| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic 12:17 - Jan 4 with 57110 views | exiledclaseboy |
Apparently. Cue a few days of outraged reaction until Oldham change their mind. |  |
| |  |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:13 - Jan 8 with 1411 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:09 - Jan 8 by trampie |
Something needed to change you say ?, I thought you had to be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt ?
Not talking about the Evans case now, the nature of the crime of rape is often there are no witnesses, if one party says there was consent and the other party says there wasn't any, is society/law courts taking the word of one party over another ?, i'm very uneasy about that. |
Even more uneasy when no party says the was no consent. As is the case here. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:21 - Jan 8 with 1397 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:13 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Even more uneasy when no party says the was no consent. As is the case here. |
Even less uneasy when the victim was unable to remember / not in a condition to give consent, ergo the victim did not give consent. As is the case here. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:27 - Jan 8 with 1381 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:21 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
Even less uneasy when the victim was unable to remember / not in a condition to give consent, ergo the victim did not give consent. As is the case here. |
The same victim in which if you read the case reports said to the police "i felt tipsy but not out of control" you mean? | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:29 - Jan 8 with 1379 views | trampie |
For every 100 juries trying the Evans case I wonder how many of those juries would have found him guilty ?
All of them ?, a majority of them ?, a minority of them ? or one of them [the one that did find him guilty] ? |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:29 - Jan 8 with 1375 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:27 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
The same victim in which if you read the case reports said to the police "i felt tipsy but not out of control" you mean? |
The same victim who if you read the court case transcripts stated she could not remembers events after the pizza store you mean? | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:30 - Jan 8 with 1372 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:29 - Jan 8 by trampie |
For every 100 juries trying the Evans case I wonder how many of those juries would have found him guilty ?
All of them ?, a majority of them ?, a minority of them ? or one of them [the one that did find him guilty] ? |
If they had the same Judge, probably most of them, if not all. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:32 - Jan 8 with 1360 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:29 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
The same victim who if you read the court case transcripts stated she could not remembers events after the pizza store you mean? |
Yes the very same.
The same one that is seen quite happily walking into the hotel and having the cognitive thought to realise that Donaldson had left the pizza on the pavement so went outside, bent down in her high heels without so much as a wobble to pick it up and go back inside.
Not remembering is not a sign of guilt. Does that mean she did not get in the taxi, she did not pick up the pizza... Just because she didn't remember doing so? No. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:35 - Jan 8 with 1356 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:32 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Yes the very same.
The same one that is seen quite happily walking into the hotel and having the cognitive thought to realise that Donaldson had left the pizza on the pavement so went outside, bent down in her high heels without so much as a wobble to pick it up and go back inside.
Not remembering is not a sign of guilt. Does that mean she did not get in the taxi, she did not pick up the pizza... Just because she didn't remember doing so? No. |
The CCTV footage you picked up from the chedevans.com website which is selectively editted and misses out later cctv which showed her to be in a state, you mean?
She was PROVEN to have picked up the pizza. PROVEN to have got in the taxi. Why? Because there was footage substantiating that. Hence those events happened.
You're claiming that due to that she therefore must have given consent despite not remembering, which is a reach even for you. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:35 - Jan 8 with 1355 views | jackonicko |
Well, I'm happy to give this a shot.
It's impossible for anyone on here to give a solid opinion on the evidence, as none of us (I presume) were on the jury to hear and see all the evidence presented. Even if you had read all of the transcripts (I haven't), you still don't get the full story as you don't have the benefit of the way in which witness evidence is presented by the person, either in their evidence in chief, or in the way they handle cross examination.
The way in which questions are answered, body language etc is just as important as the words that are said. You don't get that from a transcript.
For a considered opinion, in my opinion you also need to have an understanding of the law and the legal system. What actually consitutes the offence of rape and what are the points that need to be proved, beyond reasonable doubt. How does the legal system work in terms of the collation, disclosure, presentation and examination of evidence.
Finally, you also need to have an understanding of the role of the judge versus the jury - bluntly, the jury decides on questions of fact and the judge decides on questions of law. In the Ched case, the Judge determined that the case was proved on points of law, and the jury decided on points of fact. Beyond reasonable doubt.
A large number of claims of rape never even reach trial. Either the victim doesn't want to go to trial, or the CPS determines that the likelihood of success is so low that it is not worth proceeding. In most cases of rape, it is the word of one person against another and the chances of a jury reaching a verdict beyond reasonable doubt is much lower.
