| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic 12:17 - Jan 4 with 55609 views | exiledclaseboy |
Apparently. Cue a few days of outraged reaction until Oldham change their mind. |  |
| |  |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:24 - Jan 8 with 1358 views | exiledclaseboy |
I've no idea why this thread is even continuing after Jackonicko's post. It's done, stick a fork in it. No need to continue. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:25 - Jan 8 with 1354 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:13 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Where have I trivialised rape? I said i have been in situations where i cannot remember giving consent, it doesnt mean i didnt or was in no fit state to... Or evidently, that i was raped, repeatedly at uni.
Lying about rape, the true trait of a troll which notoriously have low self esteem. |
Lying about rape? Where pray tell I have I done that, troll?
Indeed, the incredibly low figures of female on male rape cases indicate you're attempting to mock that scenario based upon your lack of impulse control to somehow try to score points on the internet. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:25 - Jan 8 with 1353 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:04 - Jan 8 by jackonicko |
Oh, I never expected you to change your mind. I don't think you ever have on any issue and I can't see why that would change now.
I also said you need a good understanding of the legal system and your response shows that you don't have one.
We have to prove someones guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" - there is no scenario where we can do that without either Ched of Donaldson confessing to the rape.
There are plenty of scenarios in which a trial can prove something "beyond reasonable doubt" without a confession. Happens all the time and there is nothing unsafe or unsound about that. That's what a trial is for.
A few years ago, someone was sentenced to prison in one of the largest fraud trials ever seen in the UK commercial court, based largely on his conduct in the witness box and his dishonest disclosure of evidence. He was a bad liar - he had all the words but couldn't deliver it convincingly. He stuck to his story through cross examination with his words, but his body language gave him away. I know this because I was there in court and watched him do it. I also enjoyed it.
For you to say body language and how someone answers a question is irrelevant also shows your naivety. You know what - sometimes bad people tell lies. Even under oath.
You asked for an opinion. You have it. You can now carry on, ad infinitum, repeating the same things. It doesn't make your points any more right by saying it over and over. But I'm not going to get into repeated posts on the subject. |
Then you have low expectations and your perception skills are shocking. I am fully prepared to change my mind, in fact there is no mind to change other than I dont see any evidence clearly showing he raped her. Which part of your post does that? None of it.
You basically said after reading the transcripts he looks innocent as there is no clear proof but we didn't see his body language etc. thats nonsense i must say.
My understanding of the legal system is spot on and i was being specific to this case not generalising, but you knew that didn't you. There is no way in which Evans can be proved to have raped this girl without a confession. None what so ever. There was no physical evidence, no witness evidence, no victim evidence.. Generally, no evidence at all.
I didnt say body language was irrelevant, i said BASING guilt on body language is nonsense. You must have a lack of understanding of the physiology of the human body, that is why lie detectors are seen as unreliable evidence as the human stress hormone reacts differently with different people. Being accused of rape comes under that id assume.
Yes you have given an opinion of which i thanked you for, unfortunately you now have the arrogance to attack me for not having it change my mind when in fact you said nothing of any note that we havent already discussed. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:25 - Jan 8 with 1352 views | Darran |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:24 - Jan 8 by exiledclaseboy |
I've no idea why this thread is even continuing after Jackonicko's post. It's done, stick a fork in it. No need to continue. |
Ha you're funny guy Andrew. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:30 - Jan 8 with 1339 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:25 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
Lying about rape? Where pray tell I have I done that, troll?
Indeed, the incredibly low figures of female on male rape cases indicate you're attempting to mock that scenario based upon your lack of impulse control to somehow try to score points on the internet. |
You said i trivialised it. That is lying about it is t it? Consider yourself pray told.
What? So low figures on women on men rape means it doesnt happen? What in the world are you talking about?
If i didn't remember consenting to having some woman get my penis out, then isnt that rape? Or doesnt it count.
