Ched Evans - Updated NOT GUILTY

[xsnaggle]

1. Apologies
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

This is absolutely correct. I was having a beer yesterday with a guy I know who happens to be a high court judge who retired about 3 months ago.
He said that Ched Evan's solicitor was a dick head who gave him totally bad advice.
He was arrested on suspicion before the woman made any complaint, which in itself goes against the letter of the law which says that rape is a 'personal' offence and can only be investigated if someone complains about it. In this case they arrested him and then went to interview her.
That to me smacks of the good old north Wales Police pursuing him because of his "Celebrity" status. no doubt to them the only greater offence he could have committed would have been speeding.

His solicitor (this from the judge) should have instructed him to say "No comment" to all questions. He was virtually convicted on the basis of his own answers to police. Without those answers there would have been no case at all.

Also the alleged posts on her facebook page the next day would tend to refute the "Can't remember anything" response later. I would not be surprised if she was instructed to say this by police.

with regards to new evidence, that must be relevant facts that were not made public at the time of the original trial. The police and CPS should disclose ALL evidence to the defence including any that may tend to show the defendant's innocence. This includes evidence that the police have gathered that the CPS do not intend to present during the trial. If there was any evidence in the prosecution's possession that they failed to disclose to the defence then they are technically guilt of supressing evidence. The defence on the other hand can keep evidence to themselves until the present it in court.
There have been other cases where police/CPS have withheld evidence that didn't help their case. It's illegal.

[the leader]

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.

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.

Its fundamental. these are our laws, designed to protect us all. If the police have lied, and encouraged this woman to lie then but for the grace of god there goes us all. His character is immaterial.
Gary Glitter was never tried or convicted yet he is labelled a sick filthy paedophile. He was never tried so is legally innocent yet his contacts, networks and no doubt knowledge of wider ills protected him.
The Police went after Evans because they saw easy prey, 1-0 to the NWP against an immature and ultimately not-so-bright individual who elected to give a statement he was under no legal obligation to give.
I can imagine it now "listen Ched, its easier if you help us clear this up, theres a bit of confusion, we just need your side of the story". Innocently, he chunters away not knowing that every word will incriminate him because the woman has been told to 'remember nothing'.
If he is not a rapist, he did not deserve to lose his liberty and livelihood. This is extremely important.

[Auntie Andy]

Its fundamental. these are our laws, designed to protect us all. If the police have lied, and encouraged this woman to lie then but for the grace of god there goes us all. His character is immaterial.
Gary Glitter was never tried or convicted yet he is labelled a sick filthy paedophile. He was never tried so is legally innocent yet his contacts, networks and no doubt knowledge of wider ills protected him.
The Police went after Evans because they saw easy prey, 1-0 to the NWP against an immature and ultimately not-so-bright individual who elected to give a statement he was under no legal obligation to give.
I can imagine it now "listen Ched, its easier if you help us clear this up, theres a bit of confusion, we just need your side of the story". Innocently, he chunters away not knowing that every word will incriminate him because the woman has been told to 'remember nothing'.
If he is not a rapist, he did not deserve to lose his liberty and livelihood. This is extremely important.

Gary Glitter was never convicted???????

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10075090.html

[Thoth]

Gary Glitter was never convicted???????

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10075090.html

Ay-up. The man hater is back.

[Charlie]

Ay-up. The man hater is back.

She's right though.
Maybe the leader got his abusers mixed up

[Thoth]

She's right though.
Maybe the leader got his abusers mixed up

You think Ched & McDonald should both be convisted of rape?

[Auntie Andy]

Ay-up. The man hater is back.

I bloody love men, apart from vile ones, rapists and paedophile ones.

[blue matt]

This is absolutely correct. I was having a beer yesterday with a guy I know who happens to be a high court judge who retired about 3 months ago.
He said that Ched Evan's solicitor was a dick head who gave him totally bad advice.
He was arrested on suspicion before the woman made any complaint, which in itself goes against the letter of the law which says that rape is a 'personal' offence and can only be investigated if someone complains about it. In this case they arrested him and then went to interview her.
That to me smacks of the good old north Wales Police pursuing him because of his "Celebrity" status. no doubt to them the only greater offence he could have committed would have been speeding.

His solicitor (this from the judge) should have instructed him to say "No comment" to all questions. He was virtually convicted on the basis of his own answers to police. Without those answers there would have been no case at all.

Also the alleged posts on her facebook page the next day would tend to refute the "Can't remember anything" response later. I would not be surprised if she was instructed to say this by police.

with regards to new evidence, that must be relevant facts that were not made public at the time of the original trial. The police and CPS should disclose ALL evidence to the defence including any that may tend to show the defendant's innocence. This includes evidence that the police have gathered that the CPS do not intend to present during the trial. If there was any evidence in the prosecution's possession that they failed to disclose to the defence then they are technically guilt of supressing evidence. The defence on the other hand can keep evidence to themselves until the present it in court.
There have been other cases where police/CPS have withheld evidence that didn't help their case. It's illegal.

