Ched Evans

[Blue in Munich]

There was enough evidence to convict him. He's gone to appeal and lost. If it was really his word against hers he wouldn't have been convicted. The fact she was drunk is no defence nor is it a reason to convict.

It's really pointless questioning his guilt, or otherwise. He is a convicted, un rehabilitated sex offender and football shouldn't legitimise that.

It was a Crown Court, which means he was convicted by a jury. That does not necessarily mean that there was sufficient evidence to convict him, just that the members of the jury or a majority thereof decided he was guilty; we don't know why. And I say that as someone who has undertaken jury service.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

It was a Crown Court, which means he was convicted by a jury. That does not necessarily mean that there was sufficient evidence to convict him, just that the members of the jury or a majority thereof decided he was guilty; we don't know why. And I say that as someone who has undertaken jury service.

Do we know if it was a majority or unanimous verdict?

 

[Liverbirdie]

This is a golf forum for God's sake. What exactly has this got to do with football?

 

[williamalex1]

This is a golf forum for God's sake. What exactly has this got to do with football?

Because it did cross the line.:rofl:

 

[ManinBlack]

Do we know if it was a majority or unanimous verdict?

Extract from the Ched Evans website http://www.chedevans.com/the-trial

• At Caernarvon Crown Court the evidence was presented to the Jury over 8 days. The sitting Jury had been on Jury duty for 3 weeks. On Friday 20th April the Jury members left the Court to deliberate. After 4 hours, the Jury sent a message to the Judge saying that they could not come to a unanimous decision on both counts. The Judge chose not to exercise his discretion to give the Jury the option to return a majority verdict and sent them back out to further deliberate the case. It was clear that should the Jury not reach a unanimous decision by the end of that Friday session they would have to come back to the Court the following Monday and start what was for some a fourth week of service.

• Approximately 50 minutes later the Jury returned two unanimous decisions - finding Clayton McDonald innocent and Ched Evans guilty. Clayton McDonald was acquitted. Ched Evans was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.

At the end of the trial the prosecution counsel went over to Evans' family & apologised, he obviously thought they had no expectation of a conviction. The appeal failed because there needed to be new evidence. apparently you can't appeal just because you, and many other people, think it was a ludicrous decision on the part of the jury.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

When interviewed separately both Clayton and Ched acknowledged consensual sexual activity with the complainant
Bit unfair to cut and paste selected parts from his website, the appeal was for a retrial which he was denied, that's why he's going for a 2nd appeal

Which is what is being said in the posts

And im not going to cut and paste the whole website - i used those two paragraphs to highlight how confusing the whole case is

 

[User20205]

It's obvious that some on here have an agenda


http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/sh...ng-a-rape-conviction&p=1133481&highlight=Rape
You can't use his own website as evidence for a miscarriage of justice, but even with the 'facts' on there you get an idea of why one was convicted and the the other not.

12 jury members found him guilty & that's good enough for most people. Are you really suggesting they found him guilty because they wanted to get home for their tea??

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's obvious that some on here have an agenda


http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/sh...ng-a-rape-conviction&p=1133481&highlight=Rape
You can't use his own website as evidence for a miscarriage of justice, but even with the 'facts' on there you get an idea of why one was convicted and the the other not.

12 jury members found him guilty & that's good enough for most people. Are you really suggesting they found him guilty because they wanted to get home for their tea??

Have juries never before found innocent people guilty

I cant see the idea that one was convicted and one wasnt ?

They both had sex with her and she was in the same state when she had sex with both so why did one get off and the other convicted ?

No agenda at all

 

[ManinBlack]

It's obvious that some on here have an agenda


http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/sh...ng-a-rape-conviction&p=1133481&highlight=Rape
You can't use his own website as evidence for a miscarriage of justice, but even with the 'facts' on there you get an idea of why one was convicted and the the other not.

12 jury members found him guilty & that's good enough for most people. Are you really suggesting they found him guilty because they wanted to get home for their tea??

I think some members of the jury changed their minds for that reason, they were fed up after being cooped up for 3 weeks. I can't get over the fact that she'd previously accused someone of rape, and that this fact could not be used by the defence. If I were in front of a jury for something I didn't do I wouldn't feel terrifically confident I can tell you. I'd much prefer to be tried by three legally qualified, intelligent, people.

 

[User20205]

Have juries never before found innocent people guilty

I cant see the idea that one was convicted and one wasnt ?

They both had sex with her and she was in the same state when she had sex with both so why did one get off and the other convicted ?

No agenda at all

Not your agenda, the other fella who reckons if she is drunk a woman is partially to blame, and being drunk for the fella is a defence

Wrongful conviction by jury is incredibly rare, especially with a robust appeals process. The fact they've submitted no new evidence means there is no grounds for appeal.

He and his mate conspired to take advantage of her. She went back consensually with his mate, she didn't consent to what happened afterwards.

I find the complete denial, and lack of remorse on his part, sickening.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Not your agenda, the other fella who reckons if she is drunk a woman is partially to blame, and being drunk for the fella is a defence

Wrongful conviction by jury is incredibly rare, especially with a robust appeals process. The fact they've submitted no new evidence means there is no grounds for appeal.

He and his mate conspired to take advantage of her. She went back consensually with his mate, she didn't consent to what happened afterwards.

