Maybe because you shouldn't go to prison and have your career taken away for being a complete ****Quote:
Originally Posted by Auntie Andy
Printable View
Maybe because you shouldn't go to prison and have your career taken away for being a complete ****Quote:
Originally Posted by Auntie Andy
We are not supportive of him but question the decision based on the facts. It is about the judicial verdict which seems to fly in the face of the facts as far as I am concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auntie Andy
But he was convicted of rape not for being a ****.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Sorry I didn't realise you were on the juryQuote:
Originally Posted by Vindec
Had they both been found guilty I don't think anyone would be questioning the verdict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auntie Andy
Fair enough, but what facts do you know that the judge and jury wouldn't have known at the original trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vindec
Not having a pop but the people in court had the available facts, the rest of us had reports.
The conviction was seen as unsafe; hence the retrial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie
All through this trial, i have been waiting for a huge bombshell from the new evidence, but i haven't heard it so far.
I can see a story that the girl fabricated the story after being intoxicated, and i can see the story that Ched took advantage of a girl in no fit state to consent.
Its not a pretty picture whatever way you look at it.
As it should be if the evidence pointed that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vindec
Ive no idea if he is guilty or not ,my opinion is he is a twat but that doesn't make him a rapist.
is probable enough though ? ? ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Auntie Andy
she went back to the hotel room, that is surely not consenting to sex is it ? ? ?
the point for me, is that she cannot remember anything
thats harsh on the blokeQuote:
Originally Posted by Auntie Andy
he did think of his girl friend
Mr Evans told police : I didn’t want to stay if Clayton had gone. If I didn’t have a girlfriend I would have stayed.
all heart
do they not do " courts " on a Friday ? ? ?
its adjourned till monday now
It's quite simple and involves laws that are supposed to govern us and keep us safe. Vile? Using women? Disrespecting his fiancé? Yes, but he has accepted all this and apologised. Young men do grow up you know. The idea is we learn from mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auntie Andy
This man has been to prison under very very uncertain circumstances. He has never at any stage admitted guilt and in the process has undergone further scrutiny and ridicule as well as venom, from chaps like you.
Why? Why go through it? Why not let it die down and try to rebuild his life? If he is right about all this and acquitted I hope you're man enough to admit on here that, in reality, he is actually a bloody brave bloke who stood his ground under the worst circumstances.
Reasonable doubt? That's all it needed. Nobody can look at all the 'facts' here and say there is any certainty. Reasonable doubt makes him innocent.
I'm supporting him because I think he has been guilty of a miscarriage of justice.
Do you know that he could not have been charged if he had simply said "no comment"?
thats about right :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by the leader
he may have the morals of a ally cat, but i suspect a few ypung footballers do, look at me, i am a famous football player, Oh yes, i am staying in the local prem inn, taxi
Quote:
Originally Posted by the leader
:sherlock:
One key issue is that the judge did not direct the jury regarding 'consent when intoxicated'. It used to be that a woman could not give consent if drunk ergo if she says she was raped, she was because even saying she wants it couldn't be classed as consent.
A case a few years changed that, and precedent exists.
The judge should have directed the jury but when questioned he said he didn't think it 'relevant'. That's beyond belief when we consider that alcohol had everything to do with it.
So legally, even if the jury were aware of this precedant they couldn't consider it. That's a biggie.
Im a WOMAN not a MAN :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by the leader
Why couldn't he have been charged if he said "no comment"?
Absolute bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auntie Andy
The thing I find a bit odd is that her drunkenness is someone elses responsibility.
What happens if they both wake up in the morning and say they can't remember a thing? Could they both be classed as guilty of a sex crime?
Or if a woman remembered and the bloke didn't, could she get done and him prosecute?
The other point is that she had cocaine and cannabis in her system which she admitted to taking prior to the night in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue
1. ApologiesQuote:
Originally Posted by Auntie Andy
2. He went in and gave a statement. The woman's side is that she remembers absolutely nothing. If Evans had said nothing there would have been no evidence for the CPS to use. He went in to clear things up and North Wales Police did him in the arse.
I'm all for rapists getting their just desserts but this case is more flawed than Trollope managerial CV
Are you a lawyer or a judge?
Are you? You've been very vocal on this case over the years, even claiming to have read the court documents once whilst getting lots of details wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
I'm not hence getting a lot of it wrong. He just seemed quite confident and clued up with what he was saying so I was just wondering if he was.Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue
I'm still shocked so many people back him after what's been said over the last few days but I suppose I can see why people could say it wasn't rape even if ched comes across very poorly.
I think most would agree that he was a vile individual but that is not in and of itself a crime. He has to be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auntie Andy