Ched Evans

[GBJ]

If anything it's harder to tell if a family member is lying because you want to see the best in your family.

Damn, I feel sorry for you's that couldn't tell if a close family member (son/brother) was lying to you or not :stunned:

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

No, but that's irrelevant. Unless of course you're saying that your young daughter(?) can outsmart you with a few fibs :whistling:



I'm not confident in most people's ability to act like civilised human beings, but I'm fairly confident the average parent, sibling, Would know.



Well that's the point. At the time of the trial, IMO, there wasn't enough evidence to convict him & it certainly wasn't beyond reasonable doubt. And as I explained to *** back then, Jury's, Judges, Magistrates, etc etc can have all the evidence they want, they still make mistakes. I know PERSONALLY, of guilty people, who've been found innocent :hilarious: My initial point to ***, was one of intrigue. I'm intrigued how he could have such strong belief & faith in the same justice system, which has been proven to be wrong, on many occasions

I probably said the jury have seen all of the available evidence and therefore their judgement is worth more than those that haven't. If there is to be a re-trial then the same principal stands for the jury on the 2nd trial.

 

[rigsby]

I probably said the jury have seen all of the available evidence and therefore their judgement is worth more than those that haven't. If there is to be a re-trial then the same principal stands for the jury on the 2nd trial.

That's the problem with modern British justice. You are tried by 12 people who are to stupid to get out of jury service.

 

[David Icke]

Why would anyone in their right mind bring a player to the club who has an endless train of excess negative baggage, that would alienate some of our fans. If Ched Evans is such a lovely fellow why would he want to cause some of the supporters around the country distress. A poor shadow of a man is Ched.

 

[GBJ]

If you go back to someone's hotel room and get naked that's consent. If a woman can't remember in the morning then a man should never be charged with rape.......My other halfs words not mine.

Thats the bit that gets me, the girl stated she couldn't remember if she said yes or not. That's not grounds for rape. And all it does is serves an injustice to the true victims who suffer, without any justice.

How many times have people woken up after a night on the sauce & seen pictures of themselves from the night before? In the picture, you might be smiling, happy and having a great time. But your sober self doesn't remember that moment. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Or similarly when you wake up wondering how you actually got home last or where that half-eaten, rotting kebab come from. You may not remember hailing a cab, or stopping off to get some food, but clearly you did it.

Short-term memory loss (the morning after,) doesn't mean a person is incapable of making decisions at the time (the night before)

 

[GBJ]

I probably said

I haven't tampered with anything mate, the post that's quoted, is what you said.

the jury have seen all of the available evidence and therefore their judgement is worth more than those that haven't.

Again, I'm intrigued if you believe that to be true, 100% of the time.

If there is to be a re-trial then the same principal stands for the jury on the 2nd trial.

Which to me is, again, intriguing & ironic. I.e. Let's say hypothetically he's proven innocent this time around. The system that has just proved his innocence, which you're happy with, is the same system that a few years ago almost ruined his life. Which you were happy with. You see what I'm getting at? Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking you as such, if you choose to believe the justice system is infallible & perfect 100% of the time, then that's your choice. I don't though.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I haven't tampered with anything mate, the post that's quoted, is what you said.



Again, I'm intrigued if you believe that to be true, 100% of the time.



Which to me is, again, intriguing & ironic. I.e. Let's say hypothetically he's proven innocent this time around. The system that has just proved his innocence, which you're happy with, is the same system that a few years ago almost ruined his life. Which you were happy with. You see what I'm getting at? Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking you as such, if you choose to believe the justice system is infallible & perfect 100% of the time, then that's your choice. I don't though.

I was reading page 3 and saw my username mentioned, I replied not realising you had re posted old stuff so when I said 'I probably said' I hadn't read page 2 of this thread. So no, not saying you have tampered - would be no need as we aren't disputing what we have said - we just disagree on trusting juries. For me - they hear all the evidence, they discuss in private and then they come to a judgement. From that the person is innocent or guilty unless new evidence comes to light. If there is a better way of coming to a judgement I'm not aware of it.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

I was reading page 3 and saw my username mentioned, I replied not realising you had re posted old stuff so when I said 'I probably said' I hadn't read page 2 of this thread. So no, not saying you have tampered - would be no need as we aren't disputing what we have said - we just disagree on trusting juries. For me - they hear all the evidence, they discuss in private and then they come to a judgement. From that the person is innocent or guilty unless new evidence comes to light. If there is a better way of coming to a judgement I'm not aware of it.

Lie detector. Good enough for Jeremy Kyle :smile:

 

[mattitouk]

Im personally surprised that the poll currently leads marginally for the "yes camp".. I wouldnt want him anywhere near the club (even in an away shirt) I never really rated him all that much in the first place, that alone the amount of abuse we would recieve from the north bank if he was wearing our colours.

 

[PrawNZ]

"The victim allegedly can't remember what happened"
But she remembered her pizza she left outside the hotel that she went back for - in her high heels that she claimed she was unable to stand. Life goes on, he'll get off, I'd sign him up. It's the 'victim' who I feel least for.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

"The victim allegedly can't remember what happened"
But she remembered her pizza she left outside the hotel that she went back for - in her high heels that she claimed she was unable to stand. Life goes on, he'll get off, I'd sign him up. It's the 'victim' who I feel least for.

