Ched Evans - Updated NOT GUILTY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysium

That didn't take the jury long. It must have been fairly clear cut this time around.

---

The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Clearly they couldn't and to be honest, none of us will ever be really sure if he was guilty or innocent. On that basis, you have to aquit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobh

I guess now Ched will sue for compo for the time previously served.

---

Let's hope he sues Ennis who put a stop to his return at Sheffield Utd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Llanedeyrnblue

Let's hope he sues Ennis who put a stop to his return at Sheffield Utd

---

Just rename the stand in her name to "the ched Evans stand"

CHED FOR WALES !!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life

Top tip : If found guilty of rape, put up a reward for evidence, get some new witnesses ( including your half brother who was at the window yet didn't testify at the original trial ). Whatever you do, don't call the only other person in the room in your defence.

Staggering.

---

You'd have to have the high court judges taking bribes if it were that simple.

Sue everyone.

No different to stories you hear up and down the UK from drunken stupid nights out? Maybe. Edit - Actually I agree with this: "Clearly they couldn't and to be honest, none of us will ever be really sure if he was guilty or innocent. On that basis, you have to aquit" I dont know the ins and outs so I cannot comment.

The loss of earnings must be HUGE.

How do you put a figure on a young player with potential?. He could have moved on to much bigger contracts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruBlue

You'd have to have the high court judges taking bribes if it were that simple.

---

Bit of a difference tho, they only need to determine if there's a chance new evidence could affect the original decision or needed to be heard.

Just leaves a bad taste in my mouth given the new evidence was all about throwing dirt at the woman to damage reputation rather than dealing with the events of the night.

I think the police have a lot to answer for, they constructed this shambles from the beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TH63

The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Clearly they couldn't and to be honest, none of us will ever be really sure if he was guilty or innocent. On that basis, you have to aquit

---

^^This^^
The judge's summing up said it all... "prove he is not guilty"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life

Bit of a difference tho, they only need to determine if there's a chance new evidence could affect the original decision or needed to be heard.

Just leaves a bad taste in my mouth given the new evidence was all about throwing dirt at the woman to damage reputation rather than dealing with the events of the night.

---

Agree with this.
Her past and future sex life has no bearing on what happened in that room that night. Only 3 people really know.
All in all an ugly case that may have repercussions on future rape cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life

Top tip : If found guilty of rape, put up a reward for evidence, get some new witnesses ( including your half brother who was at the window yet didn't testify at the original trial ). Whatever you do, don't call the only other person in the room in your defence.

Staggering.

---

Have you seen all of the evidence produced during this trial?

If not then I don't see how you can make this comment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie

Agree with this.
Her past and future sex life has no bearing on what happened in that room that night. Only 3 people really know.
All in all an ugly case that may have repercussions on future rape cases.

---

Vey true and your man in the street is bang to rights and serving full term.
Throw money at the system and it is full of holes.

Seen enough. Seen Ched condradict himself quite a bit.

Question is, will those new witnesses get the 50k reward now? If not, could be interesting if they then sued for breach of contract.

I believe the original jury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie

Agree with this.
Her past and future sex life has no bearing on what happened in that room that night. Only 3 people really know.
All in all an ugly case that may have repercussions on future rape cases.

---

Now we can be told that the appeal was allowed after judges let two of her former partners give explicit evidence in court. This doesn't seem right to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life

Seen enough. Seen Ched condradict himself quite a bit.

Question is, will those new witnesses get the 50k reward now? If not, could be interesting if they then sued for breach of contract.

---

So you made your decision based on media reports, clearly accurate, don't miss anything out and not prone to sensationalism.

based on comments reported by the media, both of those witnesses have said no they would not be receiving any reward
money

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilw65

Have you seen all of the evidence produced during this trial?

If not then I don't see how you can make this comment

---

Nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacAdder

Vey true and your man in the street is bang to rights and serving full term.
Throw money at the system and it is full of holes.

---

Unfortunately you need money to carry out a full investigation. If you have to rely on state aid, which most of us would, the defence investigation often doesn't dig deep enough to uncover other details or witnesses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auntie Andy

I believe the original jury.

---

The ones who got it wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

I think the police have a lot to answer for, they constructed this shambles from the beginning.

---

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auntie Andy

I believe the original jury.

---

I know. The new jury only took 2 hours to find him not guilty, so they mustn't have thought about it for long enough :facepalm:


The man is proven innocent. Common sense and justice prevails.