Your opinion is a sham proven by that post. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:44 - Jan 8 with 1298 views | FieryJack |
Give it up, Parlay.
As Exiled said, Jackonicko's posts have well and truly popped your balloons.
If it was your word against his in a court of law the jury would find you unanimously guilty of supreme arrogance and stupidity, and would, hopefully, sentence you to a 10 year ban from all internet forums.
You're an embarrassment to yourself.
You even have the gall in your most recent posts to twist things in such a way as to give yourself the opportunity to brag about numerous (fantasy?) drunken sexual encounters with women in your university days.
What I'd like to know is how come an a hole such as yourself (1) got into university, and (2) has a fiancee of 9 years who is capable of enduring such an unpleasant creature. |  | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:51 - Jan 8 with 1281 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:44 - Jan 8 by FieryJack |
Give it up, Parlay.
As Exiled said, Jackonicko's posts have well and truly popped your balloons.
If it was your word against his in a court of law the jury would find you unanimously guilty of supreme arrogance and stupidity, and would, hopefully, sentence you to a 10 year ban from all internet forums.
You're an embarrassment to yourself.
You even have the gall in your most recent posts to twist things in such a way as to give yourself the opportunity to brag about numerous (fantasy?) drunken sexual encounters with women in your university days.
What I'd like to know is how come an a hole such as yourself (1) got into university, and (2) has a fiancee of 9 years who is capable of enduring such an unpleasant creature. |
Hi fieryjack, nice to see an agenda not getting in the way of your post.
Can you tell me exactly what was in jackonicko's post that indicated the proof that Ched raped anyone? No. Same here. His post was his views on the case, not what actually happened in the case.
If wanting clear proof a man raped someone before convicting him makes me an embarrassment to myself then i am happy to be an embarrassment to myself for the rest of my days. Even more so after 20 odd pages not one single person has offered any evidence at all. Proves i am right to not just accept a small group of public opinion.
You think i am taking the opportunity to brag about sexual encounters in uni? You really do not understand this thread do you?
One one hand you say i am bragging about sexual encounters by saying I cant remember giving girls permission to take my clothes off, and yet when this woman says the same thing... Its rape? Nonsense and your views are abhorrent.
My fiancee of 9 years, and stunning at that, is with me not only because I'm devilishly handsome but the fact i don't think like the majority of the pitchfork sheep out there and would like to see evidence for myself before vilifying someone.
Ta. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:56 - Jan 8 with 1272 views | waynekerr55 |
I'm not sure if anyone else has made this point, but Mike Tyson was allowed to make millions from boxing and I can't remember anywhere near the levels of rancour being directed towards him.
Or maybe as social media wasn't around maybe that would have made things different. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:01 - Jan 8 with 1253 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:56 - Jan 8 by waynekerr55 |
I'm not sure if anyone else has made this point, but Mike Tyson was allowed to make millions from boxing and I can't remember anywhere near the levels of rancour being directed towards him.
Or maybe as social media wasn't around maybe that would have made things different. |
Tyson served his sentence.
And yes, there was plenty of rancour around him. Not within the boxing world, obviously. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:04 - Jan 8 with 1247 views | FieryJack |
When are you going to get out of this obsessive quest for "clear proof a man raped someone"?
It's been pointed out to you time and again that such proof very rarely exists. How could it possibly exist? What is the exact nature of this proof?
There is no stunning girlfriend.
Your tv dinner for one is getting cold.
Eat it, and then carry on shouting at yourself in the corner. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:06 - Jan 8 with 1241 views | Phil_S |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:24 - Jan 8 by exiledclaseboy |
I've no idea why this thread is even continuing after Jackonicko's post. It's done, stick a fork in it. No need to continue. |
It'll never happen with two people whose sole mission in life is to have the final word |  | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:10 - Jan 8 with 1225 views | Shaky |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:06 - Jan 8 by Phil_S |
It'll never happen with two people whose sole mission in life is to have the final word |
Solution: delete the last words, close your eyes tightly, and all the nasty and unpleasant facts will vanish from sight and mind, and we'll all live happily ever after in a haze of ignorance.
