| Ched Evans 10:29 - Apr 21 with 3984 views | SuddenLad |
After all the furore and claims of innocence and a miscarriage of justice, he has been ordered to face a re-trial.
|  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |  |
| Ched Evans on 10:42 - Apr 21 with 3204 views | aleanddale |
Thought he was found guilty and has served his time?
Not that he should play footy again ( and the case was murky at best ) but a re trial? |  | | |
| Ched Evans on 10:50 - Apr 21 with 3174 views | SuddenLad |
| Ched Evans on 10:42 - Apr 21 by aleanddale |
Thought he was found guilty and has served his time?
Not that he should play footy again ( and the case was murky at best ) but a re trial? |
He appealed and his case was referred to the Criminal Cases Review Board.
They have now ordered a re-trial. That suggests there is still a 'case to answer' despite claims of new evidence and miscarriage of justice.
His conviction has been 'set aside'. [Post edited 21 Apr 2016 10:57]
| |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Ched Evans on 11:09 - Apr 21 with 3115 views | CamdenDale |
Original conviction 'quashed'.
None of our business to express opinion on anything to do with the matter really. |  | | |
| Ched Evans on 11:11 - Apr 21 with 3105 views | mingthemerciless |
British Justice. The best money can buy. | | | |
| Ched Evans on 11:23 - Apr 21 with 3061 views | firgrovedale51 |
| Ched Evans on 10:42 - Apr 21 by aleanddale |
Thought he was found guilty and has served his time?
Not that he should play footy again ( and the case was murky at best ) but a re trial? |
Just because he has been tried and found guilty does not mean he is actually guilty and if found not guilty why should he not play football again?
If this is the case the girl should be named and serve the same sentence he was given, and not be allowed to play football. | | | |
| Ched Evans on 11:43 - Apr 21 with 3004 views | CamdenDale |
| Ched Evans on 11:23 - Apr 21 by firgrovedale51 |
Just because he has been tried and found guilty does not mean he is actually guilty and if found not guilty why should he not play football again?
If this is the case the girl should be named and serve the same sentence he was given, and not be allowed to play football. |
Re-trial. Square one. We weren't there and know nothing about it. Let the Court convict again or otherwise.
The press i.e. the public had a right go at this in 2012, bringing out all our prejudices The law works as best as it can without that crap. Let's leave this trial alone.
[Post edited 21 Apr 2016 11:44]
| | | |
| Ched Evans on 12:00 - Apr 21 with 2953 views | firgrovedale51 |
| Ched Evans on 11:43 - Apr 21 by CamdenDale |
Re-trial. Square one. We weren't there and know nothing about it. Let the Court convict again or otherwise.
The press i.e. the public had a right go at this in 2012, bringing out all our prejudices The law works as best as it can without that crap. Let's leave this trial alone.
[Post edited 21 Apr 2016 11:44]
|
Agree with that but I ask the question IF found not guilty why should he not be allowed to play football and in my opinion the girl in the case should be named and punished for her life changing lies, I repeat IF found not guilty .
Some seem to think that because a person is found guilty they must be but history is littered with innocent people being found guilty due to various reasons. | | | |
| Ched Evans on 12:11 - Apr 21 with 2926 views | funkkk |
His conviction did seem a tad strange based on the info that was released in public. If he is innocent then good look to him in his appeal though I still doubt the average football fan would accept him. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ched Evans on 12:24 - Apr 21 with 2869 views | CamdenDale |
| Ched Evans on 12:00 - Apr 21 by firgrovedale51 |
Agree with that but I ask the question IF found not guilty why should he not be allowed to play football and in my opinion the girl in the case should be named and punished for her life changing lies, I repeat IF found not guilty .
Some seem to think that because a person is found guilty they must be but history is littered with innocent people being found guilty due to various reasons. |
Well, if found not guilty, of course he should be allowed to play (pro) football. Even after conviction (last time and possible next) and his time served then he should be allowed naturally. Thing is, who wants to employ? Either you take on a convicted rapist or you take on a 'once and for all time' suspected rapist. Might go for the other bloke might you?