Even if it reaches a trial, many defendants are found not guilty because - on the facts - the jury cannot reach a decision beyond reasonable doubt. For the same reasons as above - it is often the word of one against the other.
The Ched case is interesting because at the material time, it is not the word of one against the other. It is only the words of the defendants, and other witnesses, that are taken into account as to whether the victim consented or not. The victim cannot remember - and therefore offers up no evidence at the material times.
Bearing in mind the statistical analysis above, you would expect the jury more likely than not to find the defendant not guilty when they are only hearing the words of one side. But they didn't. They sat and listened to all the evidence, largely from those who were accused of the crime, and based on what they said and how they said it, and they still found them guilty.
Now, is this because the jury were not properly directed by the judge? Well, no. That route to appeal has already been denied with more senior judges deciding that the judge properly directed the jury in his summing up of the case. So, a jury, properly directed by the judge, having heard all the evidence, still convicted them against all the statistical odds.
The judge in his summing up said this:
A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty.
Based on the evidence that I have read, which is some of the transcripts and some of the balanced news reporting, I can see why a jury might reach the conclusion it did. Had I heard the evidence in person, I could perhaps even more easily see why they did. It is not as risky, or unsound, or as flimsy as some here and elsewhere suggest. It seems to me a perfectly plausible conclusion to reach.
Her failure to recollect what happened at the time is evidence itself of a failure to be able to consent. She was too drunk to remember, ergo too drunk to consent. You can be sure that she would have been heavily cross examined on her memory or her lack of it, but she stood up to it and the jury believed her. I have been on the receiving end of cross examination from talented barristers, and believe me, it's not as easy as you think it might be to bluff your way through it. These guys are incredibly good at getting to the truth in cross examination.
So, the jury heard evidence from the defendants, the giggling tw*ts outside the window and the hotel porter. I'm not sure, but I presume they may have also seen the video evidence from the phones? Having heard all of that, in the round, they concluded (based on the judges summing up) that she was incapable of consenting to Ched. That doesn't seem like an incredible conclusion to reach. I also see no inconsistency with the verdict that the other defendant was found not guilty.
I have also read the Ched Evans view from his website. Most of it is distasteful, largely and transparently biased and often simply seeks to smear the character of the victim. Very little of it is evidence in the legal sense of the word, and what there is (in some places admittedly cleverly) twisted to suit Ched's story. For example, the subtle changing of the text to Ched that says I've got a girl rather than I've got a bird.
There is nothing on there or elsewhere to suggest evidence that will win a right to appeal, let alone the appeal itself. The jury has already decided on questions of fact and you can't have an appeal that decision because you disagree with it. You need new, and material evidence, for an appeal and I've seen nothing yet that suggests they will do that.
Of course, they might. There may be things that come out subsequently which change the position entirely. In which case, Ched can have his second day in court. My faith in the legal system extends to the appeals process too.
But in the meantime, Ched is and remains a convicted rapist. Tried by a jury of peers and found guilty notwithstanding the unlikeliness of the verdict. Rape is a serious offence. End of. Yes there are sentencing guidelines which increase the penalty for aggravating factors but every rape is a serious offence. Only Shaky and Professor Dawkins are stupid enough it seems to call some types of rape "mild". Mild is never an appropriate word to use to describe one end of the spectrum. How about a spectrum of serious to very fu(king serious? It doesn't really matter - thankfully nothing in the sentencing guidelines uses words as carelessly and thoughtlessly as Shaky and the Prof.
His conduct since his release also suggests to me, in my opinion, that he is a thoroughly unpleasant guy. I don't want him at Swansea City and I applaud every football club that takes the same decision. JVZ should be embarrassed for even giving the slightest impression that Swansea City would welcome him to us for a second chance. We shouldn't. Thankfully, he is nowhere near talented enough anyway.
Football clubs are communites, important parts of our society, and, like it or not, footballers are role models to young people. Of course there is no legal restriction and everyone has the right to return to work. But football clubs also have the right to decline to offer to employ him, and I hope they all do.
All of them. |  | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:36 - Jan 8 with 1355 views | trampie |
Years ago parents tended to worry about their young daughters when they started going out, for a lot of parents now some of them must be worried about their young sons going out.
Boy meets girl, boy ends up in clink if he is not careful/unlucky even depending on the circumstance ?
