Ched Evans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobbyBlue

At the end of the day people don't need to apologise because he was found guilty, but now he has been found innocent they need to change their opinion on him. Personally I always thought he was innocent good on him, Slade sign him up lol

---

Agree with the sentiment of this, although he's not been found innocent yet. That will be determined at the trial. We can consider him as being innocent at this moment but thats not the same as being cleared of the charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruBlue

Same as you are "technically" not a a rapist. Maybe.

---

No.

As far as I'm aware, Evans remains an accused rapist who will stand trial for rape at a later date.

So no, not really the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilw65

Yes it is pathetic and it's nothing to do with whether he is Welsh or not. If you have consensual sex with someone does that make you technically a rapist?

---

if they are under 16 then yes, technically you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruBlue

Same as you are "technically" not a a rapist. Maybe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

No.

---

No? :yikes:

So "technically" you are a rapist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruBlue

No? :yikes:

So "technically" you are a rapist?

---

So maybe we are all rapists lol as Ched is as innocent as we are at the current time as he has not been found guilty of anything, NYCBlue sounds like a total idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Agree with the sentiment of this, although he's not been found innocent yet. That will be determined at the trial. We can consider him as being innocent at this moment but thats not the same as being cleared of the charges.

---

The need to prove guilt is a fundamental pillar of British law. you cannot say someone is a rapist until they are proved innocent or every male in the country would be one. Everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty by a Jury of his peers. In this case a dodgy verdict has been overturned by an appeal court. Until the retrial takes place he is innocent.
I think the appeal court justices went for a retrial so that with the new evidence he can be formally acquitted. If the CPS goes to retrial and says it has no new prosecution evidence then the 'Innocent" verdict will be a formality to clear his name.
Until that happens (or not) you cannot say anyone is an 'Un-convicted' anything. You are talking bollox.
The only 2 offences I know of where you need to prove your innocence are Vagrancy and carrying an offensive weapon. The former of these 2 charges is about 800 years old and is one of the oldest statute laws in England and Wales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackrabbit

Excellent news. You only had to read the details of the case to realise he was stitched up. His behaviour was not particularly edifying, but rape it most definitely was not. The sad thing is he's lost 3 prime years of of a career that critically demands youth and fitness. I trust the baying mob is suitably red faced.

---

Spot on-always a dubious decision but the do-gooders couldn't wait to stick the knive in.Agree about his behaviour-crass!

Not sure why a re-trial is necessary after the time they took to reach this decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobbyBlue

So maybe we are all rapists lol as Ched is as innocent as we are at the current time as he has not been found guilty of anything, NYCBlue sounds like a total idiot.

---

An attention seeker at best!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

The need to prove guilt is a fundamental pillar of British law. you cannot say someone is a rapist until they are proved innocent or every male in the country would be one. Everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty by a Jury of his peers. In this case a dodgy verdict has been overturned by an appeal court. Until the retrial takes place he is innocent.
I think the appeal court justices went for a retrial so that with the new evidence he can be formally acquitted. If the CPS goes to retrial and says it has no new prosecution evidence then the 'Innocent" verdict will be a formality to clear his name.
Until that happens (or not) you cannot say anyone is an 'Un-convicted' anything. You are talking bollox.
The only 2 offences I know of where you need to prove your innocence are Vagrancy and carrying an offensive weapon. The former of these 2 charges is about 800 years old and is one of the oldest statute laws in England and Wales

---

This is spot on!

Also it is very difficult to get a guilty verdict overturned. Once overturned, the CPS must look at the new evidence provided and decide whether or not they have a more than 50% chance of getting a guilty verdict and thus risk huge sums of public money a new court case would cost. Bearing in mind that a court of appeal (3 senior judges) have already decided that the new evidence provided is enough to quash the first verdict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilw65

This is spot on!

Also it is very difficult to get a guilty verdict overturned. Once overturned, the CPS must look at the new evidence provided and decide whether or not they have a more than 50% chance of getting a guilty verdict and thus risk huge sums of public money a new court case would cost. Bearing in mind that a court of appeal (3 senior judges) have already decided that the new evidence provided is enough to quash the first verdict.

