Ched Evans

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilw65

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

---

I reckon that's it and the appellant judges know it. with the evidence as it is the cps are most likely going to have to have to stand in front of the trial judge and jury and say the crown has no case to present. "Case dismissed Mr Evans you're a free man who was wrongly convicted"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the leader

. 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

---

It doesn't mean acquitted though does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

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.

---

I have, it was an eye opener. On the one case I was juror, it was plain as day that the fella was innocent, but one juror wouldn't have it and some of the other jurors were just clueless and went with the flow. Luckily the juror who was sure he was guilty, eventually changed his mind and justice was done. I think the jury system in theory is a good one, but in practice has it's faults.

Great news for the lad and he deserves to get his life back on track and put this behind him. With new evidence I can't see this getting passed the evidential stage and the CPS will throw it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

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.

---

WRONG

Ched is simply a man who has been accused of rape at the moment.

Unles/Until found guilty, he is innocent, and NOT a rapist.

There is a difference.

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.

---

Cop-out. He does not have to be found innocent. He IS innocent. That is a simple premise on which our society is based. He does not have to prove innocence. The CPS have to prove guilt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobh

Wins appeal

Prosecution seeking retrial.

Just on SSN

---

I see the message board police do not accept this, he is guilty period so they say.

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.

---

The court gave the CPS two months in which to indict Evans. Essentially he is a free innocent man, as if from scratch.
Now the CPS have a timeframe they have to stick to. They have to make a decision based on the best interests of the public in terms of safety and public purse.
A guilty decision seems highly highly unlikely if new evidence convinced the Supreme Court that the original trial verdict was to be quashed. It also suggests that this evidence was possibly 'around' at the time of the case. Something they have in there possession today relates to the verdict reached in good faith and that seems to me to be a bit fishy

Really not surprised by this and happy that justice looks now about to be done. As I said in the other thread, the prosecution case was leaker than Deportivo's defence last night.

The case does have wider repercussions however, and as a father to young lad and a young girl, I'll be using it to explain what can go wrong on a night out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

Pathetic? Really?

I wonder how many on here would be defending him if was English.

---

Are you actually in New York? Is that it? Has the 'in God we trust' religious moral ball bag American rubbish fried your brains?

Evans is a man, we are all men regardless of nationality when it comes to miscarriages of justice. We are more interested in this case because the lad represented his country at football but had this been anyone else anywhere, based on what we have learned the conclusions are the same as that reached by the Supreme Court. Innocent.

Innocent as in 'he didn't do it'.

CPS now have to prove guilt and that seems very implausible.

You're either a very nasty minded bloke or just stupid. Or both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the leader

Are you actually in New York? Is that it? Has the 'in God we trust' religious moral ball bag American rubbish fried your brains?

Evans is a man, we are all men regardless of nationality when it comes to miscarriages of justice. We are more interested in this case because the lad represented his country at football but had this been anyone else anywhere, based on what we have learned the conclusions are the same as that reached by the Supreme Court. Innocent.

Innocent as in 'he didn't do it'.

CPS now have to prove guilt and that seems very implausible.

You're either a very nasty minded bloke or just stupid. Or both.

---

Well said.Both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

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.

---

I've never been part of a jury myself but I've known quite a few people who have and each one has said exactly the same thing. It's quite a scary observation unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welshyoot

I've never been part of a jury myself but I've known quite a few people who have and each one has said exactly the same thing. It's quite a scary observation unfortunately.

---

They will be voting next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimmy the Jock

They will be voting next.

---

I'm not sure if you're making a point about democracy here or just being sarcastic. Either way it's often evident that human psychological bias and heuristics are used rather than logical, rational thought.

Anyone called up for jury service should be made to watch 12 angry Men before they sit.
Great film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welshyoot

I'm not sure if you're making a point about democracy here or just being sarcastic. Either way it's often evident that human psychological bias and heuristics are used rather than logical, rational thought.

---

Kahneman - smart guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario Miethig

I have, it was an eye opener. On the one case I was juror, it was plain as day that the fella was innocent, but one juror wouldn't have it and some of the other jurors were just clueless and went with the flow. Luckily the juror who was sure he was guilty, eventually changed his mind and justice was done. I think the jury system in theory is a good one, but in practice has it's faults.

---

It's 10 years ago now so the horror has diminished somewhat but in one of my cases a police woman gave evidence she had crept into the male toilets in a park in Derby and seen one man orally pleasuring another man's manhood (through a hole) over the top of a 7ft cubicle door. Guilty. The police woman was 5ft 2in. Mostly my fellow jurors were concerned he was a gay and therefore must have been "kiddy fiddler" and so my "constantly going on about minor inconsistencies" was "stupid".

Ever since I take anything I hear emanating from the legal system with a huge dose of skepticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

Kahneman - smart guy.

---

indeed, not forgetting tversky

Ahhhhhh shadup, the lot of yer.

Knew there'd be a long thread with knobbers pretending to be legal experts, knobbers moralising, knobbers stating your innocent until proven guilty at any given opportunity, knobbers saying i told yer so.

Too many knobbers......feck off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaffa

Ahhhhhh shadup, the lot of yer.

Knew there'd be a long thread with knobbers pretending to be legal experts, knobbers moralising, knobbers stating your innocent until proven guilty at any given opportunity, knobbers saying i told yer so.

Too many knobbers......feck off.

---

Wow, you've got hang ups, seedless?