Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Erm...He is guilty? Why is it so hard to understand? It isn't like he has had a retrial, he is still guilty and a scumbag to boot.
#prayforched
Ched Evans (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Gint11
- Start date
Erm...He is guilty? Why is it so hard to understand? It isn't like he has had a retrial, he is still guilty and a scumbag to boot.
#prayforched
Nick
Administrator
Looks like he has won his appeal
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ched-evans-rape-appeal-live-7801371
It says his conviction has been "quashed".
Does that mean the conviction is wiped clean, but he faces re-trial to see if he is cleared / gets a new conviction?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ched-evans-rape-appeal-live-7801371
It says his conviction has been "quashed".
Does that mean the conviction is wiped clean, but he faces re-trial to see if he is cleared / gets a new conviction?
Bumberclart
Well-Known Member
This is one of those cases where I've always felt there was more to the story. A copper friend of mine told me that the evidence against him was quite weak, and he's seen many cases dropped with far more incriminating facts in the past.
Not saying he's innocent, but there is something not quite right.
Not saying he's innocent, but there is something not quite right.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
This whole Ched Evans issue ois lesson to all, especially mega rich young footballers. Keep it in your trousers. Laying wild oats here, there and everywhere is full of risk and danger.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
If he is found not guilty there will be a few people who should be made to say sorry people like that Jessica Ennis, whatever happens he comes out of this badly as he did have a partner at home when he was off out miss-behaving.
Nick
Administrator
Oh yeah of course if it was just sex it was wrong anyway but not illegal.
IF he is totally cleared, what then happens to the victim? Obviously it doesn't automatically then class her as a liar unless the evidence proves she was lying does it.
If the judges have seen this evidence as enough to clear his conviction for a retrial, surely it is strong evidence? I guess it is just down to the jury then.
Will it be the tax payer paying his loss of earnings, compensation for prison etc?
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
If he is found not guilty I guess she stops being a victim for a start.
He must have good evidence to have got to this stage, he will be due something for loss of earnings (which could be huge) also his character has been damaged (maybe he should speak to the Sisu lawyers!)
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
IF the new jury finds the new evidence compelling (which is why the Court of Appeal has ordered a retrial), and find him not guilty, it would be possible for him to issue a civil claim against his accuser for defamation. However, the burden of proof in a civil case is "on the balance of probabilities" (i.e. a better than 50:50 chance of being right), rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", which is why people who claim to have been wronged in some way, but the CPS decide not to prosecute (and even sometimes if they do, but the accused is acquitted), take civil action, as they stand a better chance of being found to be right. They also get the compensation from a civil court, rather than the pleasure of seeing the accused being imprisoned or fined (which won't always end up with the victim).
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
After the retrial if the result goes his way I would think so, as he is then not guilty of rape but guilty of being a bit naughty and silly. His problem is he has been away from the game for a long time it took Marlon a good time to get back up to speed
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
He is effectively currently at the stage of having been charged and awaiting trial. As in the case of Adam Johnson, any club that didn't at least suspend him would be pilloried if he is later convicted.
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Difference being, of course, that Marlon King WAS convicted. It may turn out that Evans is not. But players who have supposedly been training all the while can find it tough to get up to speed (e.g. Joe Cole, Peter Ramage, Darius Henderson, etc etc)
Nick
Administrator
So at the minute he isn't convicted of anything?
Nick
Administrator
If it is 2 months away for his trial, just in time for pre season if innocent I'd guess.
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
The order from the Court of Appeal stated that he must be "re-arraigned" on the charge of rape within two months. Whether that is the date of his trial, or of the first committal (timetabling) hearing, I don't know. While his bail under the Court of Appeal order is unconditional, I don't know whether the next court could remand him in custody pending the trial.
But no, he isn't convicted currently
But no, he isn't convicted currently
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
Just because he may be proved not guilty - for anybody who has read even his confession - he is certainly not innocent
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-Ched-Evans-rape-conviction-overturned.html
now overturned conviction!!
now overturned conviction!!
Otis
Well-Known Member
Really interesting reading back through this entire thread.
I wonder if some might now wish to edit or reflect upon their posts a tad.
As was said repeatedly over eleventy biliion pages, he had appealed and we needed to wait to see what this new evidence was.
The evidence was submitted, accepted, and now the conviction HAS been quashed!
Now we need to see what happens at the retrial.
I wonder if some might now wish to edit or reflect upon their posts a tad.
As was said repeatedly over eleventy biliion pages, he had appealed and we needed to wait to see what this new evidence was.
The evidence was submitted, accepted, and now the conviction HAS been quashed!
Now we need to see what happens at the retrial.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
I looked into this intensively back when it was all coming out. As someone who has studied law and policing, this case just didn't make any sense. Rape is a hideous crime committed by the lowest of the low, but I've always said that this was one of those that was different. You get false allegations made all the time, but this wasn't even a straight forward example of that either. More somewhere in the middle...
I'm more surprised that this has been quashed, not because I believe he wasn't innocent, but more because it was obvious he was being made an example of.