Thank God for this verdict. I hope Leanne Wood and Carwyn Jones apologise to Ched as they were very scathing about him on a BBC debate last year.

I say this as a member of Plaid; I've fallen out with quite a few members whose knee-jerk reaction to Cheds's desire to resume his footballing career (prior to his acquittal) showed me what "progressive" actually means - a progression towards a white-male hating dystopia populated by smug, self-serving, self-appointed élites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilw65

So you made your decision based on media reports, clearly accurate, don't miss anything out and not prone to sensationalism.

based on comments reported by the media, both of those witnesses have said no they would not be receiving any reward
money

---

Hate to break it to you, but neither are going to say "yes, we want the money" are they?

Did Ched's half brother, at the window, who failed to testify in the original trial now testify in this one?
Did the other man in the room not testify - someone who could have definitively cleared Ched?
Was money offered by the Evans clan in exchange for evidence?

The problem is rape is always difficult to prove. That means a lot of rapists get away with it.

I go back to a woman's house - both of us slightly drunk. She falls asleep. I rape her. No force used ( as in leaving marks ).
Her word against mine.
Goes to court.
I claim she slept with X, Y and Z before and after the night in question. Other people say she slept with X, Y and Z.

Odds would definitely be in my favour of acquital.

I agree with the general sentiment of not wanting one innocent person convicted but the balance is so far skewed it's a serious problem. It generally boils down to one person's word against another - and is even more complex when alcohol is involved. The level of proof required in these cases is simply too high to be achievable in the vast majority of cases.

A woman has to prove she could not have consented. How on earth is that possible? Have video cameras in the room? What does it tell women who have been raped?

EDIT: So what is the solution? I'm wondering if for cases like this adopting the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven", a half way house between guilty / not guilty is the way forward.

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/ched-ev...uilty-of-rape/

An explanation of the acquittal.

The descriptions of the sex with the girls other sexual partners were very similar in specific details to details that Evans had given. Details he probably would only have known if she was sober enough to have effectively given consent.

That's easily manipulated though. You get new witness to say the same terms you're going to claim were used.

How precisely did these new witnesses know it was the same woman without being told the identity of the anonymous alleged victim?

So now we see the people who were all " he is a rapist, a jury found him guilty, so thats it, end of " Ched evans the rapist " now bitching about the 2nd jury being wrong and the first lot right

The whole case looked dodgy right from the start

Justice has been done imho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

So now we see the people who were all " he is a rapist, a jury found him guilty, so thats it, end of " Ched evans the rapist " now bitching about the 2nd jury being wrong and the first lot right

The whole case looked dodgy right from the start

Justice has been done imho

---

To be fair that is exactly the case in reverse of those who said he was innocent originally no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life

Did the other man in the room not testify - someone who could have definitively cleared Ched?
.

---

How do you work that out, when he testified first time around, said he didn't rape her yet Evans still got convicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OurManFlint II

To be fair that is exactly the case in reverse of those who said he was innocent originally no?

---

I expected blue matt to be the first "I told you so"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruBlue

How do you work that out, when he testified first time around, said he didn't rape her yet Evans still got convicted.

---

McDonald ( yay, got name right... ) wasn't the one telling porkies to get a key to the room, wasn't the one who claimed McDonald asked for consent for him to join in as he didn't speak to the woman ( "It wasn't the time for conversation" ). Nor did McDonald leave via the fire exit. That in itself doesn't look great for Ched.

My point is, Ched in his testimony directly stated McDonald asked for consent on his behalf. McDonald testifies, backs that up. So, why didn't the defence call a direct witness who could benefit their case immensely? Doesn't that sound a bit odd? Why would they not call the other person present in the room? New witnesses not present on the night in question ( half brother excepted, who didn't testify in first trial ) but not McDonald?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life

McDonald ( yay, got name right... ) wasn't the one telling porkies to get a key to the room, wasn't the one who claimed McDonald asked for consent for him to join in as he didn't speak to the woman ( "It wasn't the time for conversation" ). Nor did McDonald leave via the fire exit. That in itself doesn't look great for Ched.

My point is, Ched in his testimony directly stated McDonald asked for consent on his behalf. McDonald testifies, backs that up. So, why didn't the defence call a direct witness who could benefit their case immensely? Doesn't that sound a bit odd? Why would they not call the other person present in the room? New witnesses not present on the night in question ( half brother excepted, who didn't testify in first trial ) but not McDonald?