As to the other party in the case, if he's found not guilty, then it's not the automatic case that she should be put in the dock. A not guilty verdict means the charge couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt - it doesn't flip back to 'so she must be guilty' does it?
I mean, on the night, the whole thing might have seemed a whole lot different to her than to him. This seems naive to say but you can't have trial to try and prove it the other way. Unless he wants to prosecute. I doubt he would. [Post edited 21 Apr 2016 12:30]
| | | |
| Ched Evans on 12:27 - Apr 21 with 2854 views | wimborne_dale |
| Ched Evans on 11:09 - Apr 21 by CamdenDale |
Original conviction 'quashed'.
None of our business to express opinion on anything to do with the matter really. |
It's very much our business. English law is set by legal precedent. If his conviction were to stand and a couple have consensual sex but the woman is so drunk that in the morning she can't remember giving consent then he has committed rape.
Is that something we would be happy with? |  |
| |
| Ched Evans on 12:33 - Apr 21 with 2826 views | CamdenDale |
| Ched Evans on 12:27 - Apr 21 by wimborne_dale |
It's very much our business. English law is set by legal precedent. If his conviction were to stand and a couple have consensual sex but the woman is so drunk that in the morning she can't remember giving consent then he has committed rape.
Is that something we would be happy with? |
Yes, the law is our business. Thanks. What is not in issue here is that a precedent might be set. There's been lots of cases involving alcohol and rape. | | | |
| Ched Evans on 12:39 - Apr 21 with 2791 views | wimborne_dale |
Having read the case notes, I was astonished that Ched Evans was found guilty, especially as his co-defendant was found not guilty of the same crime and based on the same evidence.
Evans was convicted solely on the evidence of the complainant who by her own admission had been too drunk to remember what had happened. Surely any such conviction has to be unsafe.
I'm not saying he was definitely innocent, I am saying I don't know, neither does anyone else and most importantly neither does the complainant. As the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" and based on the evidence made public there is plenty of room for very reasonable doubt, the only safe verdict has to be not guilty.
Should he play football again? I don't see why not. He faces a re-trial but he might be found not guilty and I believe strongly in the presumption of innocence. | |
| |
| Ched Evans on 12:40 - Apr 21 with 2779 views | KenBoon |
| Ched Evans on 12:27 - Apr 21 by wimborne_dale |
It's very much our business. English law is set by legal precedent. If his conviction were to stand and a couple have consensual sex but the woman is so drunk that in the morning she can't remember giving consent then he has committed rape.
Is that something we would be happy with? |
Yes.
If a woman (or man) is too drunk to remember then they must have been extremely drunk when it happened. Someone who is so drunk that they don't know what they're doing clearly cannot consent. Consent when sober or drunk but aware of what you're doing doesn't mean it's consent a few hours later when the other person is not fully aware of what they're doing.
Hopefully justice (whatever way that may be) will happen in this case. It must be incredibly difficult and upsetting to judge. |  | | |
| Ched Evans on 12:44 - Apr 21 with 2763 views | dingdangblue |
| Ched Evans on 12:27 - Apr 21 by wimborne_dale |
It's very much our business. English law is set by legal precedent. If his conviction were to stand and a couple have consensual sex but the woman is so drunk that in the morning she can't remember giving consent then he has committed rape.
Is that something we would be happy with? |
I thought the story was she consented to sex with his mate however drunk she was - then Evans came in the hotel room and had a go . To which she said she had no knowledge of as she'd passed out by then.
Its all very unsavoury whatever went on.
And he was in a relationship. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans on 12:57 - Apr 21 with 2710 views | wimborne_dale |
| Ched Evans on 12:44 - Apr 21 by dingdangblue |
I thought the story was she consented to sex with his mate however drunk she was - then Evans came in the hotel room and had a go . To which she said she had no knowledge of as she'd passed out by then.
