible witness.
Click to expand...
If it's in the public domain, why can't you discuss it here?
 
Just to lighten the mood, I once bumped into a lass from school asleep in the gutter, I suspect she'd been spiked, I took her back to hers and she tried it on but I backheeled her, cause she was ugly.
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
But a conviction can not be based on "she was probably too drunk to consent". The prosecution argued that the accuser was unable to give consent because she was incapacitated. The video does show that she is walking fine by herself and has her balance at the point she entered the hotel. Ched Evan's testimony was that he asked if he could get involved and he was directly instructed what to do by the accuser. There was no biologicial evidence of her drink being spiked, there was certainly no evidence of Ched Evans spiking her drink, and from the verifiable video evidence it seems she was in a position to consent very shortly before. I can see no grounds for the jury to conclude that without question Ched Evans had sexual contact with the woman without consent. He might have done, but it is far too ambiguous to secure a conviction. It could be argued that he had every reason to believe that consent had been granted. I very much doubt that the conviction would have been secured and the jury would have been swayed if Evans was not a professional footballer, who in some contexts are considered social pariahs, the undeserving rich. I very much doubt the conviction would have been secured if all of the relevant information had been presented in court.
Click to expand...
The fact that she looked sober on entering the hotel is irrelevant. As I explained earlier, she could have become incapable in a very short space of time.
Your last paragraph is just a load of speculative bollocks.
 
Lewberry pie said:
Just to lighten the mood, I once bumped into a lass from school asleep in the gutter, I suspect she'd been spiked, I took her back to hers and she tried it on but I backheeled her, cause she was ugly.
Click to expand...
Crikey you younguns, used to call It a backskuttle for the ugly birds in my day;)
 
Purrfect South said:
The fact that she looked sober on entering the hotel is irrelevant. As I explained earlier, she could have become incapable in a very short space of time.
Your last paragraph is just a load of speculative bollocks.
Click to expand...

The justice system does not work on 'could have'. The prosecution's job was to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ched Evans committed the crime of rape against the victim. The argument for Evans' conviction is that even though there is video evidence that the woman appeared in possession of her faculties shortly before the event, and even though she verbally consented and instructed him to carry out acts upon her, and even though she had blood levels of cannabis and cocaine on a par with a high level user (which she denied) or someone who had very recently taken the drugs (which she also denied), it is without question that Evans was aware that she was in no state to give consent. That conclusion can not stand up to unbiased analysis and reasoning, and that is why the review has been fast tracked.

Rape cases that look as close as you can get to open and shut convictions fall over every single day on things that you could not dream of having any impact on an conviction, causing untold frustration and upset. That is because the justice system is weighted massively in a rapist's favour by its dependence on cold hard evidence. Very often rapists are convicted on the testimony of multiple victims, where a modus operandi is revealled. That is the system we have. However, the Evans case is full of ambiguous and questionable assumptions. It seems the entire conviction is based on an assumption of guilt, taking the word of one against another with no critical evidence to support it. None of the normal per-requisites for a conviction exist. There was no DNA evidence. There was no physical evidence of a sexual assault. There was no toxicological evidence of the drink being spiked, and there was no evidence of Evans or any of his associates being involved in the spiking of a drink. The porter testified that the woman gave the impression of being a willing participant. The only thing that linked Evans to having sexual contact with the woman was that he told the police he had sexual contact with the woman. Then he willingly cooperated and told them his side of the story. So where is the evidence that makes the jury certain that he raped the woman?
 
box2box said:
Legal system has passed judgement, he was guilty. In most walks of life you can attempt to get your life back on track, however football is funded by so many sponsors who simply don't want his bad pr
Click to expand...

So, if his appeal is successful, does he stop being guilty?

Johnsafc said:
I would agree with this but he hasn't even served his time yet. Also he still has a pending appeal and hasn't apologised to the victim/showed any signs of remorse for what he's done.

Not surprised it was a team desperate to stay up who are willing to take a chance on him.
Click to expand...

One causes the other - no barrister worth his fee would let his client express remorse as it would prejudice the appeal.
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
The justice system does not work on 'could have'. The prosecution's job was to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ched Evans committed the crime of rape against the victim. The argument for Evans' conviction is that even though there is video evidence that the woman appeared in possession of her faculties shortly before the event, and even though she verbally consented and instructed him to carry out acts upon her, and even though she had blood levels of cannabis and cocaine on a par with a high level user (which she denied) or someone who had very recently taken the drugs (which she also denied), it is without question that Evans was aware that she was in no state to give consent. That conclusion can not stand up to unbiased analysis and reasoning, and that is why the review has been fast tracked.

Rape cases that look as close as you can get to open and shut convictions fall over every single day on things that you could not dream of having any impact on an conviction, causing untold frustration and upset. That is because the justice system is weighted massively in a rapist's favour by its dependence on cold hard evidence. Very often rapists are convicted on the testimony of multiple victims, where a modus operandi is revealled. That is the system we have. However, the Evans case is full of ambiguous and questionable assumptions. It seems the entire conviction is based on an assumption of guilt, taking the word of one against another with no critical evidence to support it. None of the normal per-requisites for a conviction exist. There was no DNA evidence. There was no physical evidence of a sexual assault. There was no toxicological evidence of the drink being spiked, and there was no evidence of Evans or any of his associates being involved in the spiking of a drink. The porter testified that the woman gave the impression of being a willing participant. The only thing that linked Evans to having sexual contact with the woman was that he told the police he had sexual contact with the woman. Then he willingly cooperated and told them his side of the story. So where is the evidence that makes the jury certain that he raped the woman?
Click to expand...
"Giving the impression" of being a willing participant is not the same as actually being willing. If he does get his revue, then I'm sure more will be revealed. If however, it gets turned down, as it was the first time, then it obviously doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
 
Purrfect South said:
"Giving the impression" of being a willing participant is not the same as actually being willing. If he does get his revue, then I'm sure more will be revealed. If however, it gets turned down, as it was the first time, then it obviously doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

But that is part of the evidence, part of what was taken into consideration. Where is the evidence that indicates that Evans raped the woman? Where is the evidence that removes the doubt that anything but a rape took place? You don't convict on a roll of the dice, you convict because there is an undeniable weight of evidence supporting the prosecution that proves without reasonable doubt that the crime took place. This is why I consider there is a strong argument for the conviction being a miscarriage of justice.
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
The information is in the public domain.

I was saying that if the jury had been in a position to take the or leave the information and decide whether it was relevant, I think they would have considered it pretty relevant, particularly when it the whole case comes down to deciding whether the victim is a credible witness.
Click to expand...
How did it reach the public domain?
 
Why put so much effort into defending someone who even on his own account of events is a total scumbag, and according to the only people who have considered it properly -ie the 12 jurors and 5 judges - is a rapist?

You have zero legal training and obviously haven't even bothered to read the facts of the case outside of the ridiculous Ched Evans is Innocent website..so really, why are you so keen to defend him?
 
Lots of big words in long paragraphs being thrown around but at the end of the day he put his cock in a womans vagina without consent.

Rape. Simple as really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top