Ched Evans - Updated NOT GUILTY

[neilw65]

Many strong views on here about Evans all gathered from media reports I assume as I doubt anyone on here has ever met him.On the basis of those reports he doesn't seem a very nice man.
My thoughts on this are very simplistic-the original verdict has been deemed unsafe and therefore has raised an element of doubt.I found it strange that they ordered a re-trial on that basis but if I were a juror now whilst I would listen to the evidence that thought would be in the back of my mind as the Judges clearly thought there was doubt.
On that basis I think it would be odd if he is now found guilty-if he is surely the first thing he will do is appeal.

A good post this.

I have never met Ched Evans, however a friend of mine knows him quite well as a result of investigating his case to provide evidence to the court of appeal. He said that he is actually a really nice bloke who admits that morally he made a mistake, probably as a result of all of the attention he was getting as a young footballer, but is in no way a rapist.

He also said that he believes that Ched Evans is not a serial adulterer in the same way that John Terry allegedly is and that this an isolated instance.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

Many strong views on here about Evans all gathered from media reports I assume as I doubt anyone on here has ever met him.On the basis of those reports he doesn't seem a very nice man.
My thoughts on this are very simplistic-the original verdict has been deemed unsafe and therefore has raised an element of doubt.I found it strange that they ordered a re-trial on that basis but if I were a juror now whilst I would listen to the evidence that thought would be in the back of my mind as the Judges clearly thought there was doubt.
On that basis I think it would be odd if he is now found guilty-if he is surely the first thing he will do is appeal.

The retrial was ordered for one simple reason, that the defence produced new witnesses.

Appeal court judges had to assess if that evidence exonerated the defendant ( ie no retrial ) or if the new *evidence* may influence the decision ( retrial ). It's not their remit to determine the full accuracy and validity of that evidence other than on a cursory level.

As seen from the court case, the new witnesses had the following characteristics.

1) Neither were present on the actual night in question at the Premier Inn.
2) Both attempt to question the reputation of the witness rather than deal with events that night.
3) Both were aware of the "Justice for Ched" website which offered 50k for any evidence that could clear Ched.
4) Both came forward after that offer was made.

Ched's legal team gambled that there would be no re-trial. Indeed, their statement after the appeal ruling had to be revised. Now the new evidence has been openly challenged in court, it's not exactly that credible.

Donaldson hasn't testified - the other person there that night. That's an interesting thing nobody seems to want to question.

Nothing has materially changed between trials other than character assassination of the alleged victim.

[Auntie Andy]

The retrial was ordered for one simple reason, that the defence produced new witnesses.

Appeal court judges had to assess if that evidence exonerated the defendant ( ie no retrial ) or if the new *evidence* may influence the decision ( retrial ). It's not their remit to determine the full accuracy and validity of that evidence other than on a cursory level.

As seen from the court case, the new witnesses had the following characteristics.

1) Neither were present on the actual night in question at the Premier Inn.
2) Both attempt to question the reputation of the witness rather than deal with events that night.
3) Both were aware of the "Justice for Ched" website which offered 50k for any evidence that could clear Ched.
4) Both came forward after that offer was made.

Ched's legal team gambled that there would be no re-trial. Indeed, their statement after the appeal ruling had to be revised. Now the new evidence has been openly challenged in court, it's not exactly that credible.

Donaldson hasn't testified - the other person there that night. That's an interesting thing nobody seems to want to question.

Nothing has materially changed between trials other than character assassination of the alleged victim.

Excellent points and very well put.

The original verdict should stand.

[neilw65]

Absolute nonsense

Irrespective as to whether the new evidence produced influences the result. The decision made in the original trial was deeply flawed.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the "victim" has stated that she cannot remember anything, including consenting to sex with the other person, so how can 1 person be found guilty and the second one not?

[ccfc_is_my_life]

Absolute nonsense

Irrespective as to whether the new evidence produced influences the result. The decision made in the original trial was deeply flawed.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the "victim" has stated that she cannot remember anything, including consenting to sex with the other person, so how can 1 person be found guilty and the second one not?

Deeply flawed in your opinion.

The simple answer to your point is different juries. Without the juries coming out and explicitly stating their reasoning, your question is moot. Chances are the original jury felt there was enough evidence consent was given for Donaldson; not enough evidence to show Ched had gained consent or attempted to. That's supposition without knowing the jury reasoning.

Given the quality of the new evidence presented, I can see why Ched's team didn't want a second trial.

[neilw65]

Deeply flawed in your opinion.

The simple answer to your point is different juries. Without the juries coming out and explicitly stating their reasoning, your question is moot. Chances are the original jury felt there was enough evidence consent was given for Donaldson; not enough evidence to show Ched had gained consent or attempted to. That's supposition without knowing the jury reasoning.

Given the quality of the new evidence presented, I can see why Ched's team didn't want a second trial.

How do you know that they didn't want a retrial? Also have you seen all of the evidence that has been presented in court?

[ccfc_is_my_life]

How do you know that they didn't want a retrial? Also have you seen all of the evidence that has been presented in court?

Evans team originally put out a different statement after the appeal decision which was quickly changed - they expected total clearance.

The new evidence presented has not addressed the events that night. Neither new witness was present at the Premier Inn. Both came after a monetary reward was offered publicly. I'd suggest Evans team wouldn't want those to have been questioned too thoroughly due to the flimsy nature of the contribution to the defence.

It's also telling the other person in the room, Donaldson, is failing to testify on Ched's behalf, isn't it?