The whole thing stinks, and while he is a complete idiot, this was never as black and white as the burning torch brigade were making out. Will be interesting to see the outcome of the retrial, and what this extra evidence is. The thing is though, this extra evidence probably should never have been needed in the first place.
I'm more surprised that this has been quashed, not because I believe he wasn't innocent, but more because it was obvious he was being made an example of.
The whole thing stinks, and while he is a complete idiot, this was never as black and white as the burning torch brigade were making out. Will be interesting to see the outcome of the retrial, and what this extra evidence is. The thing is though, this extra evidence probably should never have been needed in the first place.
Norman Binns
Well-Known Member
Not innocent of what? Having sex with a floozy? If that's the case it must make most men guilty of rape and reflecting on my youth, I myself must be a serial rapist. Unless of course you've led an extremely sad and sheltered life.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Neanderthal ill informed tripe like this and the lynch mob mentality persued by Evans and his thuggish cohorts is why women raped are too intimidated to give evidence.
Nick
Administrator
Reading back, it says only 3% of the appeals get heard and the rest thrown out straight away. So it got past that and then got the conviction quashed.
It must be quite strong evidence surely?
Even after his re-trial if completely cleared, he will still be called a Rapist and I doubt many people who were so angry about it and him will change their views.
It must be quite strong evidence surely?
Even after his re-trial if completely cleared, he will still be called a Rapist and I doubt many people who were so angry about it and him will change their views.
Nick
Administrator
But if it wasn't rape, you can understand why he would be a bit annoyed? I have no idea what evidence has been found, but it must be strong surely?
People have gone on about him refusing to apologise, showing no remorse about it even after serving his time.
He may well be found to be guilty again, but what happens if innocent?
Otis
Well-Known Member
Exactly what I kept saying all along. The review board must have seen new evidence of such a degree that it warranted an appeal and then obviously it must be strong enough to have caused the conviction to be quashed.
Be very interesting now to see what the defence is in the retrial.
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
What it does say is that the original trial did not reach an unsound verdict based on the evidence with which they were presented, but that there is now something more. That will doubtless come out in the wash, but no matter what the outcome, the identity of the "victim" (sic) will never be revealed by the courts. Which is wrong if it is a false accusation. The alternative to revealing the name of the victim at any point (which will probably inhibit women from coming forward and reporting rape and similar offences, including domestic abuse) is to keep the identity of the accused secret until he has been convicted. Equality works both ways.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
What ever the reason there is clearly some damming new evidence. We all surmised on the story but the truth was we were not there we only went on reports and we couldn't possibly know the truth. A jury of his peers convicted him originally. How much of that was due to so much castigation of a 'footballer' and perhaps less attention to facts? Or maybe it was the correct decision based on the evidence in the trial? The issue now is 'new evidence' and it's strong enough to overturn the original conviction which is very rare indeed.
Personal thoughts are not what you convict people on. Evidence and ultimate proof is what matters. As Otis says there are a lot on here who had him hung drawn and quartered. He might yet be found guilty but if it were you and you consistently said you were innocent and now you had the chance to prove all over again how would you feel? If ultimately after a new trial he is innocent then many people owe him an apology and I would admire him for standing up consistently for himself. If however he is again proven guilty then I guess most people will feel justified. The 'victim' is still protected. I can't help feeling that if he is ultimately innocent she may face charges.
On the legal front it's very complicated. New evidence could mean many things but looking at the precedents for retrial: it may be based on numerous things such as interference and intimidation of witnesses and jurors, perverting the course of justice, aiding, abetting, counselling,procuring, suborning or inciting another person to commit an offence under the perjury act.
So unlikely a new video or tape recording is the new evidence but what the prosecution and the witness evidence given at the original trial. In other words someone has been found out to have lied.
Personal thoughts are not what you convict people on. Evidence and ultimate proof is what matters. As Otis says there are a lot on here who had him hung drawn and quartered. He might yet be found guilty but if it were you and you consistently said you were innocent and now you had the chance to prove all over again how would you feel? If ultimately after a new trial he is innocent then many people owe him an apology and I would admire him for standing up consistently for himself. If however he is again proven guilty then I guess most people will feel justified. The 'victim' is still protected. I can't help feeling that if he is ultimately innocent she may face charges.
On the legal front it's very complicated. New evidence could mean many things but looking at the precedents for retrial: it may be based on numerous things such as interference and intimidation of witnesses and jurors, perverting the course of justice, aiding, abetting, counselling,procuring, suborning or inciting another person to commit an offence under the perjury act.
So unlikely a new video or tape recording is the new evidence but what the prosecution and the witness evidence given at the original trial. In other words someone has been found out to have lied.
Nick
Administrator
That would be best wouldn't it? To save ruining people's lives with false claims.
Nick
Administrator
I wonder if any of this evidence is stuff from Twitter she was meant to have posted.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Maybe. Guess it will all come out soon enough won't it.
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Keeping it out of the press and social media might be more of a challenge, mind you!