It's a great plan, Phil. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:11 - Jan 8 with 1217 views | trampie |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:04 - Jan 8 by FieryJack |
When are you going to get out of this obsessive quest for "clear proof a man raped someone"?
It's been pointed out to you time and again that such proof very rarely exists. How could it possibly exist? What is the exact nature of this proof?
There is no stunning girlfriend.
Your tv dinner for one is getting cold.
Eat it, and then carry on shouting at yourself in the corner. |
I'm not taking sides as I have no idea if Evans is guilty or not.
You say 'Fieryjack' in response to 'Parlay' :- ''When are you going to get out of this obsessive quest for "clear proof a man raped someone"?
It's been pointed out to you time and again that such proof very rarely exists. How could it possibly exist? What is the exact nature of this proof? ''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why was Evans found guilty ? , are you ok with a guilty verdict if there is no clear proof ? |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:11 - Jan 8 with 1217 views | JonnyTheJack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:56 - Jan 8 by waynekerr55 |
I'm not sure if anyone else has made this point, but Mike Tyson was allowed to make millions from boxing and I can't remember anywhere near the levels of rancour being directed towards him.
Or maybe as social media wasn't around maybe that would have made things different. |
The same things are being said about Lee Hughes and that Plymouth GK. Of course Social media plays a part, it's huge. What's happening now with Ched would have happened with those two if Social media was as big.
Why do people have this obsession with looking back at previous examples? Can't we move forward and draw a line now? Football needs to get out of the stone age. |  | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:13 - Jan 8 with 1200 views | Phil_S |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:10 - Jan 8 by Shaky |
Solution: delete the last words, close your eyes tightly, and all the nasty and unpleasant facts will vanish from sight and mind, and we'll all live happily ever after in a haze of ignorance.
It's a great plan, Phil. |
I couldn't care to be honest Shakey my old borefest
The whole Ched Evans stuff bores me more stupid than pictures of your bookcase and your endless arguing with people who want to enter into a non debate with you
I may be interested if he was a decent player | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:14 - Jan 8 with 1169 views | Shaky |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:13 - Jan 8 by Phil_S |
I couldn't care to be honest Shakey my old borefest
The whole Ched Evans stuff bores me more stupid than pictures of your bookcase and your endless arguing with people who want to enter into a non debate with you
I may be interested if he was a decent player |
Well I care you have just deleted the Modou Barrow thread. Or are you denying that? | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:19 - Jan 8 with 1139 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:04 - Jan 8 by FieryJack |
When are you going to get out of this obsessive quest for "clear proof a man raped someone"?
It's been pointed out to you time and again that such proof very rarely exists. How could it possibly exist? What is the exact nature of this proof?
There is no stunning girlfriend.
Your tv dinner for one is getting cold.
Eat it, and then carry on shouting at yourself in the corner. |
What an awfully shocking opinion.
"Obsessive quest for clear proof" - jesus christ, what a thing to ask for eh? Proof by damned!
A man has been sent down for 5 years for a crime he maintains he didnt commit and where the "victim" hasnt even accused him... And you are happy that there doesnt need to be any proof?
Yes you carry on your jealous rant its ok. You will find one soon too maybe  | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:19 - Jan 8 with 1137 views | trampie |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:13 - Jan 8 by Phil_S |
I couldn't care to be honest Shakey my old borefest
The whole Ched Evans stuff bores me more stupid than pictures of your bookcase and your endless arguing with people who want to enter into a non debate with you
I may be interested if he was a decent player |
Evans is [or perhaps was] a decent player Phil. [Post edited 8 Jan 2015 20:21]
| |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:22 - Jan 8 with 1126 views | VetchitBack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:35 - Jan 8 by jackonicko |
Well, I'm happy to give this a shot.
