The jury in the first trial found him guilty on the evidence presented to them during that trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vindec
They'll also find him guilty or not guilty in this trial only on the evidence presented during it.
Printable View
The jury in the first trial found him guilty on the evidence presented to them during that trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vindec
They'll also find him guilty or not guilty in this trial only on the evidence presented during it.
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.
But she doesn't remember anything other than the hotel lobby and a pizza so how can she have remembered having consented to sex with McDonald?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebird since 1948
Did she consent earlier? So if she is later paralytic McDonalds defence is ' she said yes earlier'?
She seems to remember key issues that suit her story. Curious that.
I havent followed the trial that closely but what I assume is that the court may not have necessarily found Clayton innocent, just that there was reasonable doubt that he wasnt guilty. By going back to the room with him there was a reasonable assumption that she planned to have sex with him. She never went back with Ched. He let himself into the room with a key from reception and had sex...Quote:
Originally Posted by the leader
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GRUMPYS DEN
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.
The retrial was ordered for one simple reason, that the defence produced new witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by GRUMPYS DEN
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life
The original verdict should stand.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by neilw65
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life
Evans team originally put out a different statement after the appeal decision which was quickly changed - they expected total clearance.Quote:
Originally Posted by neilw65
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.
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:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Just re-read the tweets. Must have remembered it wrongly - he said that she didn't consent to unprotected sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieccfc
What's wrong with that? How much of a prude can you be to think that paints someone in a bad light ffs? :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by blue matt
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieccfc
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life
Doh. Brain fart, for some reason conflated the names. McDonald.Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue
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......Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life
Fair point apologies for that. :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life
No worries. :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue
Ched Evans is clearly an absolute c**t of a bloke.
No question.
Don't give up. Maybe the 15th time someone might think it is relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life
It's strange though if he hasn't, why hasn't he?
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.
Perhaps he doesn't want to get sucked back in and leave himself open to further proceedings.Quote:
Originally Posted by EadosEados
He's been found not guilty - nothing to fear now
The double jeopardy law ceased to exist more than 10 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by EadosEados
However, if he testified backing Evans claims fully, then it would be far more difficult for Evans to have be found guilty thus making it unlikely he'd face further charges?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vindec
Theres a huge flaw in your theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life
It seems inconceivable to me that high court judges would not also have come the same conclusion as you were the above the case in point. High Court judges could not fail to cast more than a little reasonable doubt as to the veracity of new witnesses under these circumstances and as far as i am aware this has not even been a line of questioning from the prosecution.
What you have posted is alluding to a crystal clear case of 'paid witnesses'.
There is a much wider concern here. Based on what youve posted then anyone convicted of a crime who has the financial means can essentially get a retrial by the same route. The legal precedent would surely be very dangerous indeed.
If youre right, then Evans is doomed. However, i cannot see that our legal system would be so naive.
The court of appeal aren't going to necessarily look in the same way as prosecutors though.
They'd be looking to see if the evidence *may* affect the result. if new evidence conclusively showed Ched getting consent, there would be no retrial. If the evidence was incredibly laughable, there would be no retrial.
The prosecution have shown new witnesses were aware of a financial offer on reward for evidence clearing Ched and indeed the "Justice for Ched" website. That instantly brings the evidence into question - especially given the evidence doesn't pertain to the allegation Ched is facing. Neither were present at the Premier Inn on the night in question.
The court of appeal rightly (imo) determined this new evidence needed to be presented to a jury and subject to cross-examination from the prosecution. I doubt it would set a legal precedent per se as you suggest - it would be a case by case, evidence by evidence based judgement.
Personally, i think it is this that lies at the heart of Evans' defence. The woman herself says she remembers nothing after the pizza place other than being in a hotel lobby. She then wakes up the next morning. It is this recollection, or lack thereof, that could see Ched Evans aquitted. The original jury cannot reasonably take the same evidence to free one and imprison another?Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life
If she doesnt remember, they are taking Donaldsons word against her, but her word against ched Evans.
Any reasonable person can surely see that either both men are innocent, or both guilty - based on the evidence presented. Again, and ive touched on this before, the judge did not direct the jury correctly regarding consent when drunk. He should have told the jury that a woman can now be classed as capable of giving consent under the influence. Why he did not is critical because if the jury are not directed thus, any with doubt as to the womans 'unconscious state' could still in their own mind convict Evans because the woman was inarguably drunk.
The issue could also be as to if Ched attempted to get consent. "It wasn't the time to have a conversation" would tend to indicate Evans almost certainly wasn't worried about getting consent.Quote:
Originally Posted by the leader
He's going to get guilty.
Does he go back to prison if so?
I'm not following it in the press but i am enjoying the lawyers, barristers and experts on here. sordid affair. Can't imagine what is going through his wife's head having to listen to all this and still standing by her man, strange decision.