Ched Evans (34 Viewers)

[stupot07]

All of that is appalling and sad but it does not mean there cannot be an unsafe conviction for that crime.

You seem adamant that Evans is innocent. He's been found guilty had two rejected appeals and until he can prove otherwise the conviction is not unsafe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

---

[Samo]

Guilty as proven a few times but innocent as soon as there is a bit of doubt?

If this 'new evidence ' is so important why has it not been used by his defence team the previous 3 times?

I have no idea, perhaps it was not available. This is why we should just let the legal system get on with it.

 

[Otis]

Guilty as proven a few times but innocent as soon as there is a bit of doubt?

If this 'new evidence ' is so important why has it not been used by his defence team the previous 3 times?

Think the clue is in the 'new' to be honest, Astute.

Does what it says on the tin.

 

[Samo]

You seem adamant that Evans is innocent. He's been found guilty had two rejected appeals and until he can prove otherwise the conviction is not unsafe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Not in the slightest! Where have I even hinted at that? I just think there is an unbalanced view on here.

 

[Otis]

Not in the slightest! Where have I even hinted at that? I just think there is a unbalanced view on here.

Yes agree.

It is a fact that Evans' defence team have submitted so called new evidence and they have successfully had that evidence heard by the CCRC.

This is from 2 days ago.


After successfully applying to have previously unavailable evidence examined by the CCRC, the case was “fast-tracked” last September.. The 26-year-old ex Sheffield United striker gave the Criminal Cases Review Commission ”written submissions” and “witness statements” to add to the evidence already presented in April.

A CCRC spokesman told Journal reporter Dean Jones: “It will be a number of weeks before any decision on the case regarding Mr Evans is announced, and no decision has been made at this stage.


That's all I have been saying. We, as posters on a football forum have no idea what this new evidence is. I think a decision has to be made and hopefully this will be the end of the appeals and either there will be a re-trial or the conviction will continue to stand.

I can't see why there is a problem with someone simply stating this fact on a football forum. A new appeal is being considered now, as we speak.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

NW; In the cold light of day, do you stand by this remark?

Samoi yes, and if you're not grasping the nuances behind it (because it's either written poorly or you're poor at understanding it, I mind not which), then it's pointless discussing it any further really.

Tasteless in the extreme to compare it ot the Birmingham pub bombings in my mind, tasteless to not grasp the context but them's the breaks, we'll have to agree to disagree for both our sakes.

 

[Samo]

Samoi yes, and if you're not grasping the nuances behind it (because it's either written poorly or you're poor at understanding it, I mind not which), then it's pointless discussing it any further really.

Tasteless in the extreme to compare it ot the Birmingham pub bombings in my mind, tasteless to not grasp the context but them's the breaks, we'll have to agree to disagree for both our sakes.

Just to be clear... you think it's wrong for the free press to speculate as to the safety of a criminal conviction? Is that correct?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Just to be clear... you think it's wrong for the free press to speculate as to the safety of a criminal conviction? Is that correct?

If you're not grasping the nuances behind it (because it's either written poorly or you're poor at understanding it, I mind not which), then it's pointless discussing it any further really.

We'll have to agree to disagree for both our sakes.

 

[Samo]

If you're not grasping the nuances behind it (because it's either written poorly or you're poor at understanding it, I mind not which), then it's pointless discussing it any further really.

We'll have to agree to disagree for both our sakes.

What an arrogant and pitiful cop-out.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

What an arrogant and pitiful cop-out.

Not really, because my own personal opinion is you're a bit dense just at the moment, and deciding to read absolute bollocks into things.

I'm tryin g to be nice, rather than to call you a true moron but, if you're going to start throwing mud then...

 

[Samo]

Not really, because my own personal opinion is you're a bit dense just at the moment, and deciding to read absolute bollocks into things.

I'm tryin g to be nice, rather than to call you a true moron but, if you're going to start throwing mud then...

Nice. You could just answer the question?

EDIT; Thought not. You are a small man who cannot admit any misjudgment.

 

[Otis]

My misjudgement was supporting the City.