The way law courts are going, young men better be careful, its a worry for parents of young sons which is a reverse on how things used to be. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:41 - Jan 8 with 1341 views | trampie |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:30 - Jan 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
If they had the same Judge, probably most of them, if not all. |
Yes, I've seen that situation in my view happen before with a relatively famous televised case, I read the case correctly all along and knew what the verdict was going to be, although I thought it would be the wrong verdict I thought the jury would reach what I thought was the wrong verdict partly because of the judge in the case. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:43 - Jan 8 with 1333 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:36 - Jan 8 by trampie |
Years ago parents tended to worry about their young daughters when they started going out, for a lot of parents now some of them must be worried about their young sons going out.
Boy meets girl, boy ends up in clink if he is not careful/unlucky even depending on the circumstance ?
The way law courts are going, young men better be careful, its a worry for parents of young sons which is a reverse on how things used to be. |
You say careful, others would say be more respectful of women irrespective of their sobriety.
You claim it's a reverse - or maybe things are getting better. The woefully low number of rape cases let alone convictions historically have meant plenty of men have been getting away with rape over the years.
I'm sure some would claim most women are lying liars or shouldn't have got drunk, but thankfully civilisation has evolved. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:43 - Jan 8 with 1330 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:35 - Jan 8 by jackonicko |
Well, I'm happy to give this a shot.
It's impossible for anyone on here to give a solid opinion on the evidence, as none of us (I presume) were on the jury to hear and see all the evidence presented. Even if you had read all of the transcripts (I haven't), you still don't get the full story as you don't have the benefit of the way in which witness evidence is presented by the person, either in their evidence in chief, or in the way they handle cross examination.
The way in which questions are answered, body language etc is just as important as the words that are said. You don't get that from a transcript.
For a considered opinion, in my opinion you also need to have an understanding of the law and the legal system. What actually consitutes the offence of rape and what are the points that need to be proved, beyond reasonable doubt. How does the legal system work in terms of the collation, disclosure, presentation and examination of evidence.
Finally, you also need to have an understanding of the role of the judge versus the jury - bluntly, the jury decides on questions of fact and the judge decides on questions of law. In the Ched case, the Judge determined that the case was proved on points of law, and the jury decided on points of fact. Beyond reasonable doubt.
A large number of claims of rape never even reach trial. Either the victim doesn't want to go to trial, or the CPS determines that the likelihood of success is so low that it is not worth proceeding. In most cases of rape, it is the word of one person against another and the chances of a jury reaching a verdict beyond reasonable doubt is much lower.
Even if it reaches a trial, many defendants are found not guilty because - on the facts - the jury cannot reach a decision beyond reasonable doubt. For the same reasons as above - it is often the word of one against the other.
The Ched case is interesting because at the material time, it is not the word of one against the other. It is only the words of the defendants, and other witnesses, that are taken into account as to whether the victim consented or not. The victim cannot remember - and therefore offers up no evidence at the material times.
Bearing in mind the statistical analysis above, you would expect the jury more likely than not to find the defendant not guilty when they are only hearing the words of one side. But they didn't. They sat and listened to all the evidence, largely from those who were accused of the crime, and based on what they said and how they said it, and they still found them guilty.
Now, is this because the jury were not properly directed by the judge? Well, no. That route to appeal has already been denied with more senior judges deciding that the judge properly directed the jury in his summing up of the case. So, a jury, properly directed by the judge, having heard all the evidence, still convicted them against all the statistical odds.
The judge in his summing up said this:
A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty.
Based on the evidence that I have read, which is some of the transcripts and some of the balanced news reporting, I can see why a jury might reach the conclusion it did. Had I heard the evidence in person, I could perhaps even more easily see why they did. It is not as risky, or unsound, or as flimsy as some here and elsewhere suggest. It seems to me a perfectly plausible conclusion to reach.
Her failure to recollect what happened at the time is evidence itself of a failure to be able to consent. She was too drunk to remember, ergo too drunk to consent. You can be sure that she would have been heavily cross examined on her memory or her lack of it, but she stood up to it and the jury believed her. I have been on the receiving end of cross examination from talented barristers, and believe me, it's not as easy as you think it might be to bluff your way through it. These guys are incredibly good at getting to the truth in cross examination.
So, the jury heard evidence from the defendants, the giggling tw*ts outside the window and the hotel porter. I'm not sure, but I presume they may have also seen the video evidence from the phones? Having heard all of that, in the round, they concluded (based on the judges summing up) that she was incapable of consenting to Ched. That doesn't seem like an incredible conclusion to reach. I also see no inconsistency with the verdict that the other defendant was found not guilty.
