Search results

That could be investigated and easily proved as collusion.

Indeed. That's one of the reasons I have my doubts about her testimony, having read it on the crimeline.

Yet she claimed to have been given a spiked drink.

She didn't meet McDonald until the early hours of the morning, going to the hotel with him at 4am. She didn't wake up until 11.30am so she didn't do a day's shift at work.

We don't know what new evidence is being offered. I very much doubt it would be a retrial but a conviction being quashed as happened with the Birmingham Six, for example.

She could have lied about not knowing she'd given consent. There was a lot of debate about how much, if any alcohol she had consumed. There was no alcohol found in her system when the doctors took blood samples.

New evidence could mean that the defence have got proof that the victim lied, or a witness who saw the victim taking drugs which she denied, for example? I'm not saying that she did lie, but it would be new evidence.

It wasn't to do with football.

There have been at least 23 arrests made on suspicion of naming the victim by different people, 10 of whom ended up in court. Even last she was illegally named on Twitter, so it isn't just his defence team.

He did. If you read the case search link that I posted, it is a shortened transcript of the trial.

No, she called the police when she woke up at 11.30am. She had entered the hotel at 4.15am, apparently very drunk, but tests at 11.30 showed no alcohol in her system at all. The complainant said that her next memory was waking up in the hotel room at about 11.30am. She realised that she was...

When she was tested the following day for alcohol, there was none in her system, but there were traces of cocaine and cannabis. The victim alleged that she was given a spiked drink. https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

Nor me, and I also read a lot of the details.

His defence has got some new evidence, which was needed for it to have even been sent for appeal.

This was the club that signed an unrepentant Lee Hughes, so they've been there before.

553162934915203073

He was refused leave to appeal so hasn't had an appeal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20219573 His defence launched a bid to get an appeal last July which hasn't been granted or refused. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-28385532

That's my whole point. The media and internet have exaggerated it a lot more than other convicted criminals. I'm not saying it's right, but there does seem to be a bandwagon everyone is jumping on.

We've had convicted criminals playing for us in recent history.

He killed someone and didn't show remorse. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478293/Disgraced-footballer-Lee-Hughes-pleads-second-chance-rebuild-life.html