---

if it goes to retrial, what judge is going to look at the new evidence and not throw it out? his superior appeal court judges have already decided it makes the first verdict unsafe hence its going to be a brave judge to go against a superior courts opinion regarding evidence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Agree with the sentiment of this, although he's not been found innocent yet. That will be determined at the trial. We can consider him as being innocent at this moment but thats not the same as being cleared of the charges.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

The need to prove guilt is a fundamental pillar of British law. you cannot say someone is a rapist until they are proved innocent or every male in the country would be one. Everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty by a Jury of his peers. In this case a dodgy verdict has been overturned by an appeal court. Until the retrial takes place he is innocent.
I think the appeal court justices went for a retrial so that with the new evidence he can be formally acquitted. If the CPS goes to retrial and says it has no new prosecution evidence then the 'Innocent" verdict will be a formality to clear his name.
Until that happens (or not) you cannot say anyone is an 'Un-convicted' anything. You are talking bollox.
The only 2 offences I know of where you need to prove your innocence are Vagrancy and carrying an offensive weapon. The former of these 2 charges is about 800 years old and is one of the oldest statute laws in England and Wales

---

I don't think you understood what I was saying - did I use the phrase 'unconvicted'? I said he hasn't been found innocent, which is true because there will be another trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I don't think you understood what I was saying - did I use the phrase 'unconvicted'? I said he hasn't been found innocent, which is true because there will be another trial.

---

I think he won his appeal against the conviction and the prosecution have asked for a re-trial.
So his conviction is quashed and therefore innocent.
I doubt there will be a re-trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by insider

I think he won his appeal against the conviction and the prosecution have asked for a re-trial.
So his conviction is quashed and therefore innocent.
I doubt there will be a re-trial.

---

I agree, I don't think there will be a retrial either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by insider

I think he won his appeal against the conviction and the prosecution have asked for a re-trial.
So his conviction is quashed and therefore innocent.
I doubt there will be a re-trial.

---

Maybe I've misunderstood but on the bbc story it says the court ordered a retrial. That's how I read it anyway.

Exactly. A jury sat through days of evidence and found him guilty. As always, people who have read a few internet articles know best.

Today they've simply said new evidence is available. He stands accused of one of the most serious crimes and we'll have to see what the new jury make of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Maybe I've misunderstood but on the bbc story it says the court ordered a retrial. That's how I read it anyway.

---

I think the CPS still have to decide to go to trial again. Although I may be wrong on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastbourneBlue

Exactly. A jury sat through days of evidence and found him guilty. As always, people who have read a few internet articles know best.

Today they've simply said new evidence is available. He stands accused of one of the most serious crimes and we'll have to see what the new jury make of it.

---

I've read the transcript of the original trial, I provided a link on ccmb a few weeks back, and the huge amount of information on Ched's own website.

http://chedevans.com/

Great news. The police and CPS have a lot to answer for in this case.

Hopefully it won't deter genuine victims of rape coming forward in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastbourneBlue

Exactly. A jury sat through days of evidence and found him guilty. As always, people who have read a few internet articles know best.

Today they've simply said new evidence is available. He stands accused of one of the most serious crimes and we'll have to see what the new jury make of it.

---

Yes the jury sat through days of evidence and found him guilty. However new evidence has been produced, which after 2 days of deliberation with the appeal court judges and prosecution, they have now quashed the first verdict, most probably because the new evidence makes it likely that he did not commit rape. For the appeal court judges to make this decision, they must be convinced he did not commit the offence of rape. As I said earlier, it is very rare for the appeal court to overturn a guilty verdict

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobbyBlue

So maybe we are all rapists lol as Ched is as innocent as we are at the current time as he has not been found guilty of anything, NYCBlue sounds like a total idiot.

---

Not enough of an idiot to think that an overturned verdict is the same as an acquittal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilw65

Yes the jury sat through days of evidence and found him guilty. However new evidence has been produced, which after 2 days of deliberation with the appeal court judges and prosecution, they have now quashed the first verdict, most probably because the new evidence makes it likely that he did not commit rape. For the appeal court judges to make this decision, they must be convinced he did not commit the offence of rape. As I said earlier, it is very rare for the appeal court to overturn a guilty verdict

---

Whilst I wouldn't want to see anyone convicted of an offence they did not commit, I can't really understand the "great" and "fantastic" news described by some. This decision has not changed my opinion of this guy. He's still low life.

