Ched Evans

[GBJ]

Right. So what do you suggest we replace it with?

Good question. Certainly one I can't answer. It won't ever be replaced or altered. However, that doesn't mean it's perfect. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

So we should prosecute for people's actions who don't "paint them in a great light"? Courts will be a lot busier then.

I didn't say that. I didn't even say she should be prosecuted. I'm saying that her alleged actions, haven't done anything positive for her character profile. At best, her alleged actions are incredibly shortsighted, and at worst, her alleged tweets fuel the notion that she was only looking to earn some money from the whole thing.

That is what you are doing too, it's just a different 12-person jury.

Only difference being, anyone like myself, who'd applied a drop of common sense, could see it was rubbish. Which now, had been proven right.

On a separate note, you're philosophy must be all over the place mate. You were very vocal about this case, and believed justice had been done, Has that thought changed now?

 

[southendkid]

I told a story on one thread, about how I knew first hand, that trials by jury aren't all they're cracked up to be. And furthermore, just because 12-people have seen (lack of) evidence, that doesn't mean a lot either.

Great so because one jury got it wrong that means they are useless? That's why an appeal process works, which clearly has worked since Evans was found not guilty. Unless you have a better alternative I don't see why you want to bring the jury system crashing down, it's better than anything else we have. Notably you are acting superior to the 12 people on the jury, unless you are a legal expert why should the court prioritise your opinion over 12 other people?

 

[GBJ]

Great so because one jury got it wrong that means they are useless? That's why an appeal process works, which clearly has worked since Evans was found not guilty. Unless you have a better alternative I don't see why you want to bring the jury system crashing down, it's better than anything else we have. Notably you are acting superior to the 12 people on the jury, unless you are a legal expert why should the court prioritise your opinion over 12 other people?

One jury? ONE jury? Lol. This kind of thing happens ALL the time. Guilty people walk free, whilst innocents get stitched up. You can't be that naive.

No, as I said to MK, I have no better alternative. So, because I don't have an alternative, does that means I can't criticise it?

And as I've said, it was obvious to those with any shred of commons sense that this was a jumped up charge, that should never have made court. You don't need to be a legal expert, to apply common sense. I don't need 12 people to tell me a spade is a spade

 

[Uncle Leo]

I thought this was a very interesting read on the whole sorry affair.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

 

[madaboutblues]

Ayrshire, your comment is so out of order. She never cried rape, just said she couldn't remember anything and the police then took it further.

There is a comment from Alison Philips in the Mirror today that completely sums up my opinion
"And so Ched Evans is finally innocent. Innocent of rape but not innocent of being a cheating scumbag who had sex with a girl his mate had already had sex with while his younger brother watched through a window. A woman he'd never spoken to before and afterwards left lying in a hotel room while he escaped through a fire door. All behind the back of his loyal girlfriend. This, at the very best, is the truth of Ched Evans"

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Only difference being, anyone like myself, who'd applied a drop of common sense, could see it was rubbish. Which now, had been proven right.

On a separate note, you're philosophy must be all over the place mate. You were very vocal about this case, and believed justice had been done, Has that thought changed now?

It has not been proven rubbish. A jury convicts on the balance of the evidence they hear - that doesn't mean they have to be convinced of innocence only that they are not sufficiently convinced of guilt to convict.


A large reward was offered for anyone who could assist with a not guilty verdict in a retrial. And two character witnesses came forward to speak at the second trial that did not speak at the first. Those are the only changes of circumstance that I am aware of, but then I didn't sit in on the first trail or the second and I don't believe you did either. My opinion is unchanged - the jury listens and decides on the evidence and their verdict is worth more than everyone who hasn't sat in on the trail and heard the evidence. So their opinion is worth more than mine and more than yours.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Ayrshire, your comment is so out of order. She never cried rape, just said she couldn't remember anything and the police then took it further.

