Reply With QuoteI think he won his appeal against the conviction and the prosecution have asked for a re-trial.Originally Posted by lardy
So his conviction is quashed and therefore innocent.
I doubt there will be a re-trial.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
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.
I think he won his appeal against the conviction and the prosecution have asked for a re-trial.
So his conviction is quashed and therefore innocent.
I doubt there will be a re-trial.
I agree, I don't think there will be a retrial either.
Maybe I've misunderstood but on the bbc story it says the court ordered a retrial. That's how I read it anyway.
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.
I think the CPS still have to decide to go to trial again. Although I may be wrong on that.
I've read the transcript of the original trial, I provided a link on ccmb a few weeks back, and the huge amount of information on Ched's own website.
http://chedevans.com/
Great news. The police and CPS have a lot to answer for in this case.
Hopefully it won't deter genuine victims of rape coming forward in the future.
Yes the jury sat through days of evidence and found him guilty. However new evidence has been produced, which after 2 days of deliberation with the appeal court judges and prosecution, they have now quashed the first verdict, most probably because the new evidence makes it likely that he did not commit rape. For the appeal court judges to make this decision, they must be convinced he did not commit the offence of rape. As I said earlier, it is very rare for the appeal court to overturn a guilty verdict
Not enough of an idiot to think that an overturned verdict is the same as an acquittal.
Whilst I wouldn't want to see anyone convicted of an offence they did not commit, I can't really understand the "great" and "fantastic" news described by some. This decision has not changed my opinion of this guy. He's still low life.
The police come out of this looking like idiots. This was their baby, they crafted the whole case from a girl saying she 'couldn't remember' how she ended up in the hotel room.
I haven't said this is great and fantastic news, however I am pleased that a verdict that was at best dubious, has been overturned. If there is a retrial, I would expect Ched Evans to be found not guilty of rape.
As for whether he is a "low life" or not is a different matter. By being unfaithful to his partner, that clearly shows a lack of morals. However this may have been a one off and for which he has paid, and will continue to pay, a heavy price.
I done know, and have never met, Ched Evans, however I know someone who does. He has said that Evans is nothing like the person that has been portrayed by the media and, whilst not condoning what he did, said that he is a really nice bloke.
sportsmen eh ? ? ?
what like a rugby team on tour ? ? ?
Will the CPS take this on again ? ? ? if the appeal court overturned the ruling of the previous court due to new evidence, then surely it will be a waste of time ( and tax payers money ) to take the case back to court ? ? ?
Like many, I predicted this would happen. Just cost the tax payer about 10 million in lost wages etc for him now. Ruined his life.
I think if you read my post you will see that I didn't quote you as saying that word. I was merely making the point that if he, or any of us are not convicted then we are innocent, not having to 'prove' we didn't do anything.
Whilst I'm having a shout, I think, but anyone better informed can correct me, that there are a couple of points some may have forgotten or be unaware of.
I believe that it was a judicial body that appealed against the conviction, not Evans, or at least not only Evans.
Again, open to correction, but during the initial breaking of this story I understood that the Police began a rape enquirey without any complaint, and that in itself is not usual. Rape is a personal offence, like many others, and without a complaint normally there would be no investigation.
Finally I think another offence which deems it a requirement to prove innocence is "Going equipped for stealing". as a 'for-instance' a carpet fitter stopped and searched by Police on his way home from work at 5.30 PM and found with a hooked-bladed Stanley Knife on his person might reasonably be acquitted of this offence but if the same thing occurred when he was out in his 'whistle' on a Saturday night he would have to prove just cause for carrying it.
Then again as he would also be carrying a cock he might be a rapist who has not yet been proven innocent.
"Until that happens (or not) you cannot say anyone is an 'Un-convicted' anything. You are talking bollox."
So I'll asssume you weren't talking about me directly in either sentence
I don't think what you're saying there is strictly true, because when someone is on trial (i.e. before they are convicted) they are still innocent but also trying to prove their innocence.
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.
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.
That's if there IS a retrial. They have 2 months to formerly indict Evans again. As of now the conviction is quashed in so far as he is innocent, full stop.
To charge him again and retry this the CPS will have to consider new evidence we are not aware of and almost certainly is based on the 'missing facebook posts'.
If the new evidence is strong enough CPS will have to consider the cost of a retrial against Evans' future civil case for damages.
I think this will get dropped quietly just before the indictment is required.
Lots of red faces on here with no apologies I suspect.
can we sign him for the next 3 games
Why is he a scumbag? He had consensual sex with a woman and went to prison whilst his mate (black) was not even tried. This stinks of establishment against 'rich young footballers'. He cheated on his Mrs and she forgave him and stuck by him throughout.
Who the **** are you? The Pope? A vicar? Batman?
The man is at this very moment legally innocent. You're contradicting yourself and don't even realise it. If he WAS a scumbag rapist in your opinion then you had to base that opinion on law. That same law now says he is NOT a rapist. You see your predicament here don't you oh Holy One.
WRONG WRONG WRONG."Until that happens (or not) you cannot say anyone is an 'Un-convicted' anything. You are talking bollox."
So I'll asssume you weren't talking about me directly in either sentence
I don't think what you're saying there is strictly true, because when someone is on trial (i.e. before they are convicted) they are still innocent but also trying to prove their innocence.
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.
You don't get found innocent. You ARE innocent until proven guilty. Right now Ched Evans is 100% innocent. If you don't understand this simple concept I'm glad you're not a judge.
Clayton McDonald was tried and found not guilty.
. 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
Posting Permissions