I have also read the Ched Evans view from his website. Most of it is distasteful, largely and transparently biased and often simply seeks to smear the character of the victim. Very little of it is evidence in the legal sense of the word, and what there is (in some places admittedly cleverly) twisted to suit Ched's story. For example, the subtle changing of the text to Ched that says I've got a girl rather than I've got a bird.
There is nothing on there or elsewhere to suggest evidence that will win a right to appeal, let alone the appeal itself. The jury has already decided on questions of fact and you can't have an appeal that decision because you disagree with it. You need new, and material evidence, for an appeal and I've seen nothing yet that suggests they will do that.
Of course, they might. There may be things that come out subsequently which change the position entirely. In which case, Ched can have his second day in court. My faith in the legal system extends to the appeals process too.
But in the meantime, Ched is and remains a convicted rapist. Tried by a jury of peers and found guilty notwithstanding the unlikeliness of the verdict. Rape is a serious offence. End of. Yes there are sentencing guidelines which increase the penalty for aggravating factors but every rape is a serious offence. Only Shaky and Professor Dawkins are stupid enough it seems to call some types of rape "mild". Mild is never an appropriate word to use to describe one end of the spectrum. How about a spectrum of serious to very fu(king serious? It doesn't really matter - thankfully nothing in the sentencing guidelines uses words as carelessly and thoughtlessly as Shaky and the Prof.
His conduct since his release also suggests to me, in my opinion, that he is a thoroughly unpleasant guy. I don't want him at Swansea City and I applaud every football club that takes the same decision. JVZ should be embarrassed for even giving the slightest impression that Swansea City would welcome him to us for a second chance. We shouldn't. Thankfully, he is nowhere near talented enough anyway.
Football clubs are communites, important parts of our society, and, like it or not, footballers are role models to young people. Of course there is no legal restriction and everyone has the right to return to work. But football clubs also have the right to decline to offer to employ him, and I hope they all do.
All of them. |
Finally a nice well thought out retort.
I completely disagree with it though. Body language and how someone answers something does not prove guilt, only a perception of guilt - which is something that should never be taken into consideration as a base for guilt.
We have to prove someones guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" - there is no scenario where we can do that without either Ched of Donaldson confessing to the rape.
The "victims" testimony to the police was that she was indeed in control of her actions and only felt "tipsy" - CCtV footage back at the hotel also backs this up.
If there is no solid evidence then he is innocent. There is none.
Yes he is a convicted rapist but that seems awfully weak and nobody has come up with a single piece of evidence clearly showing he raped her. Just circumstantial evidence of what people thought went on - and that is the big big mistake here. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:52 - Jan 8 with 1314 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:35 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
The CCTV footage you picked up from the chedevans.com website which is selectively editted and misses out later cctv which showed her to be in a state, you mean?
She was PROVEN to have picked up the pizza. PROVEN to have got in the taxi. Why? Because there was footage substantiating that. Hence those events happened.
You're claiming that due to that she therefore must have given consent despite not remembering, which is a reach even for you. |
Ah so i wasn't really her being able to use cognitive thought and pick something off the floor in high heels without a wobble then? That bloody Evans family.
Again your understanding of the law is falling flat. In no way am I saying her being in a cognitive state at the hotel means she consented. I am saying being in a cognitive state at the hotel means she was able to give consent if she so wished. She doesn't say she didn't give it.
So to assume she didnt from that and convict a man for 5 years... Would be the mistake | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:54 - Jan 8 with 1307 views | trampie |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:43 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
You say careful, others would say be more respectful of women irrespective of their sobriety.
You claim it's a reverse - or maybe things are getting better. The woefully low number of rape cases let alone convictions historically have meant plenty of men have been getting away with rape over the years.
I'm sure some would claim most women are lying liars or shouldn't have got drunk, but thankfully civilisation has evolved. |
You say plenty of men have been getting away with rape over the years, but women could be getting away with false accusations.
Beyond reasonable doubt, if a case cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt people should not be found guilty surely. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:57 - Jan 8 with 1299 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:52 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Ah so i wasn't really her being able to use cognitive thought and pick something off the floor in high heels without a wobble then? That bloody Evans family.
Again your understanding of the law is falling flat. In no way am I saying her being in a cognitive state at the hotel means she consented. I am saying being in a cognitive state at the hotel means she was able to give consent if she so wished. She doesn't say she didn't give it.