I know a fairly high level barrister ( our daughters were friends in primary school ) and he said roughly the same

he also said alot of the law world are watching this case, as something wasnt right from the very start ( the points you raised i guess )

[Charlie]

You think Ched & McDonald should both be convisted of rape?

No idea, I haven't seen or heard all the evidence for or against.
I meant mixed up with Saville.

[Mr Shhh]

But the jury decided that it was probable that the woman consented to sex with Clayton but not with Evans.

But this is what does not make sense. If the girl does not remember, the only person who could confirm whether the woman consented is Clayton, however, Clayton & Evans both confirmed the woman consented to sex but they found Evans guilty even though Clayton backed up his claim but not Clayton who had no one to back him up.

[jamieccfc]

But this is what does not make sense. If the girl does not remember, the only person who could confirm whether the woman consented is Clayton, however, Clayton & Evans both confirmed the woman consented to sex but they found Evans guilty even though Clayton backed up his claim but not Clayton who had no one to back him up.

I've read a lot about this case and still don't understand how they came to the conclusion he was guilty. Nobody is questioning that he's a dirty vile ****er but imo he's not a rapist

[kingbillyboy]

I bloody love men, apart from vile ones, rapists and paedophile ones.

whats your stance on flytippers?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

The question of drunk/intoxicated must be a difficult one.

Where is the threshold where anyone enters that very defined 'state'?
And we can all make decisions when we are at one level of inebriation whilst alcohol already ingested may be still be working through system and still taking us up a level (as can be evidenced by drink-driving test results).

Even for those in court the evidence must be rather blurred.

[kingbillyboy]

But this is what does not make sense. If the girl does not remember, the only person who could confirm whether the woman consented is Clayton, however, Clayton & Evans both confirmed the woman consented to sex but they found Evans guilty even though Clayton backed up his claim but not Clayton who had no one to back him up.

she could have been sober when she met clayten and said yeah lets get pissed and **** later. no?

[Vimana.]

she could have been sober when she met clayten and said yeah lets get pissed and **** later. no?

She could. I guess that's the notion of consent with Clayton, and the main difference between him and CE.

She can also change her mind (about sex later with Clayton) at any time. Or she could agree to 'something more' at any time after that.
The question remains as to what she agreed to / remained agreeable to, and whether she was in a fit state to decide either way, and whether at least one of those who had sex with her took advantage of her intoxicated state.

Horribly complex.

[Vindec]

she could have been sober when she met clayten and said yeah lets get pissed and **** later. no?

After having sex with McDonald she would have remembered at least having a drink afterwards. But she supposedly remembered nothing so the chances of her drinking with McDonald are doubtful.

[Auntie Andy]

Reading the tweets from court today, Ched not doing himself any favours again.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertevelyn

[Llanedeyrnblue]

When is the new evidence going to be revealed?

[blue matt]

Reading the tweets from court today, Ched not doing himself any favours again.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertevelyn

He is just coming across as a young bloke who was drunk and cheated on his mrs

he has said anything other that the first trial, which of course could just be the truth

[jamieccfc]

Reading the tweets from court today, Ched not doing himself any favours again.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertevelyn

Why? He's just coming across as a dirty ****er that was on a lads night out

[rudy gestede]

He is just coming across as a young bloke who was drunk and cheated on his mrs

he has said anything other that the first trial, which of course could just be the truth

Are you for real? I've slept with loads of girls when drunk but never anything like that. He doesn't sound like a normal young bloke he sounds like a creep who's lied to get into a hotel room where his mate is shagging someone and joined in with a girl who has been shown on video struggling to stand.

He might not be 100% rapist but he certainly isn't coming across as a normal young bloke. And him thinking he's helping himself with lines such as "we are footballers and we can get whoever we want" is doing the complete opposite.

[rudy gestede]

Why? He's just coming across as a dirty ****er that was on a lads night out

Rubbish, it shows why there's so many sexual assaults in this country if people think this is a lads nights out.

I've had threesomes, I slept with girls who are drunk but this is completely different.

[Croesy Blue]

Why? He's just coming across as a dirty ****er that was on a lads night out

He is just coming across as a young bloke who was drunk and cheated on his mrs

he has said anything other that the first trial, which of course could just be the truth

[bobh]

He's coming across as a prat.
But he believes in his innocence enough to go through this again, there is surely some revelation to come.

Either that or he's deluded

[TruBlue]

Rubbish, it shows why there's so many sexual assaults in this country if people think this is a lads nights out.

I've had threesomes, I slept with girls who are drunk but this is completely different.

In what way is it different?

You've slept with drunk girls, that puts you on dodgy grounds instantly.

As for you having a threesome I expect lots of people will see that as pretty disgusting as well.

The only difference seems to be is you think it's different, just as well you weren't in front of a jury.