Ched Evans

[londonblue]

Am guessing it is dependant on how strong this "fresh evidence" is. Can't be that strong as courts had option today to completely waive charge. The fact they have ordered re-trial indicates no conclusion is foregone

Sounds logical, but who knows!

 

[Supernaut]

Do you know if the statistics quoted are for retrials in general, or for ones where the retrial is ordered by the court of appeal? If it's the latter then he's got a very good chance. If it's the former, then those statistics don't really mean a lot since it might be that they are skewed by other possibilities.

Trying to find the article now to doublecheck but not having any luck. I believe it was referring specifically to re-trials ordered by the Court of Appeal.

 

[Cockle43]

Is that just an assumption or do you happen to know that re-trials usually end in an acquittal? I'm no lawyer, I'm just interested in how you come to that conclusion.

The assumption is being made on the basis that if the judges in the Appeal Court were so minded that the new evidence was sufficient to convince them to quash the original conviction then it could also be assumed that they would think it will be enough to convince a jury at a re-trial. This is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw, HOWEVER, and it is a big however, because it is going to a re-trial it means it will be going before a new jury of twelve ordinary people and there's no telling which way they may go. One could take the view that if the Appeal Court was persuaded then so should a jury but I haven't seen the new evidence so would not want to second guess a jury, I've seen some juries come up with some strange decisions over the years....

 

[kaymac]

He and notably his family have behaved like scum all through from pre-trial to post-trial. Wouldn't want any association with such a character never mind how capable he is (or isn't) as a football player.

 

[londonblue]

Trying to find the article now to doublecheck but not having any luck. I believe it was referring specifically to re-trials ordered by the Court of Appeal.

Very interesting...

 

[GBJ]

He and notably his family have behaved like scum all through from pre-trial to post-trial.

Put yourselves in their shoes though. Imagine it was your son or brother, and you knew he was telling the truth. How would you act? I'm not sure many people would be calm & refined. I know I wouldn't.

 

[Pubey]

Put yourselves in their shoes though. Imagine it was your son or brother, and you knew he was telling the truth. How would you act? I'm not sure many people would be calm & refined. I know I wouldn't.

How can they know that he was telling the truth? The only people who know the truth are Evans and potentially Clayton Donaldson. The victim allegedly can't remember what happened.

And even then they (Evans) might know what happened but still don't understand whether or not it was rape. There is a worrying lack of understanding about consent, across the population.

 

[GBJ]

How can they know that he was telling the truth? The only people who know the truth are Evans and potentially Clayton Donaldson. The victim allegedly can't remember what happened.

And even then they (Evans) might know what happened but still don't understand whether or not it was rape. There is a worrying lack of understanding about consent, across the population.

Are you telling me, you can't look into a close family member's eyes & tell if they're lying, or being honest? :stunned:

 

[GBJ]

Scary attitude that a retrial would have an assumed outcome

Meh, not as scary as assuming beyond all doubt that a defendant can be innocent or guilty, just because a jury said so. I was just reading back through the thread I made a few years ago, on the subject. I'd be interested in your opinions, if he's cleared

But some seem not to see rape as a serious crime and quite a few are not convinced he is guilty despite the fact that a jury heard all the evidence and testimonies and found him guilty - I find both of those things alarming.

It seems you have written a lot and said very little other than you are not convinced by anything one way or another. I'd suggest a start point is that he is guilty because a jury looked at the evidence and heard the testimonies and from that were convinced of his guilt. I'd suggest that as a start point.


The desire of a few on here to assume someone is innocent despite the court ruling is absurd.


The disservice that had been done on here to the legal service and more importantly to victims of rape is astonishing. I swear some people are approaching this with a misogynistic mindset because there can't be that many people who love a conspiracy theory so much that that would employ a convicted rapist because 'well, did he actually though?'. A judge and jury's opinion is not as valid as some spod who read a couple of newspaper reports on the case?

 

[MK Shrimper]

Are you telling me, you can't look into a close family member's eyes & tell if they're lying, or being honest? :stunned:

Not got kids have you.....:smile:

 

[Pubey]

Are you telling me, you can't look into a close family member's eyes & tell if they're lying, or being honest? :stunned:

I'd like to think so, but I wouldn't be confident about everyone's ability to do that, and I've also met some pretty convincing liars.

 

[Napster]

Meh, not as scary as assuming beyond all doubt that a defendant can be innocent or guilty, just because a jury said so.

Not really - in the UK, you are presumed innocent unless proved beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty. Plus, the jury has access to all the evidence, not just that which has been filtered by the media.

 

[Napster]

I'd like to think so, but I wouldn't be confident about everyone's ability to do that, and I've also met some pretty convincing liars.

Have I told you you write great posts.

 

[GBJ]

Not got kids have you.....:smile:

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

I'd like to think so, but I wouldn't be confident about everyone's ability to do that, and I've also met some pretty convincing liars.

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.

Not really - in the UK, you are presumed innocent unless proved beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty. Plus, the jury has access to all the evidence, not just that which has been filtered by the media.

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

 

[Napster]

I know PERSONALLY, of guilty people, who've been found innocent :hilarious:

Ah but law dictates that you are innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the prosecution to make the case for guilt.

 

[londonblue]

Ah but law dictates that you are innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the prosecution to make the case for guilt.

Indeed. No-one is found innocent. They are found not guilty. This is where the Scottish have an interesting option of not proven, which effectively means they think someone is guilty, but the prosecution haven't proved it.

 

[GBJ]

Ah but law dictates that you are innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the prosecution to make the case for guilt.

Which, IMO, is quite fallible. I know it's all we've got, but Hence, I don't put blind faith & trust into the justice system. Especially when there are so many variables.

 

[southendkid]

Are you telling me, you can't look into a close family member's eyes & tell if they're lying, or being honest? :stunned:

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

 

[rigsby]

How can they know that he was telling the truth? The only people who know the truth are Evans and potentially Clayton Donaldson. The victim allegedly can't remember what happened.

And even then they (Evans) might know what happened but still don't understand whether or not it was rape. There is a worrying lack of understanding about consent, across the population.

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.

 

[RHB]

I didn't want him last time we had this discussion, and I don't want him now.