So to assume she didnt from that and convict a man for 5 years... Would be the mistake |
I'm prepared to accept you've not got the familiarity with many females to grasp that some have perfected wearing high heels regardless of drunkenness. I'm also interested in why a seeker of justice hasn't wondered why the Evans family have only put partial footage up on their website and not all CCTV footage made available to the defence.
Your understanding of the law in plain incorrect. Evidence presented showed the victim was not in a cognitive state capable of giving consent; the victim say she didn't give it - she was unable to remember. It isn't a case from there that it was "assumed". If a victim is deemed unable to consent then the clear legal position was that NO consent was given.
Assumptions, eh? Might want to get back reading those court transcripts. Or notes. Yeah, we'll go with notes. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:59 - Jan 8 with 1292 views | Shaky |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:29 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
The same victim who if you read the court case transcripts stated she could not remembers events after the pizza store you mean? |
That's an F for you; think you'll find it was a kebab shop.
Better go back an read up on those case notes again. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:02 - Jan 8 with 1290 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:57 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
I'm prepared to accept you've not got the familiarity with many females to grasp that some have perfected wearing high heels regardless of drunkenness. I'm also interested in why a seeker of justice hasn't wondered why the Evans family have only put partial footage up on their website and not all CCTV footage made available to the defence.
Your understanding of the law in plain incorrect. Evidence presented showed the victim was not in a cognitive state capable of giving consent; the victim say she didn't give it - she was unable to remember. It isn't a case from there that it was "assumed". If a victim is deemed unable to consent then the clear legal position was that NO consent was given.
Assumptions, eh? Might want to get back reading those court transcripts. Or notes. Yeah, we'll go with notes. |
Oooh resorting to that now. Lets tell my fiancee of 9 years that then 
So they have perfected the ability to balance in high heels picking things up off the ground and walking quite easily with no sign of drunkenness, but haven't perfected to be able to make a decision in that same state. Don't be so ridiculous and offensive to women.
My understanding of the law is spot on, yours is laughable assuming that someone has to prove their innocence, you have made that mistake multiple times.
The victim DID NOT say she didnt give it. You sure you read those notey trascripteys troll?
Try again. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:02 - Jan 8 with 1290 views | Shaky |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:43 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Finally a nice well thought out retort.
I completely disagree with it though. Body language and how someone answers something does not prove guilt, only a perception of guilt - which is something that should never be taken into consideration as a base for guilt.
We have to prove someones guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" - there is no scenario where we can do that without either Ched of Donaldson confessing to the rape.
The "victims" testimony to the police was that she was indeed in control of her actions and only felt "tipsy" - CCtV footage back at the hotel also backs this up.
If there is no solid evidence then he is innocent. There is none.
Yes he is a convicted rapist but that seems awfully weak and nobody has come up with a single piece of evidence clearly showing he raped her. Just circumstantial evidence of what people thought went on - and that is the big big mistake here. |
In order not to repost I'll state here I think it is a load of general waffle.
As far as I could see the only material statement was:
"Her failure to recollect what happened at the time is evidence itself of a failure to be able to consent. "
And that's a load of bullshit. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:04 - Jan 8 with 1281 views | jackonicko |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:43 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Finally a nice well thought out retort.
I completely disagree with it though. Body language and how someone answers something does not prove guilt, only a perception of guilt - which is something that should never be taken into consideration as a base for guilt.
We have to prove someones guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" - there is no scenario where we can do that without either Ched of Donaldson confessing to the rape.
The "victims" testimony to the police was that she was indeed in control of her actions and only felt "tipsy" - CCtV footage back at the hotel also backs this up.
If there is no solid evidence then he is innocent. There is none.
Yes he is a convicted rapist but that seems awfully weak and nobody has come up with a single piece of evidence clearly showing he raped her. Just circumstantial evidence of what people thought went on - and that is the big big mistake here. |
Oh, I never expected you to change your mind. I don't think you ever have on any issue and I can't see why that would change now.
I also said you need a good understanding of the legal system and your response shows that you don't have one.
We have to prove someones guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" - there is no scenario where we can do that without either Ched of Donaldson confessing to the rape.
There are plenty of scenarios in which a trial can prove something "beyond reasonable doubt" without a confession. Happens all the time and there is nothing unsafe or unsound about that. That's what a trial is for.