EDIT: In addition, the Evans clan / friends / hangers on have floated conspiracy theories such as "social media" posts. None have been presented as evidence - funny that.

[lardy]

I haven't seen anything in the way of convincing new evidence thus far and Evans admitted that she didn't give him consent, so I'm expecting the same verdict if things continue like this.

[jamieccfc]

I haven't seen anything in the way of convincing new evidence thus far and Evans admitted that she didn't give him consent, so I'm expecting the same verdict if things continue like this.

He never admitted she never consented to him he said he basically didn't ask her can I have sex with you also he said she asked him to go down on her so in a way that is consenting is it not

[lardy]

He never admitted she never consented to him he said he basically didn't ask her can I have sex with you also he said she asked him to go down on her so in a way that is consenting is it not

Just re-read the tweets. Must have remembered it wrongly - he said that she didn't consent to unprotected sex.

[Croesy Blue]

we have all read stories of her being " less than nun like "

but this from the trial today paints her in the delightful picture

"She came up to me and said that if I took her home she would give me a good time," the man said.

What's wrong with that? How much of a prude can you be to think that paints someone in a bad light ffs?

And then at the same time stick up for the guy who invites himself into a hotel room where people are having sex and joining in?

[ccfc_is_my_life]

What's wrong with that? How much of a prude can you be to think that paints someone in a bad light ffs?

And then at the same time stick up for the guy who invites himself into a hotel room where people are having sex and
joining in?

As Ched said in his defence "It wasn't the time for conversation".

[ccfc_is_my_life]

He never admitted she never consented to him he said he basically didn't ask her can I have sex with you also he said she asked him to go down on her so in a way that is consenting is it not

So with regards to the first part of your post, he admits to not seeking consent. His claim was that Donaldson asked the woman if Ched could join in. His statement and testimony contradicted itself - in one he claimed the woman looked at Donaldson, in the other he claimed the woman looked at him.

The second part depends if you believe Ched's account. When questioned about convictions, it was revealed he had a caution for an insurance claim on a mobile phone. Which would tend to indicate not always the most truthful of people.

[Rjk]

I thought that the case was basically around whether she was too drunk to be able to give consent or not.

She can't remember either way, and the guys who were involved or watching seem to say that she was sober enough to be giving instructions etc.

I don't know either way what happened, but isn't it their word against nobodys?
I can't see how any conviction could be safe under those circumstances.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

That's like saying any woman unconscious for whatever reason cannot be raped as it's someone's word against nobodies.

The only new evidence the Evans team could produce despite offering 50k is nothing more than character assassination against the victim. She had sex whilst allegedly drunk before and after - assuming those witnesses did actually have sex with her. Nothing new relating to the night in question and hence irrelevant.

Donaldson hasn't testified on behalf of Evans. That's pretty telling.

[Rjk]

That's like saying any woman unconscious for whatever reason cannot be raped as it's someone's word against nobodies.

The only new evidence the Evans team could produce despite offering 50k is nothing more than character assassination against the victim. She had sex whilst allegedly drunk before and after - assuming those witnesses did actually have sex with her. Nothing new relating to the night in question and hence irrelevant.

Donaldson hasn't testified on behalf of Evans. That's pretty telling.

No I'm saying if there is evidence that she was unconscious then it is obviously rape, but I don't think there is any evidence of that. SHe cannot remember and they say she was very much awake.

I'm with you on the new evidence, I don't see where it is going. Perhaps someone describing what she was like during consensual sex matches cheds description corroborates his story that she was awake, as if she was unconscious then how would he know the kind of things she says and does during sex?
I'm certainly not an expert though in legal matters or in doing sex with the ladies.

[TruBlue]

That's like saying any woman unconscious for whatever reason cannot be raped as it's someone's word against nobodies.

The only new evidence the Evans team could produce despite offering 50k is nothing more than character assassination against the victim. She had sex whilst allegedly drunk before and after - assuming those witnesses did actually have sex with her. Nothing new relating to the night in question and hence irrelevant.

Donaldson hasn't testified on behalf of Evans. That's pretty telling.

It's hard to take anyone's opinion seriously when they don't know the name of one of the main people involved in the case.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

It's hard to take anyone's opinion seriously when they don't know the name of one of the main people involved in the case.

Doh. Brain fart, for some reason conflated the names. McDonald.

Thank you for your ever so polite correction there. You can now re-assess the posts.

[goats]

Doh. Brain fart, for some reason conflated the names. McDonald.

Thank you for your ever so polite correction there. You can now re-assess the posts.

Yeah why hasn't his mate testified?? Weird. Surely he is the one to get him off telling everyone what a durty cow she is who does this with people like them all the time allegedly.....he is going to get a mint in compo for his lost wages you wait and see. Paid for by yours truly....great British legal system hey......

[TruBlue]

Doh. Brain fart, for some reason conflated the names. McDonald.

Thank you for your ever so polite correction there. You can now re-assess the posts.

Fair point apologies for that.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

Fair point apologies for that.

No worries.

[Jursset_BrisCity]

Ched Evans is clearly an absolute c**t of a bloke.
No question.

[Eric Cartman]

Donaldson hasn't testified on behalf of Evans. That's pretty telling.

Don't give up. Maybe the 15th time someone might think it is relevant.

[Croesy Blue]

It's strange though if he hasn't, why hasn't he?

[EadosEados]

Is it something to do with the fact that has he has already been tried for the same charge he can't give evidence?
Don't see it myself, if I was the prosecution I'd be labouring that fact.