There is a comment from Alison Philips in the Mirror today that completely sums up my opinion
"And so Ched Evans is finally innocent. Innocent of rape but not innocent of being a cheating scumbag who had sex with a girl his mate had already had sex with while his younger brother watched through a window. A woman he'd never spoken to before and afterwards left lying in a hotel room while he escaped through a fire door. All behind the back of his loyal girlfriend. This, at the very best, is the truth of Ched Evans"

And this he is utterly and undeniably guilty of, and one wonders what the heck his very rich girlfriend's family seriously think of bankrolling the appeal.

 

[migraineboy]

And this he is utterly and undeniably guilty of, and one wonders what the heck his very rich girlfriend's family seriously think of bankrolling the appeal.

and not just bankrolling his appeal. When Oldham tried to sign him (when he was a convicted rapist), the fiancée's father offered to cover any shortfall the clubs would suffer if sponsors dropped out! Such a charming story. The "money can buy anything" theory obviously runs deep in her family

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-losses-Oldham-signed-convicted-rapist.html

 

[southendkid]

One jury? ONE jury? Lol. This kind of thing happens ALL the time. Guilty people walk free, whilst innocents get stitched up. You can't be that naive.

No, as I said to MK, I have no better alternative. So, because I don't have an alternative, does that means I can't criticise it?

And as I've said, it was obvious to those with any shred of commons sense that this was a jumped up charge, that should never have made court. You don't need to be a legal expert, to apply common sense. I don't need 12 people to tell me a spade is a spade

It was 'obvious' to some people that Evans was definitely guilty of rape, I suspect in a parallel universe where he had been found guilty again people would be bragging about how it was 'obvious' from the start he was guilty and team Ched didn't have a clue, just like some people here are trying to make out this was the easiest case ever and Ched must have been stitched up in some way.

The reality is whatever the verdict was there was going to be a group of people convinced they were suddenly legal experts because they got a decision with only 2 possible outcomes correct. You could have flipped a coin and had a 50% chance of being right. Unless you have a law degree I'd like to know on what basis you are claiming this was a jumped up charge that should never have made court. I'm not saying the legal system is perfect but I'd prefer it to just letting everyone run wild unless there's no possible way they were innocent.

 

[pottster]

For me the whole case relies on consent. Was it obtained? I work in the health sector and consent relies on three elements. Knowing all the facts, mental capacity and free from coercion. I feel that none of these elements were achieved no matter what other witnesses say. If anything this case says more about what sort of person ched and his girlfriends family are.

 

[rigsby]

It has not been proven rubbish. A jury convicts on the balance of the evidence they hear - that doesn't mean they have to be convinced of innocence only that they are not sufficiently convinced of guilt to convict.


A large reward was offered for anyone who could assist with a not guilty verdict in a retrial. And two character witnesses came forward to speak at the second trial that did not speak at the first. Those are the only changes of circumstance that I am aware of, but then I didn't sit in on the first trail or the second and I don't believe you did either. My opinion is unchanged - the jury listens and decides on the evidence and their verdict is worth more than everyone who hasn't sat in on the trail and heard the evidence. So their opinion is worth more than mine and more than yours.

No they don't. A military court martial is decided on the balance, or probability. Same if your charged in the police or Firebrigade etc.

Under the jury system it has to be beyond ALL reasonable doubt. The girl in this case claims she can't remember saying yes or no. The two men in the room said she did. So there is clearly reasonable doubt because its only 50/50 whether an offence has actually happened.

Her Ladyship and both her daughters have commented on this case and all of them say a woman would remember who she slept with unless she was comatose. We know from witness statements and the reception CCTV the girl was not that drunk.

The fact she removed her Txts and Facebook postings for just the Sunday after the event is enough reasonable doubt alone.

Sadly what was not on trial is Ched Evans or the girls behaviour. This is not to cool in the modern world but how about taking some responsibility for you own actions. Both of them could have saved themselves a lot of agro if they had acted with an ounce of dignity. The Police and prosecution service don't come out of this in a good light either.