A few years ago, someone was sentenced to prison in one of the largest fraud trials ever seen in the UK commercial court, based largely on his conduct in the witness box and his dishonest disclosure of evidence. He was a bad liar - he had all the words but couldn't deliver it convincingly. He stuck to his story through cross examination with his words, but his body language gave him away. I know this because I was there in court and watched him do it. I also enjoyed it.
For you to say body language and how someone answers a question is irrelevant also shows your naivety. You know what - sometimes bad people tell lies. Even under oath.
You asked for an opinion. You have it. You can now carry on, ad infinitum, repeating the same things. It doesn't make your points any more right by saying it over and over. But I'm not going to get into repeated posts on the subject. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:04 - Jan 8 with 1279 views | skippyjack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 18:43 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Finally a nice well thought out retort.
I completely disagree with it though. Body language and how someone answers something does not prove guilt, only a perception of guilt - which is something that should never be taken into consideration as a base for guilt.
We have to prove someones guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" - there is no scenario where we can do that without either Ched of Donaldson confessing to the rape.
The "victims" testimony to the police was that she was indeed in control of her actions and only felt "tipsy" - CCtV footage back at the hotel also backs this up.
If there is no solid evidence then he is innocent. There is none.
Yes he is a convicted rapist but that seems awfully weak and nobody has come up with a single piece of evidence clearly showing he raped her. Just circumstantial evidence of what people thought went on - and that is the big big mistake here. |
The last paragraph is spot on.. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:05 - Jan 8 with 1275 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:02 - Jan 8 by Shaky |
In order not to repost I'll state here I think it is a load of general waffle.
As far as I could see the only material statement was:
"Her failure to recollect what happened at the time is evidence itself of a failure to be able to consent. "
And that's a load of bullshit. |
Correct.
I have been in some right states in my uni days. Is my failure to recollect every detail of them proof that the girls i woke up with raped me??!
Jesus. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:07 - Jan 8 with 1264 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:05 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Correct.
I have been in some right states in my uni days. Is my failure to recollect every detail of them proof that the girls i woke up with raped me??!
Jesus. |
Yup, trivialising rape. The true trait of a gentleman. Also indicates a low level of self-esteem too. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:13 - Jan 8 with 1252 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:07 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
Yup, trivialising rape. The true trait of a gentleman. Also indicates a low level of self-esteem too. |
Where have I trivialised rape? I said i have been in situations where i cannot remember giving consent, it doesnt mean i didnt or was in no fit state to... Or evidently, that i was raped, repeatedly at uni.
Lying about rape, the true trait of a troll which notoriously have low self esteem. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 19:21 - Jan 8 with 1245 views | trampie |
jackonico you said:-
'' In most cases of rape, it is the word of one person against another and the chances of a jury reaching a verdict beyond reasonable doubt is much lower.
Even if it reaches a trial, many defendants are found not guilty because - on the facts - the jury cannot reach a decision beyond reasonable doubt. For the same reasons as above - it is often the word of one against the other.
The Ched case is interesting because at the material time, it is not the word of one against the other. It is only the words of the defendants, and other witnesses, that are taken into account as to whether the victim consented or not. The victim cannot remember - and therefore offers up no evidence at the material times.
Bearing in mind the statistical analysis above, you would expect the jury more likely than not to find the defendant not guilty when they are only hearing the words of one side. But they didn't''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you would not disagree that to some people it seems like a questionable verdict ?
To many people its questionable that its passed the test of beyond reasonable doubt, but the verdict was guilty, I've avoided posting on this subject until now only previously saying there have been many miscarriages of justice in the past, there must be many innocent people in prison and there will no doubt be many innocent people in the future will be found guilty of a crime they did not commit, my faith in British justice is not as strong as yours [although I have no doubt our justice system is one of the better ones in the world], often our justice system depends on the ability of the barristers and any barrister could put up a poor show in any trial at any given time.
A criticism of our system is who has the best barristers on the day wins and not according to some who is guilty or not guilty.
I have no idea if Evans is guilty or not but based on what I read at the time I found the outcome surprising, the odds on Evans winning an appeal is unlikely based on the stats, very unlikely based on other appeals success rates [should read lack of success rates], so Evans losing an appeal would make no difference to me as an observer as to his guilt or not, there seems to be a growing trend in finding men guilty of sex crimes that perhaps they would not have been found guilty of in the past, not sure what's changed.
Just because somebody is convicted does not mean they are guilty per se as we know from previous cases. [Post edited 8 Jan 2015 19:41]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