 

[Huckerby]

So you are an apologist for rape? Nice!

You going to explain this one or...?

 

[Astute]

Not in the slightest! Where have I even hinted at that? I just think there is an unbalanced view on here.

It seems a balanced view to me to see he is guilty. 1 judge 12 jurors found him guilty. 3 judges 1st appeal refused. 3 judges second appeal agreed again with the conviction.

It seems similar to the SISU JR and appeals. You know the way the odds are it should go. But there is that small niggling doubt in the very back of your mind.

 

[robbieray]

Thought this thread was going to be closed

 

[Grendel]

So anyone expressing any other view than that of the prosecution is showing a 'savage disregard for a victim of crime'? It's a good thing those that fought for the rights of the Birmingham Six were not of the same mind. Disgusting post from someone who should know better.

Well if they were innocent the charming Mr Adams could have revealed who was accountable couldn't he?

He didn't and so no one knows who was guilty

There are far more valid causes to get worked up about than that.

 

[Samo]

Well if they were innocent the charming Mr Adams could have revealed who was accountable couldn't he?

He didn't and so no one knows who was guilty

There are far more valid causes to get worked up about than that.

Like Ched Evans?

 

[Paxman II]

I'm surprised this thread is still going. However regarding appeals and whether you can have several being right or just here's my own experience. While not the same seriousness the principal is the same:

Many years ago I was prosecuted for serving alcohol to non members of my club. I faced judgement from the courts under a prosecution brought by the police. Of course I was found guilty. I appealed and again found guilty. Without getting into the ramifications of the case I can say that I was certainly not guilty of the offense but was subject to poor police actions and set for a need to get a guilty verdict by many supporters (residents and council officials among them)

So I took them on an appeal to the high court and it cost me some 16k to get a top QC and when that case was heard it took just 5 minutes for the police to be discredited and I won my case. Cost were awarded that for some reason I never saw and I kept my licence.

The lesson here is appeals are part of the system and can in some cases (not saying in Evans case) bring forth the real truth that otherwise was treated lightly in the original hearings.

Incidentally the chief of police 18 months later had a private meeting request with me and I quote " you will not get a licence in my town ever, over my dead body" when I bought my second club.

So the second lesson here is not to assume everything is correct because the courts or the police have said so. If you do you're already fcuked!

 

[shmmeee]

Rape is on par with murder and sentences should be a lot tougher

That's a no then?

I agree BTW Ive seen close up the damage sexual abuse does to a person. I'm also in a profession where false accusations have ruined not just careers but cost lives. Let's not play the "my thing is worse than your thing" game.

 

[Otis]

That's a no then?

I agree BTW Ive seen close up the damage sexual abuse does to a person. I'm also in a profession where false accusations have ruined not just careers but cost lives. Let's not play the "my thing is worse than your thing" game.

No, but I'm happy to play the my thing is bigger than your thing game if you like.

 

[Samo]

It has to be said that the SBT intelligentsia has not emerged well from this debate. I fully agree that CE has been found guilty and is guilty but it seems that the majority are of the opinion, (either directly expressed or implied) that:
1. If he were to be found innocent after a further appeal he would still be guilty.
2. That he should not be allowed a further appeal.
3. That the conviction should be trusted along with denied appeals but that any further appeal should not be.
4. Anybody, including the press, should not be allowed to express concern over the safety of the conviction as this might upsetting for the victim. (including forum posters)

 

[Astute]

It has to be said that the SBT intelligentsia has not emerged well from this debate. I fully agree that CE has been found guilty and is guilty but it seems that the majority are of the opinion, (either directly expressed or implied) that:
1. If he were to be found innocent after a further appeal he would still be guilty.
2. That he should not be allowed a further appeal.
3. That the conviction should be trusted along with denied appeals but that any further appeal should not be.
4. Anybody, including the press, should not be allowed to express concern over the safety of the conviction as this might upsetting for the victim. (including forum posters)

1, He wasn't planning to be in the hotel room until he found out that an intoxicated woman was in there. Not the actions of what you would expect.