It's impossible for anyone on here to give a solid opinion on the evidence, as none of us (I presume) were on the jury to hear and see all the evidence presented. Even if you had read all of the transcripts (I haven't), you still don't get the full story as you don't have the benefit of the way in which witness evidence is presented by the person, either in their evidence in chief, or in the way they handle cross examination.
The way in which questions are answered, body language etc is just as important as the words that are said. You don't get that from a transcript.
For a considered opinion, in my opinion you also need to have an understanding of the law and the legal system. What actually consitutes the offence of rape and what are the points that need to be proved, beyond reasonable doubt. How does the legal system work in terms of the collation, disclosure, presentation and examination of evidence.
Finally, you also need to have an understanding of the role of the judge versus the jury - bluntly, the jury decides on questions of fact and the judge decides on questions of law. In the Ched case, the Judge determined that the case was proved on points of law, and the jury decided on points of fact. Beyond reasonable doubt.
A large number of claims of rape never even reach trial. Either the victim doesn't want to go to trial, or the CPS determines that the likelihood of success is so low that it is not worth proceeding. In most cases of rape, it is the word of one person against another and the chances of a jury reaching a verdict beyond reasonable doubt is much lower.
Even if it reaches a trial, many defendants are found not guilty because - on the facts - the jury cannot reach a decision beyond reasonable doubt. For the same reasons as above - it is often the word of one against the other.
The Ched case is interesting because at the material time, it is not the word of one against the other. It is only the words of the defendants, and other witnesses, that are taken into account as to whether the victim consented or not. The victim cannot remember - and therefore offers up no evidence at the material times.
Bearing in mind the statistical analysis above, you would expect the jury more likely than not to find the defendant not guilty when they are only hearing the words of one side. But they didn't. They sat and listened to all the evidence, largely from those who were accused of the crime, and based on what they said and how they said it, and they still found them guilty.
Now, is this because the jury were not properly directed by the judge? Well, no. That route to appeal has already been denied with more senior judges deciding that the judge properly directed the jury in his summing up of the case. So, a jury, properly directed by the judge, having heard all the evidence, still convicted them against all the statistical odds.
The judge in his summing up said this:
A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty.
Based on the evidence that I have read, which is some of the transcripts and some of the balanced news reporting, I can see why a jury might reach the conclusion it did. Had I heard the evidence in person, I could perhaps even more easily see why they did. It is not as risky, or unsound, or as flimsy as some here and elsewhere suggest. It seems to me a perfectly plausible conclusion to reach.
Her failure to recollect what happened at the time is evidence itself of a failure to be able to consent. She was too drunk to remember, ergo too drunk to consent. You can be sure that she would have been heavily cross examined on her memory or her lack of it, but she stood up to it and the jury believed her. I have been on the receiving end of cross examination from talented barristers, and believe me, it's not as easy as you think it might be to bluff your way through it. These guys are incredibly good at getting to the truth in cross examination.
So, the jury heard evidence from the defendants, the giggling tw*ts outside the window and the hotel porter. I'm not sure, but I presume they may have also seen the video evidence from the phones? Having heard all of that, in the round, they concluded (based on the judges summing up) that she was incapable of consenting to Ched. That doesn't seem like an incredible conclusion to reach. I also see no inconsistency with the verdict that the other defendant was found not guilty.
I have also read the Ched Evans view from his website. Most of it is distasteful, largely and transparently biased and often simply seeks to smear the character of the victim. Very little of it is evidence in the legal sense of the word, and what there is (in some places admittedly cleverly) twisted to suit Ched's story. For example, the subtle changing of the text to Ched that says I've got a girl rather than I've got a bird.
There is nothing on there or elsewhere to suggest evidence that will win a right to appeal, let alone the appeal itself. The jury has already decided on questions of fact and you can't have an appeal that decision because you disagree with it. You need new, and material evidence, for an appeal and I've seen nothing yet that suggests they will do that.