The moral of the story is...Ladies if you have to do the walk of shame in the morning don't blame anyone else, remember it was fun at the time. Lads if you are feeling guilty when you wake up at least be polite to the girl and order her a taxi, if may save you a world of s***

 

[MK Shrimper]

No they don't. A military court martial is decided on the balance, or probability. Same if your charged in the police or Firebrigade etc.

Under the jury system it has to be beyond ALL reasonable doubt.

I've sat on a jury (actually been the foreman) and you can never, ever know "beyond all reasonable doubt". The case I had was child abuse (fortunately not sexual). I had the woman's mother plead that her daughter was a good mother and what she had done was an accident, and I had doctors saying that "it might have been" and I had experts saying that "it must have been deliberate". Unless you witness it with your own eyes you can never, ever be 100% sure of somebody's guilt.

We found her guilty and then, and only then did the judge reel off a list of previous convictions and the fact that her boyfriend admitted the charge and was already doing time. I had a few strange days of thinking that we were never ever 100% convinced and if we'd found her not guilty, lord knows what her poor kids may have gone through in the future.

 

[GBJ]

It has not been proven rubbish. A jury convicts on the balance of the evidence they hear - that doesn't mean they have to be convinced of innocence only that they are not sufficiently convinced of guilt to convict.


A large reward was offered for anyone who could assist with a not guilty verdict in a retrial. And two character witnesses came forward to speak at the second trial that did not speak at the first. Those are the only changes of circumstance that I am aware of, but then I didn't sit in on the first trail or the second and I don't believe you did either. My opinion is unchanged - the jury listens and decides on the evidence and their verdict is worth more than everyone who hasn't sat in on the trail and heard the evidence. So their opinion is worth more than mine and more than yours.

Nice swerve.

It was 'obvious' to some people that Evans was definitely guilty of rape, I suspect in a parallel universe where he had been found guilty again people would be bragging about how it was 'obvious' from the start he was guilty and team Ched didn't have a clue, just like some people here are trying to make out this was the easiest case ever and Ched must have been stitched up in some way.

Lol You're just going round in circles. The fact remains, It was glaringly obvious that he wasn't guilty, from the start. Common sense dictated that. If you didn't didn't see it like that, then I've got some bad news for you :thumbsup:

The reality is whatever the verdict was there was going to be a group of people convinced they were suddenly legal experts because they got a decision with only 2 possible outcomes correct. You could have flipped a coin and had a 50% chance of being right. Unless you have a law degree I'd like to know on what basis you are claiming this was a jumped up charge that should never have made court. I'm not saying the legal system is perfect but I'd prefer it to just letting everyone run wild unless there's no possible way they were innocent.

See answer above. Don't need to be a legal beagle, to possess University of Life common sense

 

[GBJ]

I've sat on a jury (actually been the foreman) and you can never, ever know "beyond all reasonable doubt". The case I had was child abuse (fortunately not sexual). I had the woman's mother plead that her daughter was a good mother and what she had done was an accident, and I had doctors saying that "it might have been" and I had experts saying that "it must have been deliberate". Unless you witness it with your own eyes you can never, ever be 100% sure of somebody's guilt.

We found her guilty and then, and only then did the judge reel off a list of previous convictions and the fact that her boyfriend admitted the charge and was already doing time. I had a few strange days of thinking that we were never ever 100% convinced and if we'd found her not guilty, lord knows what her poor kids may have gone through in the future.

And that's the exact reason why common sense needs to come into play, because in cases like the one you've mentioned, rule books and guidelines go out the window.

 

[MK Shrimper]

And that's the exact reason why common sense needs to come into play, because in cases like the one you've mentioned, rule books and guidelines go out the window.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Common sense? How could I have known she abused her own daughter unless I watched her do it. You have to rely on the testament of witnesses (who lie) and experts (who can get it wrong). Mate, it is far from easy and remember, I was in a position that meant she probably had her kids taken off her and put into care and IF we found her not guility, she could have done far worse than thrown boiling hot water over the legs of her own child.

 

[OldBlueLady]

My experience of jury service (20 odd years ago) was something similar, a case of a taxi driver being accused of sexual assault. Again, after we'd found him not guilty, we were told that the woman concerned had a history of making these kind of accusations.