Its all very unsavoury whatever went on.
And he was in a relationship. |
Maybe so but Evans claimed that she had given consent and maintained this consistently so who to believe?
I am not condoning Evans. Having sex with a drunken girl you've only just met is at best foolish and at worst immoral, some would say both. But that is just my opinion, not the law.
So it's just his word against hers. No independent witnesses so how can we say that anything has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt"? | |
| |
| Ched Evans on 13:02 - Apr 21 with 2706 views | CamdenDale |
As KB says, safe to say, glad am not involved in having to try this one or the first. I'm gonna try to avoid reading the case notes too :). Or even read about it anywhere. Let 'em get on with it.
As to employment, he has a right to work if he's not in the slammer at any given time. If I was hiring, and I knew all the facts open to all, and I thought he was good enough to do what I was hiring him for, then I'd give him an interview. If he proved his character to me then I'd hire him. How else can you do business? | | | |
| Ched Evans on 13:11 - Apr 21 with 2682 views | dingdangblue |
| Ched Evans on 12:40 - Apr 21 by KenBoon |
Yes.
If a woman (or man) is too drunk to remember then they must have been extremely drunk when it happened. Someone who is so drunk that they don't know what they're doing clearly cannot consent. Consent when sober or drunk but aware of what you're doing doesn't mean it's consent a few hours later when the other person is not fully aware of what they're doing.
Hopefully justice (whatever way that may be) will happen in this case. It must be incredibly difficult and upsetting to judge. |
What if the man is too drunk to realise what he is doing and she is too drunk to know what she's doing? Not saying thats what happened but its very hard to prove either way. | |
| |
| Ched Evans on 13:34 - Apr 21 with 2627 views | nordenblue |
| Ched Evans on 12:57 - Apr 21 by wimborne_dale |
Maybe so but Evans claimed that she had given consent and maintained this consistently so who to believe?
I am not condoning Evans. Having sex with a drunken girl you've only just met is at best foolish and at worst immoral, some would say both. But that is just my opinion, not the law.
So it's just his word against hers. No independent witnesses so how can we say that anything has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt"? |
I said at the time on here it all seems rather weak the case and "beyond reasonable doubt" is a very grey area too.
Many slated me and a couple of others on here for having that opinion but I still stand by it,having read the case notes prior and during the last trial I'm amazed he ever got found guilty to begin with.
Time will tell | | | |
| Ched Evans on 13:45 - Apr 21 with 2595 views | CamdenDale |
| Ched Evans on 13:11 - Apr 21 by dingdangblue |
What if the man is too drunk to realise what he is doing and she is too drunk to know what she's doing? Not saying thats what happened but its very hard to prove either way. |
Am pretty sure we've all been smashed out of our faces with girls we don't know in hotel or wherever bedrooms. To the point of actually passing out, you know as a man what you're doing all the way. At what point where she is clearly 'not with it' do you not stop doing what was on your mind? It's quite clear what's right and what isn't. In law, the concept of consent is easy.
It's the who to believe that's so hard for a jury. This is where the context gets so much made of in court - short skirt, slag, giving me the come on and all that. That's where a genuine victim has it all to prove and where it goes wrong. No is no. Asleep is no. And not with YOU regardless is certainly a no. (Let's also bear in mind here your actual forced brutal rape does happen.)
This is not to deny consensual sex doesn't lead to false rape allegations with horrendous consequences. Pretty sure it takes a strong set of circumstances to make a woman want to go through that.
All these things to be weighed in court in this case. Again. | | | |
| Ched Evans on 16:28 - Apr 21 with 2442 views | D_Dale |
"Am pretty sure we've all been smashed out of our faces with girls we don't know in hotel or wherever bedrooms."
Erm, well, CamdenDale, not in the last couple of days, as far as I remember.
