| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Dirty Ched, The Verdict.
A three-person panel of judges, headed by Lady Justice Heather Hallett, is hearing the appeal, which is scheduled to last until Wednesday.
What do you think the outcome will be? I think he's innocent but I'm not sure how this will turn out depends on what this new evidence is I suppose.
I think he's definitely guilty of being a creep, out sober after really drunk girls but I'm unsure if he's guilty of rape. I think he'll still be found guilty though as I can't see the verdict being overturned because the videos they have of the girl in the reception show her looking hammered.
Plus the sneaking out the fire escape doesn't scream innocence to a jury either.
It's true the girl did look hammered but if that were the case why did the other bloke receive a not guilty verdict? Evans was treated harshly and, despite being a creep, he should not have been convicted.Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
You always say he was out sober. I've pointed out to you a number of times that he was drinking, easily found in the court notes you once claimed to have read.
He was out drinking but wasn't drunk according to the reports.
I think it's irrelevant anyway, as I said I'm unsure if he's guilty of rape but the if the girl was in the state that has been presented I think it's at very best very creepy behaviour and could see how it could be rape.
I think he'll still be found guilty, rape convictions are notoriously difficult to get so they must have been quite sure the first time round and I haven't seen any extra evidence that shows otherwise.
He's probably innocent of rape but will probably be found guilty
Well if she was too drunk to consent that was rape, not a violent rape of attacking a girl on the street but still rape according to the law.
http://footylaw.co.uk/2015/01/06/che...from-fiction/#
I don't think Evans is an evil guy but I do think under the law he'll probably be convicted as a rapist. Consent is a very important thing and you can't be too careful.
Because the girl obviously went voluntarily to the hotel with "the other bloke".
What she obviously didn't agree too was, "the other bloke", telephoning Ched Evans to come to the room and rape her.
I don't think the girl looked that drunk in the video, but it's not easy to tell really.
The thing is, none of us can know whether once Evans was in the room the girl consented or not, and she doesn't know either apparently as she can't remember anything. On that basis isn't it his word against her saying she can't remember?
He's a rapist
No probably no might be
HE IS
and I've not watch THE VIDEO or been brainwashed by bullshit talk
12 members of the jury found him guilty
He lost his first Appeal
And all of a sudden new evidence has appeared 4 years later
He won't get off IMHO
Guilty as charged.
Well not necessarily, if he is found innocent then he is innocent end of, but I can't see that happening.
I think the girl was so pissed she wouldn't remember whether she give consent or not. I do agree Dirty Ched is a creepy fuker mind, fancy going down on some bird after your mate has smashed the guts out of her
Well, indeed. That still seems to be the crux of it.
does going to a hotel room imply consent?
Surely it certainly doesn't imply consent to 'another person being phoned to come round and join in' - especially after she had got increasingly worse for drink .
BUT
she cannot remember any of it happening, so she cannot remember consenting or not
Yes Ched is a wrong un, but how many other blokes would have been tempted to " have a go " with her if she was encouraging it ? ? ?
nope, you're right it doesnt. but does it imply consent with the fella she was chatting to in a bar?
I know one of the people who investigated all aspects of the investigation, he believes that the new evidence will ensure that the verdict will be overturned
What is the new evidence?
I'm not sure that it specifically implies consent for sex, and at any time either party should be able to say that they dont actually want sex after all. Maybe Consent is an ongoing notion?
But 'going to a hotel room' with someone after a night out... ?
Most of us wouldn't imagine it would likely be to play scrabble.
But actual Consent to definite sex, it surely isn't.
right, glad we cleared that up. So it makes no difference as to whether he was out with her prior or not.
Nobody can definitely say there wasn't consent though can they?
On the other hand Macdonald said there definitely was consent.
Do we know if there was (still) consent right at the point where sex commenced?
If so, then that is all there is to it between her and Macdonald - at that time.
However, 'how about it then'? - yeah OK' in a bar sometime earlier doesn't stand as 'in the bag' for Macdonald for the rest of whole night. (let alone 'phone a friend').
She can change her mind. (as can he!)
Only if that consent is revoked or expired or doesn't cover 'other events' does it become something more sinister.
Last edited by Vimana.; 22-03-16 at 23:07.
Unlucky Ched me ol' china.
He wasn't convicted by 12 members of the jury - it was a majority verdict - not all found him guilty.
The judge insisted on a majority when it was not unnanamous because if they had gone back to look at the evidence again it would have gone in for another week
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote