Ched Evans

drew said:

Sorry but you seem to make out that I believe he is innocent. Without going back through the whole thread, I don't think I have ever said I believed he is innocent. The whole thrust of my posts has been to suggest that there is no way that the jury could be sure (or believe beyond reasonably doubt) that he did do it. As for decency, I am probably more akin to your own standards but that doesn't make me blinkered to think that drunken liaisons don't occur! They don't all end up with a court case for rape.

Click to expand...

drew said:

Sorry but you seem to make out that I believe he is innocent. Without going back through the whole thread, I don't think I have ever said I believed he is innocent. The whole thrust of my posts has been to suggest that there is no way that the jury could be sure (or believe beyond reasonably doubt) that he did do it. As for decency, I am probably more akin to your own standards but that doesn't make me blinkered to think that drunken liaisons don't occur! They don't all end up with a court case for rape.

Click to expand...

nwgull said:

This sums up how I feel about this. It's such a flimsy conviction based on no concrete evidence. I don't for one minute believe that the jury didn't have prejudices against young, rich footballers either. Not too disimilar to the case with the Albion players, when it required 2 juries to find them not guilty in the face of no evidence other than that of a young woman who 'couldn't remember a thing' and had a history of telling tall stories.

Click to expand...

Hillian1 said:

Really?

You really know her, and you really sat through all the evidence put to the Jury?

Fair play.

Click to expand...

nwgull said:

Are we talking about the girl in the Albion case? I followed the trial, like many on here, and this bit of evidence was reported by the official court news: her former colleagues said, under oath, that she’d made up a story about her dad being in a fatal car accident so that she could bunk off work and go to pride instead.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

Do you have a bit of an issue with women [MENTION=643]nwgull[/MENTION]?

Click to expand...

nwgull said:

Yes. Based on the fact that I can question whether or not one particular woman is a reliable witness, I clearly have an issue with all women.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

They don't all end up in court because as a society we are very distrustful of a women crying rape. We have an institutionalised problem with dealing with rape from the initial police interviews, through to the courts and the media. They don't all end up in court because what a victim has to go through in order to seek justice is traumatic in itself.

Of course drunken liaisons occur, but I bet inviting your mate in for a go with a passed out girl is one that thankfully doesn't happen at all often. The key piece of evidence - her initial statement didn't implicate either footballer, that is massively significant. If she was in it for revenge or the money, she'd have mentioned them by name. As it was, it was the police investigation that pieced together what had happened, and Evan's own admission that he'd had sex with her - her testimony never implicated him. His evidence didn't match with McDonald's account either in some of the crucial detail.

The victim here, after finding out she was likely assaulted by 2 professional footballers may well have tweeted / messaged regarding potential pay outs - but her lack of trauma, emotional or otherwise isn't an indicator of their innocence either as seems to be suggested - the classic, she was asking for it / she was that type / she's on the make etc.

Not only did the jury convict him unanimously, he's been refused appeal on separate occasions. If the Independent Criminal Cases Review Commission also sustain his conviction, what exactly are the doubters hiding behind here?

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

A question you decided to go against a jury and the expertise of an appeals panel on. In 2 cases whose only similarities are a women and footballers being involved, however the implication you make in both is that the women are both liars.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

A question you decided to go against a jury and the expertise of an appeals panel on. In 2 cases whose only similarities are a women and footballers being involved, however the implication you make in both is that the women are both liars.

Click to expand...

drew said:

I didn't think the Jury were presented with any evidence concerning the character of the girl in the Evans case and, ergo, her reliability, so I don't believe they can make assumptions when deliberating.

Click to expand...

The Rivet said:

We, the public elect those who should represent us. In turn they make the laws we should abide by. The system elects the judges that oversee our justice system as well as defining the sentencing charts that govern said judges. Rape is an affront to all. That being said our Justice system spoke. Conviction of an appalling act, you will go to prison for five years! It just so happens that five years doesn't mean five tears. In reality if you have 'no previous' of anything, you stand every chance of being released on parole. If non violence or sex offence a possible Home detention curfew, ankle tag included! Depends on the sentence, offender personality and weather the prison estate is overcrowded.
Now having said that our elected political and judicial representatives have served their justice. Loss of liberty as set down by statute and decree. Ched Evans has served what was required from our whole elected system. Now he has been released, like it or not, the public have no say anymore. The justice system will back him against employment discrimination (based on his offence) now he is a 'free man'.

Click to expand...

pauli cee said:

Blimey, when justice starts to depend on the weather, we really are in trouble.......