---

But you suggested Macdonald could definitely get him off. That's clearly not the case as he testified first time around and he didn't get Evans off.

Additionally Character witnesses have long been a part of British court cases, this one is no different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

I think the police have a lot to answer for, they constructed this shambles from the beginning.

---

Definitely. Here you've got a young girl who didn't claim rape, two blokes who said they had sex with consent and then the Police.

3 people in that room and not one of them claimed rape, yet this whole mess comes about. Bizarre or inept with zero winners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccfc_is_my_life

Hate to break it to you, but neither are going to say "yes, we want the money" are they?

Did Ched's half brother, at the window, who failed to testify in the original trial now testify in this one?
Did the other man in the room not testify - someone who could have definitively cleared Ched?
Was money offered by the Evans clan in exchange for evidence?

The problem is rape is always difficult to prove. That means a lot of rapists get away with it.

I go back to a woman's house - both of us slightly drunk. She falls asleep. I rape her. No force used ( as in leaving marks ).
Her word against mine.
Goes to court.
I claim she slept with X, Y and Z before and after the night in question. Other people say she slept with X, Y and Z.

Odds would definitely be in my favour of acquital.

I agree with the general sentiment of not wanting one innocent person convicted but the balance is so far skewed it's a serious problem. It generally boils down to one person's word against another - and is even more complex when alcohol is involved. The level of proof required in these cases is simply too high to be achievable in the vast majority of cases.

A woman has to prove she could not have consented. How on earth is that possible? Have video cameras in the room? What does it tell women who have been raped?

EDIT: So what is the solution? I'm wondering if for cases like this adopting the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven", a half way house between guilty / not guilty is the way forward.

---

I am pretty sure that McDonald said that the woman consented to ched getting involved during the original trial, that made no difference then so why would it now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

So now we see the people who were all " he is a rapist, a jury found him guilty, so thats it, end of " Ched evans the rapist " now bitching about the 2nd jury being wrong and the first lot right

The whole case looked dodgy right from the start

Justice has been done imho

---

And now we see the people who were all "the jury was wrong he's definitely innocent" the jury found him guilty but justice hasn't been served are now saying the opinion of the jury is spot on?

In my opinion hes a bit of a scum bag but I'm not sure you can say he's a rapist based on the evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruBlue

But you suggested Macdonald could definitely get him off. That's clearly not the case as he testified first time around and he didn't get Evans off.

Additionally Character witnesses have long been a part of British court cases, this one is no different.

---

First time around it was a joint trial, I do believe? ( Happy to be proven wrong ). That would somewhat affect the weighting of his comments?

The point remains that this trial was about consent. If Ched testifies McDonald asked if Ched could join in, then Ched's testimony is bolstered if McDonald backs that up otherwise it's a hanging question based purely on Ched's words - given other things in the trial, ie admitting a caution relating to an insurance claim on a mobile phone question his honesty.

Were the new witnesses really character witnesses? Nobody has answered how those two knew they'd allegedly slept with the same woman in this case without her identity having been revealed - admittedly we know one side had been leaking it in the past.

I jut find there's plenty that came up as his defence that is highly questionable; the problem with rape cases is that the bar to *prove* in cases like this is almost impossibly high. As I said, imo the Scottish thing of "Not Proven" could well be a more accurate outcome in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

The descriptions of the sex with the girls other sexual partners were very similar in specific details to details that Evans had given.

---

Yes her asking them to "**** her harder" was so unique and a dead giveaway. How could they both have possibly come up with that unique sexual phrase. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CCFC CASUAL

Yes her asking them to "**** her harder" was so unique and a dead giveaway. How could they both have possibly come up with that unique sexual phrase. :shrug:

---

By having contact with each other and agreeing on phrases, positions, attitude. Not an impossibility. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I expected blue matt to be the first "I told you so"

---

to be fair to me, right from the start i have said the case was dodgy, I have argued that fact all along

Can we now have her name and mugshot to see the filthy gog slapper

The outcome of the first trial was dodgy but so is the outcome of the retrial.
Evans comes across as a liar. He says he had sex with her but left straight after because he had started to think about his girlfriend. Yeah right.

Why leave via fire escape?

Why did the retrial involve two men who had previous sexual relations with this girl? I don't see the relevance here.
Why did Evans even go to the hotel in the first place? He knew his mate had pulled so what was his motivation for going there? It has to be to have sex in my view.

All very dubious.