The police come out of this looking like idiots. This was their baby, they crafted the whole case from a girl saying she 'couldn't remember' how she ended up in the hotel room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Blue

Whilst I wouldn't want to see anyone convicted of an offence they did not commit, I can't really understand the "great" and "fantastic" news described by some. This decision has not changed my opinion of this guy. He's still low life.

---

I haven't said this is great and fantastic news, however I am pleased that a verdict that was at best dubious, has been overturned. If there is a retrial, I would expect Ched Evans to be found not guilty of rape.

As for whether he is a "low life" or not is a different matter. By being unfaithful to his partner, that clearly shows a lack of morals. However this may have been a one off and for which he has paid, and will continue to pay, a heavy price.

I done know, and have never met, Ched Evans, however I know someone who does. He has said that Evans is nothing like the person that has been portrayed by the media and, whilst not condoning what he did, said that he is a really nice bloke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue sky

I was an avid researcher from the start. I've posted many times on CCMB about the case. Looks like this conspiracy theory has been proved correct. The woman consented to sex - there is no doubt about that. Her sexual history is allegedly one of gang bangs in the hotels of north Wales, often involving multiple sportsmen. She tweeted about "when I win big" and so on. I've seen the social justice warriors and feminazis take over Plaid Cymru and my opinion is that they're a bunch of *****. I know Leanne Wood pretty well too and her attitude on this matter stinks.

---

sportsmen eh ? ? ?

what like a rugby team on tour ? ? ? :wave:

Will the CPS take this on again ? ? ? if the appeal court overturned the ruling of the previous court due to new evidence, then surely it will be a waste of time ( and tax payers money ) to take the case back to court ? ? ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

So an innocent man. I wonder how many will be big enough to admit they were wrong about him?

---

Like many, I predicted this would happen. Just cost the tax payer about 10 million in lost wages etc for him now. Ruined his life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I don't think you understood what I was saying - did I use the phrase 'unconvicted'? I said he hasn't been found innocent, which is true because there will be another trial.

---

I think if you read my post you will see that I didn't quote you as saying that word. I was merely making the point that if he, or any of us are not convicted then we are innocent, not having to 'prove' we didn't do anything.

Whilst I'm having a shout, I think, but anyone better informed can correct me, that there are a couple of points some may have forgotten or be unaware of.
I believe that it was a judicial body that appealed against the conviction, not Evans, or at least not only Evans.
Again, open to correction, but during the initial breaking of this story I understood that the Police began a rape enquirey without any complaint, and that in itself is not usual. Rape is a personal offence, like many others, and without a complaint normally there would be no investigation.
Finally I think another offence which deems it a requirement to prove innocence is "Going equipped for stealing". as a 'for-instance' a carpet fitter stopped and searched by Police on his way home from work at 5.30 PM and found with a hooked-bladed Stanley Knife on his person might reasonably be acquitted of this offence but if the same thing occurred when he was out in his 'whistle' on a Saturday night he would have to prove just cause for carrying it.
Then again as he would also be carrying a cock he might be a rapist who has not yet been proven innocent. :facepalm::getscoat:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

I think if you read my post you will see that I didn't quote you as saying that word. I was merely making the point that if he, or any of us are not convicted then we are innocent, not having to 'prove' we didn't do anything.

---

"Until that happens (or not) you cannot say anyone is an 'Un-convicted' anything. You are talking bollox."

So I'll asssume you weren't talking about me directly in either sentence :hehe:

I don't think what you're saying there is strictly true, because when someone is on trial (i.e. before they are convicted) they are still innocent but also trying to prove their innocence.

Anyway, I'll make my point for the last time. He hasn't yet been found innocent; from what the appeal court said, there will be a retrial (although if what others have said is true then there may not be. I don't know). I agree with what you're saying on innocent until proven guilty, what I'm talking about is the word found, hence I don't think you understood where I was coming from. We're at the stage we were at when it first went to court. There is no 'found' anything yet.

Also, mr snaggle, you're giving examples of proving innocence to the police, but surely every time someone is in court they are trying to prove their innocence. The defence counsel doesn't sit there crossing their fingers, they try to prove why the defendant didn't do it. I'm sure there's some legalese technical speak where it can be argued they're disproving the other side, or something, but if you're a defendant you go in trying to show/prove you're innocent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

I never expected that, great news for the lad.

I think he'll get a new club for next season if the retrial isn't drawn out.