As the re-trial will take some time, he's obviously going to be out of football for a while yet. It'd not surprise me, given the aggro she got - being widely named and having apparently had to move to another area - if the woman involved refuses to testify.
But if a trail does go ahead and he's again found guilty, presumably he'll be deemed to have already served his sentence. If he's acquitted, expect an offer from the Biffos. | | | |
| Ched Evans on 18:03 - Apr 21 with 2357 views | CamdenDale |
| Ched Evans on 16:28 - Apr 21 by D_Dale |
"Am pretty sure we've all been smashed out of our faces with girls we don't know in hotel or wherever bedrooms."
Erm, well, CamdenDale, not in the last couple of days, as far as I remember.
As the re-trial will take some time, he's obviously going to be out of football for a while yet. It'd not surprise me, given the aggro she got - being widely named and having apparently had to move to another area - if the woman involved refuses to testify.
But if a trail does go ahead and he's again found guilty, presumably he'll be deemed to have already served his sentence. If he's acquitted, expect an offer from the Biffos. |
The re-trial would not have been agreed on yesterday if at that point the chief witness was unwilling to testify in a second trial. He'd have just been cleared. She may back out in the coming months - who knows? I hope she has the character to give the same testimony if it's genuine - I expect it is.
On the sentencing, if found guilty, yes cannot be much different than before so will not serve more time. On the footballing side, if the bloke is acquitted and plays, maybe at Oldham, who would care? If sentence upheld and he is still freed, having served his time, and plays for Oldham, again? Be a bit weird if someone could be tried and sentenced twice, served the time and not be 'allowed' to do the only thing he's good at.
Would I have him at Dale? Maybe. He's not Martin Bormann ffs. | | | |
| Ched Evans on 18:13 - Apr 21 with 2326 views | ColDale |
I'd be surprised if anyone post-Adam Johnson would take a chance on him before the outcome of the retrial |  | | |
| Ched Evans on 19:32 - Apr 21 with 2240 views | mingthemerciless |
| Ched Evans on 13:11 - Apr 21 by dingdangblue |
What if the man is too drunk to realise what he is doing and she is too drunk to know what she's doing? Not saying thats what happened but its very hard to prove either way. |
If a bloke is too drunk to know what is doing yet can still do the business he's a better man than me. | | | |
| Ched Evans on 19:56 - Apr 21 with 2200 views | firgrovedale51 |
| Ched Evans on 12:24 - Apr 21 by CamdenDale |
Well, if found not guilty, of course he should be allowed to play (pro) football. Even after conviction (last time and possible next) and his time served then he should be allowed naturally. Thing is, who wants to employ? Either you take on a convicted rapist or you take on a 'once and for all time' suspected rapist. Might go for the other bloke might you?
As to the other party in the case, if he's found not guilty, then it's not the automatic case that she should be put in the dock. A not guilty verdict means the charge couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt - it doesn't flip back to 'so she must be guilty' does it?
I mean, on the night, the whole thing might have seemed a whole lot different to her than to him. This seems naive to say but you can't have trial to try and prove it the other way. Unless he wants to prosecute. I doubt he would. [Post edited 21 Apr 2016 12:30]
|
I agree basically with what you say but I think no names should be released until there is a verdict for the reason that sh*t sticks . The woman remains anonymous while a man even if proven not guilty has to live with the sh*t and it is wrong if she is prepared to ruin another persons life then she should be prepared to be put in the same position . | | | |
| Ched Evans on 20:52 - Apr 21 with 2124 views | nordenblue |
| Ched Evans on 19:56 - Apr 21 by firgrovedale51 |
I agree basically with what you say but I think no names should be released until there is a verdict for the reason that sh*t sticks . The woman remains anonymous while a man even if proven not guilty has to live with the sh*t and it is wrong if she is prepared to ruin another persons life then she should be prepared to be put in the same position . |
The woman also posted on social media about how she'd treat her friend to a new mini when she sold her story to the press (allegedly) then deleted the post strangely enough. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