Click to expand...

The Rivet said:

lol, oh yes I see what you did there.

Click to expand...

drew said:

There is a problem with rape and the number of convictions but that is probably more down to the fact that in the vast majority of cases, it is one word against another and to convict you must be sure (beyond reasonable doubt). That is a hell of a responsibility for a jury. Possibly putting an innocent man in jail or alternatively letting a victim see her assailant walk free.

If she was passed out, why did the 'eavesdropping' doorman report hearing both male and female voices after Evans had gone into the room? You say she was assaulted by two professional footballers but only one was convicted.

The CCRC may well sustain the conviction or they may deem it unsafe. If the latter then the same questions you ask of the doubters applies to those that are convinced he did it.

Time will tell.

Click to expand...

nwgull said:

I know that you and I generally share the same viewpoint on this, but I have to point out that I was talking about the Albion case, where evidence was given that the witness had a history of telling porkies, not the Evans case. I was just using it to give an example of why I think that a jury may have prejudices against professional footballers. Although apparently, having the audacity to even question that a woman might lie makes me a mysoginist.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

They don't all end up in court because as a society we are very distrustful of a women crying rape. We have an institutionalised problem with dealing with rape from the initial police interviews, through to the courts and the media. They don't all end up in court because what a victim has to go through in order to seek justice is traumatic in itself.

Of course drunken liaisons occur, but I bet inviting your mate in for a go with a passed out girl is one that thankfully doesn't happen at all often. The key piece of evidence - her initial statement didn't implicate either footballer, that is massively significant. If she was in it for revenge or the money, she'd have mentioned them by name. As it was, it was the police investigation that pieced together what had happened, and Evan's own admission that he'd had sex with her - her testimony never implicated him. His evidence didn't match with McDonald's account either in some of the crucial detail.

The victim here, after finding out she was likely assaulted by 2 professional footballers may well have tweeted / messaged regarding potential pay outs - but her lack of trauma, emotional or otherwise isn't an indicator of their innocence either as seems to be suggested - the classic, she was asking for it / she was that type / she's on the make etc.

Not only did the jury convict him unanimously, he's been refused appeal on separate occasions. If the Independent Criminal Cases Review Commission also sustain his conviction, what exactly are the doubters hiding behind here?

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

Don't twist words, at the time she would have been informed by the police that they were charging 2 men who were footballers for sexual assault, that is what would have led to her alleged deleted tweet about a supposed 'payday'. I didn't say she was assaulted by two footballers which is pretty clear if you read it properly.Are you sure you didn't say it? I refer my learned friend to the post above.

Those that doubt the conviction go against the justice system - a system we know not to be 100% secure, but one that is trusted to be reasonably close. It is far more likely for the guilty to get off under our system than the innocent go down, you are innocent until proven guilty. The justice system includes Appeal Courts and of course the CCRC so to doubt the original conviction is not going against the justice system as you put it.

Ched Evans guilt is proven at this point in time. To doubt that is to doubt that our justice system works because you can basically say that as there are unsafe convictions, then it is reasonable for you to doubt the guilt proven of any conviction, when that in fact is an unreasonable position to take. I don't doubt that Evans is currently a convicted rapist but the rest of your paragraph is absolute rubbish. You seem to imply that because someone looks at the evidence that is available and believes there are questions to ask about one particular case then they are challenging every case. If your comments were correct then there would be no appeals procedure!

The CCRC will in fact only review the case, and refer it back to the Court of Appeal if they find that there is anything within the case to signify 'a real possibility' of the decision being overturned. The Court of Appeal will decide whether the conviction is unsafe or not, the CCRC is only a referral process. Between 1997 and 2003, 5772 cases were reviewed by the CCRC, where only 4% were referred back to the Court of Appeal, and only half those referred were actually overturned.

Between 1997 and 2014 there were 16990 completed case reviews of which 565 were referred back to the Appeal court. That is just over 3.3% were considered worthy of reconsideration. 374 were quashed and 157 upheld (I presume the difference is cases pending with the Appeal Court). That's 374 people who shouldn't have been found guilty and presumably shouldn't have served any time in jail. As you can see, since your figures, the amount overturned is over two thirds of those cases referred back to the Appeal Court.

As an aside to your other point, I've been passed out in my student house living room shouting and mumbling all kinds of shit at my housemates but being unable to be woken up, none of which I had any recollection of in the morning, nor could I work out why my face had jam smeared on it, or why I was covered completely in what appeared to be a months worth of newspaper…..

Click to expand...