Ched Evans (19 Viewers)

[David O'Day]

Ooooh a statistician as well as a lawyer! How so?

So you have to be a statistician to decide that it is more likely he is guilty and will remain so?

FFS Samo have a word wit yourself

 

---

[David O'Day]

Well, we will see won't we. Evans' team seem very confident of the conviction being quashed.

Evans team aren't gonna say "We got now chance but hey if you got to be in it to win it"

They were "very confident" they would win the first appeal and didn't.

 

[Samo]

So you have to be a statistician to decide that it is more likely he is guilty and will remain so?

FFS Samo have a word wit yourself

Based on what? Gut instinct? Crystal ball? Or are you really a lawyer?

 

[wingy]

Otis I've pointed out the facts behind the case. As it is unlikely to be a new witness and DNA is not a option it's either third party testimony or due process.

Think I read a while back It may relate to hotel member of staff to

 

[David O'Day]

Think I read a while back It may relate to hotel member of staff to

Who weren't in the room at the time. All they can testify is what we know i.e Evans turned up later than MacDonald and then triedto leave earlier through a fire escape.

 

[David O'Day]

Based on what? Gut instinct? Crystal ball? Or are you really a lawyer?

Based on looking at the facts and making an educated decision based on those facts,

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Talking of which, you chose not to answer my question, care to do so?

Which one again?

But it has to be significant enough to warrant an appeal doesn't it? The appeals board have said there is new evidence that aids the Evans defence.

If it wasn't significant, why would they grant an appeal?

I don't know the process for lodging appeals and the criteria for which they are granted so can't say, could be rather a bit of a formality with flimsy evidence or evidence that isn't directly relevant to the point at hand but they have to allow it to be heard to cover there own arses and avoid retribution down the line from Evans team. Or it could be significant.

Equally with the 3% number, have to look at the context which we also don't know. How many of the these appeals are frivolous appeals which are thrown out without even being considered as they had 0% chance of being granted as it was an iron clad case against them, these would bring down the % of appeals successfully granted.

Stu asked an excellent question earlier about what % of appeals allowed then successfully get there conviction overturned which would be interesting to know the answer.

 

[Samo]

Based on looking at the facts and making an educated decision based on those facts,

We will see right? I wish I had all the facts... where did you get them?

 

[Samo]

Which one again?
.

As Otis mentioned earlier, only 3% of cases are granted right to appeal. This is so as not to waste time and money on 'grasping at straws'. So, the likelihood is this is something significant, would you not agree?

 

[David O'Day]

They are freely available Samo.

We know what the evidence in court was then we can look at what new evidence could be and decide if we thin it is correct or not.

I explained this already and you said "are you a lawyer"

Sorry fella

 

[Otis]

I am bowing out of this thread now.

We can either play ping with this debate back and forth on here until we lose the will to live, or we can wait to hear the evidence.

I think I will choose the latter.

 

[Samo]

They are freely available Samo.

We know what the evidence in court was then we can look at what new evidence could be and decide if we thin it is correct or not.

I explained this already and you said "are you a lawyer"

Sorry fella

Your thinking is very rigid isn't it? Do you ever get that? Social skills an issue? Problems with ambiguity?

 

[Samo]

I am bowing out of this thread now.

We can either play ping with this debate back and forth on here until we lose the will to live, or we can wait to hear the evidence.

I think I will choose the latter.

Why didn't I think of that?

 

[David O'Day]

As Otis mentioned earlier, only 3% of cases are granted right to appeal. This is so as not to waste time and money on 'grasping at straws'. So, the likelihood is this is something significant, would you not agree?

In fact that figure is across all courts, in the criminal division 9 were granted leave to appeal and 10 were not.

These figures are available on the supreme court website

 

[David O'Day]

Your thinking is very rigid isn't it? Do you ever get that? Social skills an issue? Problems with ambiguity?

That is weak response, so having looked at the facts and then used them to come to a a conclusion is a lack of social skills.

Go to bed fella and the adults play.

 

[Samo]

In fact that figure is across all courts, in the criminal division 9 were granted leave to appeal and 10 were not.

These figures are available on the supreme court website

As I say... we will see.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

As Otis mentioned earlier, only 3% of cases are granted right to appeal. This is so as not to waste time and money on 'grasping at straws'. So, the likelihood is this is something significant, would you not agree?

Ok answered that in my response to Otis, it could be or it couldn't don't know as I'm not knowledgeable on the criteria on which appeals are granted.

 

[Astute]

So why then has the appeal been allowed? By the way... is 'pretty much' a legal term?

The same as SISU were allowed to appeal.