---

That's if there IS a retrial. They have 2 months to formerly indict Evans again. As of now the conviction is quashed in so far as he is innocent, full stop.
To charge him again and retry this the CPS will have to consider new evidence we are not aware of and almost certainly is based on the 'missing facebook posts'.
If the new evidence is strong enough CPS will have to consider the cost of a retrial against Evans' future civil case for damages.
I think this will get dropped quietly just before the indictment is required.
Lots of red faces on here with no apologies I suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobh

Wins appeal

Prosecution seeking retrial.

Just on SSN

---

can we sign him for the next 3 games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

For what? He's still a scumbag. It's not like he wasn't there. He's just not "technically" a rapist. Maybe.

---

Why is he a scumbag? He had consensual sex with a woman and went to prison whilst his mate (black) was not even tried. This stinks of establishment against 'rich young footballers'. He cheated on his Mrs and she forgave him and stuck by him throughout.
Who the **** are you? The Pope? A vicar? Batman?
The man is at this very moment legally innocent. You're contradicting yourself and don't even realise it. If he WAS a scumbag rapist in your opinion then you had to base that opinion on law. That same law now says he is NOT a rapist. You see your predicament here don't you oh Holy One.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

"Until that happens (or not) you cannot say anyone is an 'Un-convicted' anything. You are talking bollox."

So I'll asssume you weren't talking about me directly in either sentence :hehe:

I don't think what you're saying there is strictly true, because when someone is on trial (i.e. before they are convicted) they are still innocent but also trying to prove their innocence.

Anyway, I'll make my point for the last time. He hasn't yet been found innocent; from what the appeal court said, there will be a retrial (although if what others have said is true then there may not be. I don't know). I agree with what you're saying on innocent until proven guilty, what I'm talking about is the word found, hence I don't think you understood where I was coming from. We're at the stage we were at when it first went to court. There is no 'found' anything yet.

---

WRONG WRONG WRONG.
You don't get found innocent. You ARE innocent until proven guilty. Right now Ched Evans is 100% innocent. If you don't understand this simple concept I'm glad you're not a judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the leader

Why is he a scumbag? He had consensual sex with a woman and went to prison whilst his mate (black) was not even tried. This stinks of establishment against 'rich young footballers'. He cheated on his Mrs and she forgave him and stuck by him throughout.
Who the **** are you? The Pope? A vicar? Batman?
The man is at this very moment legally innocent. You're contradicting yourself and don't even realise it. If he WAS a scumbag rapist in your opinion then you had to base that opinion on law. That same law now says he is NOT a rapist. You see your predicament here don't you oh Holy One.

---

Clayton McDonald was tried and found not guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

Not enough of an idiot to think that an overturned verdict is the same as an acquittal.

---

. The verdict was not overturned it was quashed. That means Evans was NEVER guilty of the offence for which he served. Quashed means just that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richyrich

Clayton McDonald was tried and found not guilty.

---

Missed a great opportunity there to put

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

:biggrin:

Another trial would be costly for both sides and I'm not sure what it would achieve. If he is found guilty, he can't be punished again.
I don't think you can really argue another trial would be fair now given the amount of publicity about this either.

I suspect both sides might want to drop this. Or perhaps Mr Evans might want to pursue various parties for damages if they can show malice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastbourneBlue

Exactly. A jury sat through days of evidence and found him guilty. As always, people who have read a few internet articles know best.

Today they've simply said new evidence is available. He stands accused of one of the most serious crimes and we'll have to see what the new jury make of it.

---

Have you ever been on a jury? Just curious. I have twice and on both occasions the amount of bigotry and ignorance displayed in the jury room absolutely staggered me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Anyway, I'll make my point for the last time. He hasn't yet been found innocent; from what the appeal court said, there will be a retrial (although if what others have said is true then there may not be. I don't know). I agree with what you're saying on innocent until proven guilty, what I'm talking about is the word found, hence I don't think you understood where I was coming from. We're at the stage we were at when it first went to court. There is no 'found' anything yet.

---

Not sure if you are on the wind up here and just playing stupid

you do not need to be found innocent

His conviction was quashed, so it was 100% wrong and in the eyes of the law it did not happen

So he doesnt need to be found Innocent now, he is Innocent

He may face another trial, but with the new evidence the CPS will have to look at it all again and decide to proceed or not

I think first and foremost Ched Evans wants to clear his name