2, How many appeals should he be allowed?

3, Should further prosecutions be allowed if he manages to be found not guilty? No. So why should he be allowed unlimited appeals?

4, Why shouldn't anyone be able to say that they see him as guilty if they are allowed to express concern?

 

[Samo]

1, He wasn't planning to be in the hotel room until he found out that an intoxicated woman was in there. Not the actions of what you would expect. Nothing to do with my point

2, How many appeals should he be allowed? As many as it fucking takes if there is new evidence

3, Should further prosecutions be allowed if he manages to be found not guilty? No. So why should he be allowed unlimited appeals? Yes of course

4, Why shouldn't anyone be able to say that they see him as guilty if they are allowed to express concern? Say what you want it's a free country, you've missed my point.

 

[Astute]

It has all been about your point Samo. And it seems the only point you are interested in.

 

[Samo]

It has all been about your point Samo. And it seems the only point you are interested in.

Oh dear... a rather limp white flag.

 

[armybike]

Can I submit an appeal that this thread is closed/moved an reopened if Ched signs for CCFC?

 

[Samo]

Can I submit an appeal that this thread is closed/moved an reopened if Ched signs for CCFC?

Agreed. Lay this to rest for Christ's sake!

 

[Shakeitup]

1, He wasn't planning to be in the hotel room until he found out that an intoxicated woman was in there. Not the actions of what you would expect.

2, How many appeals should he be allowed?

3, Should further prosecutions be allowed if he manages to be found not guilty? No. So why should he be allowed unlimited appeals?

4, Why shouldn't anyone be able to say that they see him as guilty if they are allowed to express concern?

Huh?

 

[Astute]

Oh dear... a rather limp white flag.

You are not interested in why he went to the hotel room. Yet if he never went to it nothing would have happened. Or is it that him going to the hotel room is undefendable?

 

[Samo]

You are not interested in why he went to the hotel room. Yet if he never went to it nothing would have happened. Or is it that him going to the hotel room is undefendable?

Astute... It is none of our business, let the legal process sort it. I have made it clear from the outset that I am playing devil's advocate and that is because of the dangerous opinions expressed on here. (as mentioned above) I am not comfortable with the lynch mob mentality that I've seen on here and I will make no apology for that.

 

[stupot07]

It has to be said that the SBT intelligentsia has not emerged well from this debate. I fully agree that CE has been found guilty and is guilty but it seems that the majority are of the opinion, (either directly expressed or implied) that:
1. If he were to be found innocent after a further appeal he would still be guilty.
2. That he should not be allowed a further appeal.
3. That the conviction should be trusted along with denied appeals but that any further appeal should not be.
4. Anybody, including the press, should not be allowed to express concern over the safety of the conviction as this might upsetting for the victim. (including forum posters)

What a crock of shit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Shakeitup]

1, He wasn't planning to be in the hotel room until he found out that an intoxicated woman was in there. Not the actions of what you would expect.

2, How many appeals should he be allowed?

3, Should further prosecutions be allowed if he manages to be found not guilty? No. So why should he be allowed unlimited appeals?

4, Why shouldn't anyone be able to say that they see him as guilty if they are allowed to express concern?

Yet if he never went to it nothing would have happened. Or is it that him going to the hotel room is undefendable?

Wouldn't she have accused Clayton McDonald?

 

[stupot07]

Wouldn't she have accused Clayton McDonald?

She did but he got acquitted as it appeared she went under her own free (albeit drunk) will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Samo]

What a crock of shit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

A well thought out argument... How so?

 

[Shakeitup]

She did but he got acquitted as it appeared she went under her own free (albeit drunk) will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Exactly. So even is Evans hadn't of gone this would have happened (allegedly).

I think what's happened in this thread is that many people are playing Devil's Advocate and are expressing their opinion and dissatisfaction with the British judicial system rather than the innocence or guilt of particular parties. People are talking hypothetically and not specifically.

As I've said before, we will never know what actually happened in the lead up to it, in that room and subsequently via text or on Facebook. I think that's what most people here who are being accused of being 'savages' are talking about.