What happened there?

 

[Samo]

That is weak response, so having looked at the facts and then used them to come to a a conclusion is a lack of social skills.

Go to bed fella and the adults play.

Come to all the conclusions you like pal, your opinion don't mean Jack.

 

[Samo]

Goodnight all!

 

[David O'Day]

Come to all the conclusions you like pal, your opinion don't mean Jack.

And yours does?

Get some beauty sleep

 

[Nick]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/rapist-footballer-ched-evans-dossier-6611546

 

[Otis]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/rapist-footballer-ched-evans-dossier-6611546

That cant be right, cos David O'Day said so!! :thinking about:

 

[Otis]

It is so annoying though if it is true that many witnesses were seemingly not called at the orignal trial and that supposed key evidence was not submitted.

The whole thing appears to be a bit of a pig's ear, even if it is proved the conviction was safe. Seems like an awful lot of stuff may have been missed.

That's of course if this is all to be believed. It just needs to putting to bed once and for all.

 

[ccfc92]

It is so annoying though if it is true that many witnesses were seemingly not called at the orignal trial and that supposed key evidence was not submitted.

The whole thing appears to be a bit of a pig's ear, even if it is proved the conviction was safe. Seems like an awful lot of stuff may have been missed.

That's of course if this is all to be believed. It just needs to putting to bed once and for all.

Agreed.

The article even says she didn't claim she was raped. I don't understand how he can be convicted of that if she says she wasn't?

Also, that McDonald didn't get charged as well? All very odd, and they need to do a fresh trial, with all the evidence to hand.

 

[Otis]

Of course, on the other hand, if the conviction does prove to be safe, that's an awful lot more mud raking and despair for the girl to endure.

It should have been completely water-tight first time. Every single witness statement taken and every bit of available footage shown in court.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

The thing that piques my interest from the article is the conversation of surprising details during a taxi journey, would be interesting to know whats said and its implications.

Other than that it just seems to be criticising the investigating officers (which whilst its important they act properly and if they don't they should get dealt the consequences, it isn't really relevant to the events/actions of Evans or victim) and digging into her personal life.

 

[ccfc92]

Of course, on the other hand, if the conviction does prove to be safe, that's an awful lot more mud raking and despair for the girl to endure.

It should have been completely water-tight first time. Every single witness statement taken and every bit of available footage shown in court.

Exactly this.

The % of doubt in the case, makes it hard to believe he's 100% guilty.

If he his, fair enough.

If he isn't, it's a massive miscarriage of justice, and his football career is over IMO. There will always be whispers in any club he signs for etc.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The thing that piques my interest from the article is... digging into her personal life.

And frankly the reporting of such things is deeply irresponsible.

I thought evidence was supposed to be presented to a court, not leaked to a paper to blacken someone's character who isn't on trial?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Agreed.

The article even says she didn't claim she was raped. I don't understand how he can be convicted of that if she says she wasn't?

Nope she never claimed rape, or claimed that she wasn't raped. She has always said she couldn't remember what happened, there would have been no case if Evans and Macdonald hadn't admitted to having sex.

Also, that McDonald didn't get charged as well? All very odd, and they need to do a fresh trial, with all the evidence to hand.

Macdonald was charged but found not guilty at trial, its because it was decided he had reasonable belief of consent as he met the girl in a busy street and she willingly went back to the hotel room with him.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

And frankly the reporting of such things is deeply irresponsible.

I thought evidence was supposed to be presented to a court, not leaked to a paper to blacken someone's character who isn't on trial?

Would I be cynical if I said I imagine it was cleverly leaked by his team to get people believing he is not guilty and try and influence his appeal verdict.

 

[covcity4life]

Cant this be moved away from cov city sub forum????

 

[ccfc92]

Nope she never claimed rape, or claimed that she wasn't raped. She has always said she couldn't remember what happened, there would have been no case if Evans and Macdonald hadn't admitted to having sex.


Macdonald was charged but found not guilty at trial, its because it was decided he had reasonable belief of consent as he met the girl in a busy street and she willingly went back to the hotel room with him.

So basically, if they said neither of them slept with her, there would be no case?

That makes sense re McDonald. If she went back with him. But Evans went to the room later.

 

[Otis]

And frankly the reporting of such things is deeply irresponsible.

I thought evidence was supposed to be presented to a court, not leaked to a paper to blacken someone's character who isn't on trial?

Yep, very surprised that this has been broadcast for the whole world to see. First we shouuld have heard about it should have been at the appeal.

 

[Samo]

Cant this be moved away from cov city sub forum????

Yes... please!