Of course, they might. There may be things that come out subsequently which change the position entirely. In which case, Ched can have his second day in court. My faith in the legal system extends to the appeals process too.
But in the meantime, Ched is and remains a convicted rapist. Tried by a jury of peers and found guilty notwithstanding the unlikeliness of the verdict. Rape is a serious offence. End of. Yes there are sentencing guidelines which increase the penalty for aggravating factors but every rape is a serious offence. Only Shaky and Professor Dawkins are stupid enough it seems to call some types of rape "mild". Mild is never an appropriate word to use to describe one end of the spectrum. How about a spectrum of serious to very fu(king serious? It doesn't really matter - thankfully nothing in the sentencing guidelines uses words as carelessly and thoughtlessly as Shaky and the Prof.
His conduct since his release also suggests to me, in my opinion, that he is a thoroughly unpleasant guy. I don't want him at Swansea City and I applaud every football club that takes the same decision. JVZ should be embarrassed for even giving the slightest impression that Swansea City would welcome him to us for a second chance. We shouldn't. Thankfully, he is nowhere near talented enough anyway.
Football clubs are communites, important parts of our society, and, like it or not, footballers are role models to young people. Of course there is no legal restriction and everyone has the right to return to work. But football clubs also have the right to decline to offer to employ him, and I hope they all do.
All of them. |
"She was too drunk too remember ergo too drunk to consent"
I really hope the jury didn't share your way of thinking.
I've gone out, remembered nothing and seen mobile phone vids of me consenting to another can for example.
Some people I know can get wrecked and remember everything and some can be a fairly standard sort of drunk and remember very little. [Post edited 8 Jan 2015 20:23]
|  |
| The orthodox are always orthodox, regardless of the orthodoxy.
|
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:23 - Jan 8 with 1119 views | Shaky |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:14 - Jan 8 by Shaky |
Well I care you have just deleted the Modou Barrow thread. Or are you denying that? |
Kindly answer the f*cking question, Phil. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:25 - Jan 8 with 1100 views | jackonicko |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:21 - Jan 8 by trampie |
jackonico you said:-
'' In most cases of rape, it is the word of one person against another and the chances of a jury reaching a verdict beyond reasonable doubt is much lower.
Even if it reaches a trial, many defendants are found not guilty because - on the facts - the jury cannot reach a decision beyond reasonable doubt. For the same reasons as above - it is often the word of one against the other.
The Ched case is interesting because at the material time, it is not the word of one against the other. It is only the words of the defendants, and other witnesses, that are taken into account as to whether the victim consented or not. The victim cannot remember - and therefore offers up no evidence at the material times.
Bearing in mind the statistical analysis above, you would expect the jury more likely than not to find the defendant not guilty when they are only hearing the words of one side. But they didn't''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you would not disagree that to some people it seems like a questionable verdict ?
To many people its questionable that its passed the test of beyond reasonable doubt, but the verdict was guilty, I've avoided posting on this subject until now only previously saying there have been many miscarriages of justice in the past, there must be many innocent people in prison and there will no doubt be many innocent people in the future will be found guilty of a crime they did not commit, my faith in British justice is not as strong as yours [although I have no doubt our justice system is one of the better ones in the world], often our justice system depends on the ability of the barristers and any barrister could put up a poor show in any trial at any given time.
A criticism of our system is who has the best barristers on the day wins and not according to some who is guilty or not guilty.
I have no idea if Evans is guilty or not but based on what I read at the time I found the outcome surprising, the odds on Evans winning an appeal is unlikely based on the stats, very unlikely based on other appeals success rates [should read lack of success rates], so Evans losing an appeal would make no difference to me as an observer as to his guilt or not, there seems to be a growing trend in finding men guilty of sex crimes that perhaps they would not have been found guilty of in the past, not sure what's changed.
