Ched Evans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

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.

---

I am not talking about giving evidence to the police. In the alleged offences I mentioned it is necessary for the arrested person to explain his innocent to the "Court". The police only act on what they see or information they obtain. This is why many years ago people would carry a small coin, like a farthing, in their shoe, so if a constable said they were a vagrant, i.e. ;having no visible means of support' they could prevent the constable from arresting them by showing the farthing.
It brings me back to one of the troubling things about this case. The police acted without any complaint from the alleged victim. (Please let's all be clear - I use the words'alleged' victim because in law if there is no perpetrator there cannot be any victim.
In a criminal case it is totally unnecessary for the defendant to prove anything, it is for the prosecution to prove he/she committed the act of which he/she is accused.
There has been at least one case where after being arrested the defendant never spoke one word to anyone including the police, and at trial he was acquitted.
If you research cases I think you (and for the benefit of Lardy, in common parlance 'You' means 'One') will find that most convictions stand in some part due to the answers that the accused gave, or statement they have made.

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.

---

You clearly have a knob obsession.

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.

---

Not sure now. Heuristics and bias were far from my mind though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimmy the Jock

Not sure now. Heuristics and bias were far from my mind though.

---

:hehe:

:Thumbs and bums up:

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.

---

What the Court of Appeal have decided is that if the original jury had been presented with this strange new evidence, there's a reasonable chance they may have reached a different verdict. (They might not have done, of course.)

Had the CPS thought the evidence proved his innocence, they wouldn't have asked for a retrial. Had the Court of Appeal thought it proved his innocence, they wouldn't have ordered one.

It's not surprising: he was convicted largely on what he said and what MacDonald said and didn't say and Evans can't change that, no matter how much he offers for new evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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.

---

No, the Court of Appeal could have done that, just as they (eventually) did for the Birmingham Six etc. They weren't sent for a retrial.

If the CPS offer no evidence, despite having asked for a retrial during the second appeal knowing what this mysterious new evidence is, I'd expect a resignation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobbyBlue

What if they send him down again after retrial lol

Surely he will be in for a large compensation package after this?

---

Then those of us who think the verdicts of the original jury, the single judge of the Court of Appeal, and a full trio of judges in his first appeal were right will be pleased. If he does get convicted at the second trial, he's not going to be sent to prison, merely restored to the position he was in until last month: guilty, but out on licence.

You only get compensation if the evidence on which you were cleared is so compelling that no conviction could possibly be based upon it. Here, it clearly isn't, or the Court of Appeal wouldn't have ordered a retrial.

What was the new evidence? Pm welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

What was the new evidence? Pm welcome.

---

All we know for sure is that it's mysterious.

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 *****.

---

The original jury had no doubt that she did not consent! The reason for that is her state of intoxication: every witness who did not want to stick their penis in her said she was extremely drunk; MacDonald thought she was so drunk that the hotel night porter needed to be told to look out for her; and by the time of the first appeal even the Evans legal team accepted that she was so drunk, she didn't remember what had happened.

(This disproves the Evans lie that she made a complaint to make money. 'I don't remember what happened' is not a story you can sell to anyone.)

So she didn't have the capacity to consent to sex with either man. I have never thought Evans intended to rape her and that he genuinely believes that he did not. However, a belief in consent needs to be reasonable to be a defence.

"I am a famous footballer who can get a bird whenever he likes" doesn't count (and begs the question that if he wanted to have sex with someone that night, why did he need to have seconds on someone MacDonald had picked up, rather than finding someone himself?) and neither does "well, she shagged my mate, so she clearly wants to shag me too".

MacDonald could argue that he'd talked to her outside the hotel, he'd gone to the room with her, and in general behaved as if nothing was wrong. He may have had a reasonable belief, so the jury acquitted him.

But Evans? On his own evidence, he turned up in the room uninvited (neither MacDonald nor the woman asked him to come), unexpected (they'd locked the door and he needed to lie to get the key), and unwanted (MacDonald left not long after he arrived, despite not having ejaculated).

When he came in, his brother and a mate were already outside the window trying to film the sex. (How did they manage that, unless Evans told them where to go? No-one says that they had her consent to do that, and they certainly didn't have MacDonald's consent: when he heard them giggling, he closed the curtains.)

Evans says she was asked if she wanted to have sex with him… but both he and McDonald gave evidence on oath that they didn’t ask her. (Who did then? Is the strange new evidence a claim that there was a fourth person in the room?)

Although he says she was repeatedly “calling out” for more vigorous sex with him, no-one in a position to hear that – the brother and the mate or the night porter outside the door who could hear that sex was happening – heard that. MacDonald doesn't say that he heard it either, before he left them to it.

When Evans stopped having sex with her - he says because he was worried his girlfriend might ring, but it's possible he found that sex with semi-comatose women is really boring - he left via fire-escape.

So it’s not surprising that the original jury decided that Evans – beyond a reasonable doubt – did not have a reasonable belief in her consent.


I would LOVE to know what the new evidence is. From his website, it seems to be mostly based on regretting that he was heard to make various admissions in a conversation with McDonald which stopped him lying later, being annoyed that the police didn’t do the defence's job for them, and going ‘.. but she’s a slag!’ Alas, even slags get to say who has sex with them.

I'd rather be a **** than a rape apologist.