I'm sure there was more to the trial than that otherwise it would have been the shortest trial in history.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I probably said the jury have seen all of the available evidence and therefore their judgement is worth more than those that haven't. If there is to be a re-trial then the same principal stands for the jury on the 2nd trial.

I believe the conviction was overturned on the basis of new evidence, so the jury haven't seen all the evidence.

I'm not sure what to make of this. From what I've read I'm uneasy about his conviction, but I'm also uneasy about his actions and some of the attitudes of his supporters.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I believe the conviction was overturned on the basis of new evidence, so the jury haven't seen all the evidence.

I'm not sure what to make of this. From what I've read I'm uneasy about his conviction, but I'm also uneasy about his actions and some of the attitudes of his supporters.

As members of the public the whole thing should make us uneasy but we won't be the ones hearing the evidence from the first trial or the re-trial other than 12 of us that will listen and decide.

 

[bazzashrimper]

"The victim allegedly can't remember what happened"
But she remembered her pizza she left outside the hotel that she went back for - in her high heels that she claimed she was unable to stand. Life goes on, he'll get off, I'd sign him up. It's the 'victim' who I feel least for.

Let the retrial decide first, but IF he has spent two and a half years in prison for something which the court decides is not a crime then it's a bit unjust not giving him a job because of a it? He should be apologised to and supported in getting his old life back surely?

 

[Pubey]

"The victim allegedly can't remember what happened"
But she remembered her pizza she left outside the hotel that she went back for - in her high heels that she claimed she was unable to stand. Life goes on, he'll get off, I'd sign him up. It's the 'victim' who I feel least for.

The victim didn't even report the rape. She reported her bag as being missing and the police went from there.

And there have been plenty of times where I've been so drunk I've not remembered hours from the previous night, but I've still managed to find my way home, take my shoes and jeans off, have some paracetamol and water and wake up the next day in bed. I doubt that picking up a pizza in high-heels is impossible for an extremely drunk woman.

 

[Napster]

By the way, re-trials happen when there is new and compelling evidence. Which suggests a significant piece has turned up.

 

[GBJ]

And there have been plenty of times where I've been so drunk I've not remembered hours from the previous night, but I've still managed to find my way home, take my shoes and jeans off, have some paracetamol and water and wake up the next day in bed. I doubt that picking up a pizza in high-heels is impossible for an extremely drunk woman.

And by that token, it can't be impossible to give consent when drunk, even if you don't remember it the next day.

Afterall, she didn't say she was raped. She said she didn't remember. She might have given consent, she might not have. How can that be grounds for a conviction, beyond reasonable doubt?

Its like this, if I have a few beers tonight, get a bit too giddy & book a lavish holiday online, what chances have I got of contacting the holiday company tomorrow & asking for my money back, as I was drunk, and don't remember booking it.

 

[Pubey]

And by that token, it can't be impossible to give consent when drunk, even if you don't remember it the next day.

of course. this is the crux of the issue with the case.

Afterall, she didn't say she was raped. She said she didn't remember. She might have given consent, she might not have. How can that be grounds for a conviction, beyond reasonable doubt?

did she actually say this? the grounds of the conviction seem to be based on the evidence that she was extremely drunk, and whether it would have been possible to consent, and the witness at the hotel. Also the actions of Evans and McDonald don't help their cause.

Its like this, if I have a few beers tonight, get a bit too giddy & book a lavish holiday online, what chances have I got of contacting the holiday company tomorrow & asking for my money back, as I was drunk, and don't remember booking it.

the analogy would be better if it wasn't you who booked the holiday on your own, but if it was a mate or someone who pressured you into booking a holiday for both of you. I'm not an expert but that could probably be classed as fraud or coercion or something.

 

[GBJ]

of course. this is the crux of the issue with the case.

And one that is highly difficult, if not impossible to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt.

did she actually say this? the grounds of the conviction seem to be based on the evidence that she was extremely drunk, and whether it would have been possible to consent, and the witness at the hotel. Also the actions of Evans and McDonald don't help their cause.

As far as I'm aware, yes.

The general notion about being too drunk to consent is ludicrous, as it was deemed she consented to McDonald. Either they both should have been found guilty, or neither at all.

Also, worth pointing out, IIRC her toxicology report stated that she hadn't actually consumed that much alcohol & also had cocaine in her system. Now, anyone who's ever had a night on the shovel knows, it isn't a drug that makes you pass out.

I don't doubt they both acted like *****. But at the very worst, their behaviour can only be described as scum. That's not illegal.

the analogy would be better if it wasn't you who booked the holiday on your own, but if it was a mate or someone who pressured you into booking a holiday for both of you. I'm not an expert but that could probably be classed as fraud or coercion or something.

Even then, it becomes a he said/she said situation, which is more likely to end up on Judge Rinder, than the front pages of every tabloid.

 

[rigsby]

I'll wager the new evidence is the missing Txts from her phone, that was suspiciously cleaned for 24 hours after the event. Bragging to her friends about last nights conquest perhaps?