There is no evidence to suggest this - both men state she agreed to it ? - she cant remember any of the night

I find the complete denial, and lack of remorse on his part, sickening.

But he believes he is innocent - he believes she gave consent.

Is it not possible that the women gave consent at the time and then the next day didnt remember because she was drunk ? Then what ?

 

[Hacker Khan]

There was enough evidence to convict him. He's gone to appeal and lost. If it was really his word against hers he wouldn't have been convicted. The fact she was drunk is no defence nor is it a reason to convict.

It's really pointless questioning his guilt, or otherwise. He is a convicted, un rehabilitated sex offender and football shouldn't legitimise that.

Well said.

 

[User20205]

If he suddenly produces the magic piece of evidence that wins his appeal then he can be considered innocent. Until then he's a convicted sexual predator that should be rehabilitated before he can move on.

He went through due legal process and was convicted, anything else is supposition.

 

[Papas1982]

If he suddenly produces the magic piece of evidence that wins his appeal then he can be considered innocent. Until then he's a convicted sexual predator that should be rehabilitated before he can move on.

He went through due legal process and was convicted, anything else is supposition.

i agree. He's guilty in my eyes.
The debate to him playing again is a non starter. He is fortunate to be in a profession with great rewards but can't stop him playing. Too many cases already show that players will find new clubs.

I Don't condone his actions in the slightest. My only issue with some cases are that innocent men have had careers tarnished whilst the woman accusing them get privacy.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

i agree. He's guilty in my eyes.
The debate to him playing again is a non starter. He is fortunate to be in a profession with great rewards but can't stop him playing. Too many cases already show that players will find new clubs.

I Don't condone his actions in the slightest. My only issue with some cases are that innocent men have had careers tarnished whilst the woman accusing them get privacy.

What if he is innocent ?

Do you not think there is enough doubt when you read up on all the evidence and issues and indeed facts

What difference is there between the footballer and his friend ?

 

[Papas1982]

What if he is innocent ?

Do you not think there is enough doubt when you read up on all the evidence and issues and indeed facts

What difference is there between the footballer and his friend ?

i will accept there are points on both sides that maybe aren't conclusive. But I tend to side with the victim which for me is the woman, once he's been found guilty and lost appeals. I accept that miscarriages of justice do occur. But they aren't frequent wnough for me to challenge this decision.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

i will accept there are points on both sides that maybe aren't conclusive. But I tend to side with the victim which for me is the woman, once he's been found guilty and lost appeals. I accept that miscarriages of justice do occur. But they aren't frequent wnough for me to challenge this decision.

He hasnt had an appeal - he requested a re trial on appeal and was turned down

Currently believe he has a new legal team that are very confident.

Unless there is something missing from all the reports i still cant understand why one was found guilty and the other wasnt

Two said she gave consent - the girl cant remember. That seems to be the crux of it.

 

[ManinBlack]

Not your agenda, the other fella who reckons if she is drunk a woman is partially to blame, and being drunk for the fella is a defence

Wrongful conviction by jury is incredibly rare, especially with a robust appeals process. The fact they've submitted no new evidence means there is no grounds for appeal.

He and his mate conspired to take advantage of her. She went back consensually with his mate, she didn't consent to what happened afterwards.

I find the complete denial, and lack of remorse on his part, sickening.

How on earth do you know, were you there? Two people say she consented, she says can't remember. In my view a conviction on this evidence is very suspect.

Just to show I'm not excusing this type of behaviour I think the way all three behaved was despicable. The two of them left themselves open to the accusation of rape. It should be a lesson to anyone else putting themselves into this position, although I don't suppose many will take notice.

 

[Papas1982]

He hasnt had an appeal - he requested a re trial on appeal and was turned down

Currently believe he has a new legal team that are very confident.

Unless there is something missing from all the reports i still cant understand why one was found guilty and the other wasnt

Two said she gave consent - the girl cant remember. That seems to be the crux of it.

i would suggest the difference being that she got a taxi with one and the other followed. Suggestion there may have been consent for him?

imo innocent til proven guilty. If he proves his innocent then I guess poeple will have to apologise. But his lawyers saying they're confident means little to me. Most people that go through an appeal tend to suggest that. Lots of people have appealed numerous cases when all its done is waste money.

I think the implication that she was so hammered she can't rememeber is dangerous ground. Imagine there was video evidence of them raping her, but because she couldn't rememebr IT wouldn't count?

she was so drunk they literally walked over her in a pizza shop. That imo is predatory at least. It looks to me they blatantly took advantage and her being too drunk to recall saying no doesnt prove innocence for me.

 

[User20205]

How on earth do you know, were you there? Two people say she consented, she says can't remember. In my view a conviction on this evidence is very suspect.

Just to show I'm not excusing this type of behaviour I think the way all three behaved was despicable. The two of them left themselves open to the accusation of rape. It should be a lesson to anyone else putting themselves into this position, although I don't suppose many will take notice.

The conviction tells me all I need to know re consent. I agree there was, and probably is going forward, a real ignorance on the respective danger of the situation.

We're never going to agree on the conviction. I, maybe blindly, put my faith in the jury system, which in the vast majority of cases is shown to be robust.

You seem to believe, she was drunk, couldn't consent, and that's a defence


I've just read Sheffield United have been rumoured to have offered him a 2 year 500k contract