You can never know 100% in these cases. Ditto with Ched Evans.

 

[GBJ]

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Common sense? How could I have known she abused her own daughter unless I watched her do it. You have to rely on the testament of witnesses (who lie) and experts (who can get it wrong). Mate, it is far from easy and remember, I was in a position that meant she probably had her kids taken off her and put into care and IF we found her not guility, she could have done far worse than thrown boiling hot water over the legs of her own child.

Common sense - as in, it's almost too difficult to call it one way or another, so guidelines & rule books to following evidence & experts, take a backseat, and you're own judgement, comes into it.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Common sense - as in, it's almost too difficult to call it one way or another, so guidelines & rule books to following evidence & experts, take a backseat, and you're own judgement, comes into it.

And your own judgement is made by the evidence that you hear and see with your own senses. The woman on trial looked like any other you'd see in the street or living next door - but this woman was physically abusing the children that she'd given birth to.

Until you're on a jury and having to deliver a verdict that will impact someone's life (and those around them) forever - and I can't state this strongly enough - it is not easy.

 

[rigsby]

I've sat on a jury (actually been the foreman) and you can never, ever know "beyond all reasonable doubt". The case I had was child abuse (fortunately not sexual). I had the woman's mother plead that her daughter was a good mother and what she had done was an accident, and I had doctors saying that "it might have been" and I had experts saying that "it must have been deliberate". Unless you witness it with your own eyes you can never, ever be 100% sure of somebody's guilt.

We found her guilty and then, and only then did the judge reel off a list of previous convictions and the fact that her boyfriend admitted the charge and was already doing time. I had a few strange days of thinking that we were never ever 100% convinced and if we'd found her not guilty, lord knows what her poor kids may have gone through in the future.

Yes you can. We have DNA and fingerprints etc. I was due to give evidence as an eye witness at the Old Bailey but the accused pleaded guilty in the end because the evidence against him was proving beyond all reasonable doubt.

In your case it opens up the debate of whether previous convictions etc should be disclosed. Which does have a link to the Ched Evans case because her previous and post sexual history was allowed as evidence in the retrial.

Some groups have complained that it should never have been allowed, which of course is debateable. One of them is the former solicitor general Vera Baird. Some of you may have heard of this woman she is now police and crime commissioner for Northumbria. She has stated that men should be charged with rape even if the woman gives consent when she is drunk. She is furious that the case was quashed and a retrial allowed.

Of course we would then be having court cases about how drunk is drunk, I'm sure we all have our own set of guidelines.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Yes you can. We have DNA and fingerprints etc. I was due to give evidence as an eye witness at the Old Bailey but the accused pleaded guilty in the end because the evidence against him was proving beyond all reasonable doubt.

In your case it opens up the debate of whether previous convictions etc should be disclosed. Which does have a link to the Ched Evans case because her previous and post sexual history was allowed as evidence in the retrial.

Some groups have complained that it should never have been allowed, which of course is debateable. One of them is the former solicitor general Vera Baird. Some of you may have heard of this woman she is now police and crime commissioner for Northumbria. She has stated that men should be charged with rape even if the woman gives consent when she is drunk. She is furious that the case was quashed and a retrial allowed.

Of course we would then be having court cases about how drunk is drunk, I'm sure we all have our own set of guidelines.

Nope. DNA evidence can be tampered with, or samples tainted.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...-DNA-evidence-errors-98-cases-Adam-Scott-case

One of the concerns expressed in the Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2007 report The Forensic Use Of Bioinformation: Ethical Issues was that "the 'prosecutor's fallacy' has compromised the use of DNA evidence for a fair trial". The fallacy here is the idea that as the DNA profile generated from stains found at a crime scene matches the suspect's DNA profile, and as there is only a one in a billion chance of it also matching someone else's profile, then there is a one in a billion chance that the suspect is innocent. But DNA evidence simply can't on its own tell you whether or not someone is guilty.