Just because somebody is convicted does not mean they are guilty per se as we know from previous cases. [Post edited 8 Jan 2015 19:41]
|
Hi Trampie. In short, no, I don't agree. As I said in my post, based on what I've seen and read, the verdict is entirely plausible and reasonable.
The adversarial trial system has its drawbacks, but in the main it delivers good outcomes and is better than anything else I've seen. By good, in the main more guilty people go free than innocent people get punished. Money often talks of course, and usually money is thrown at the best defence teams. I think it's safe to assume that Ched with his financial history wasn't struggling by on legal aid.
Most of the examples on here are to say I got drunk at uni and never asked for consent from a drunken girl staggered home with, and think that is a good parallel for this case. They forget its a good parallel for the defendant who was found NOT guilty.
The defendant who was found guilty slipped into a hotel room on false pretences, had sex with a barely conscious female he did not know, before slipping out of the fire escape afterwards. That's not usual conduct after a night out at the Students Union - or maybe my Uni days were less exciting than those on here. |  | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:27 - Jan 8 with 1078 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:22 - Jan 8 by VetchitBack |
"She was too drunk too remember ergo too drunk to consent"
I really hope the jury didn't share your way of thinking.
I've gone out, remembered nothing and seen mobile phone vids of me consenting to another can for example.
Some people I know can get wrecked and remember everything and some can be a fairly standard sort of drunk and remember very little. [Post edited 8 Jan 2015 20:23]
|
Be careful you will now be accused of boasting about your drinking exploits regardless of its relevance to this case.
The amount of things I've consented to that I cant remember doing is truly frightening. Eating a cake laced with copious amounts of cannabis for one, doesn't mean i was force fed it.
Its a crazy case which is why it is so controversial. I am amazed at the extent of the pitchfork crew who now dont even believe you need evidence to convict a man.
Truly truly terrifying and a sad indictment of modern society and media, social or mainstream. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:28 - Jan 8 with 1075 views | waynekerr55 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:11 - Jan 8 by JonnyTheJack |
The same things are being said about Lee Hughes and that Plymouth GK. Of course Social media plays a part, it's huge. What's happening now with Ched would have happened with those two if Social media was as big.
Why do people have this obsession with looking back at previous examples? Can't we move forward and draw a line now? Football needs to get out of the stone age. |
Well it's not an obsession on my part, it was something that sprung to mind whilst reading this thread. As jackonicko pointed out he's been found guilty and will be guilty unless the conviction is quashed. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:31 - Jan 8 with 1059 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:28 - Jan 8 by waynekerr55 |
Well it's not an obsession on my part, it was something that sprung to mind whilst reading this thread. As jackonicko pointed out he's been found guilty and will be guilty unless the conviction is quashed. |
That is not strictly true though. People have died in prison serving time for something they didn't do, they were never guilty at any point - whether they were assumed to be or not.
If Evans didnt do it, is not guilty and never has been. Only told he is. [Post edited 8 Jan 2015 20:31]
| |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:32 - Jan 8 with 1055 views | FieryJack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 20:11 - Jan 8 by trampie |
I'm not taking sides as I have no idea if Evans is guilty or not.
You say 'Fieryjack' in response to 'Parlay' :- ''When are you going to get out of this obsessive quest for "clear proof a man raped someone"?
It's been pointed out to you time and again that such proof very rarely exists. How could it possibly exist? What is the exact nature of this proof? ''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why was Evans found guilty ? , are you ok with a guilty verdict if there is no clear proof ? |
I'm very happy with it.
Millions of people are sentenced without 100% clear proof.
Why can't you see that?
That's what juries are there for - to convict on the evidence provided - whether it's 100% proof or not.
A good local example would be the bloke who was locked up for the murder of a family of four women in Clydach in the 80's.
As far as I recall there was no clear, incontrovertible proof, no DNA evidence, no witnesses etc. And I don't recall there being an outcry in that case. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.