ChatterBank2 mins ago
Ched Evans - Not Guilty
I haven't been following this story , myself
He has been found not guilty
http://
He has been found not guilty
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well he's done 2 1/2 years already so that should appease those who think he should be punished. I'm sure he's learnt his lesson. His behaviour however I doubt is as unusual as some of you think - getting drunk women in bed, maybe with others, maybe on camera, is I dare say far more common - sounds like well known behaviour for lads in Magaluf, San Antonio etc etc eg tonight lets shag the ugliest we can. Morals don't come into it.
// Hindsight is a wonderful thing.//
erm nope - new evidence is wonderful thing
usually the defence is not allowed to question a victim or in this case the "victim" over past adventures.
but the judge can waive the rule if the evidence is relevant. In this case he did as there was a repeated pattern of 'loss of memory' - saying yes but not remembering that either [ and something else, drug use? words used during...]
erm nope - new evidence is wonderful thing
usually the defence is not allowed to question a victim or in this case the "victim" over past adventures.
but the judge can waive the rule if the evidence is relevant. In this case he did as there was a repeated pattern of 'loss of memory' - saying yes but not remembering that either [ and something else, drug use? words used during...]
So evidence came to light ( or was presented in the re-trial ) that the first jury was not privy to and so the first jury convicted him based on what evidence they had before them .
I don't see how anyone can blame the first jury , if the evidence before them proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty .
What is more concerning , is where was this new evidence and in whose possession .
Did the prosecution have it but did not disclose it to the defence ?
Or was it only discovered after the first trial had ended ?
Or was it evidence that could not be disclosed , but subsequently allowed by the Judge in the second trial ?
I don't see how anyone can blame the first jury , if the evidence before them proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty .
What is more concerning , is where was this new evidence and in whose possession .
Did the prosecution have it but did not disclose it to the defence ?
Or was it only discovered after the first trial had ended ?
Or was it evidence that could not be disclosed , but subsequently allowed by the Judge in the second trial ?
The new evidence (as I understand it) was evidence of the complainant's previous sexual history which was unearthed by the new legal team appointed by Ched Evans. This is not normally allowed (as has been said above) but in this case it was said to be so similar as to be probative.
I do not think (although cannot possible know) that the police/CPS have not disclosed evidence. I know this has happened - indeed it has happened in cases I know of personally but in those cases thankfully it was picked up before any great injustice was done.
There are no winners in this case. Ched Evans has served time - the young woman in question has had her sexual history raked over in Court.
I do not think (although cannot possible know) that the police/CPS have not disclosed evidence. I know this has happened - indeed it has happened in cases I know of personally but in those cases thankfully it was picked up before any great injustice was done.
There are no winners in this case. Ched Evans has served time - the young woman in question has had her sexual history raked over in Court.
at least part of it was uncovered ( hur hur hur)
by advertisement and a reward ( you know moolah, mun-mun - or in Welsh Wales, sheep I suppose )
I have to say that I dont know if material you cant use ( sexual history details ) have to be disclosed to the defence. The leading case is Maguire and the general rule is that material useful to the defence MUST be disclosed....
This is why you or I or one employs very expensive QCs -
they know the answer to this sort of thing.....
at a price - a Very Large price.
Moral of the story is: dont hop into bed with drunken young women .....
by advertisement and a reward ( you know moolah, mun-mun - or in Welsh Wales, sheep I suppose )
I have to say that I dont know if material you cant use ( sexual history details ) have to be disclosed to the defence. The leading case is Maguire and the general rule is that material useful to the defence MUST be disclosed....
This is why you or I or one employs very expensive QCs -
they know the answer to this sort of thing.....
at a price - a Very Large price.
Moral of the story is: dont hop into bed with drunken young women .....
When he was convicted of rape, there were many people, some on this site, who stupidly said he should just accept the verdict, not put the woman through the ordeal of a further trial, and just get on with it.
I can only speak for myself, but if I was convicted of a crime I knew I did not commit, I would do everything in my power to prove my innocence, so I’m pleased for him and hope he can resume his career.
People who said he should just ‘get on with it’ were complete morons.
He may be an odious rutting goat, as Andy has said, and as Murraymints has said there’s no smoke, and that he needs to re-evaluate his ways, so as a bit of balance, I would suggest its now fair to say the woman was an old slapper who seized upon the opportunity to shag a footballer.
I can only speak for myself, but if I was convicted of a crime I knew I did not commit, I would do everything in my power to prove my innocence, so I’m pleased for him and hope he can resume his career.
People who said he should just ‘get on with it’ were complete morons.
He may be an odious rutting goat, as Andy has said, and as Murraymints has said there’s no smoke, and that he needs to re-evaluate his ways, so as a bit of balance, I would suggest its now fair to say the woman was an old slapper who seized upon the opportunity to shag a footballer.
Whilst I don't condone what happened he was never guilty I have been following this story and the woman was there for the taking she was so drunk didn't know what was happening and with who he should never have been accused of rape good luck to him and his girlfruend in the future but it will be difficult for them to get over this as he did cheat on her!
-- answer removed --
The thing is, the "lady" in question is still afforded anonymity. Anyone who publishes her identity is subject to the full weight of the law. Now is she allowed to waive anonymity to allow lurid stories in the Sunday tabloids? Is she allowed to gain financially from such stories and still retain anonymity? Would this be tantamount to stalking Evans, and indeed be deemed injurious to his and his families well being and health?
It absolutely does not follow that, now that Ched Evans has been cleared, the woman should be named, shamed, and branded as some sort of *** after money. Aside from anything else, this isn't how "not guilty" works.
She can waive her right to anonymity if she chooses -- I somehow doubt it, though. In the last few years she has had her life utterly destroyed as a result of this case, having to move all over the place to escape harassment and worse.
I wish it ended here. It won't, of course, but it's still worth wishing for.
She can waive her right to anonymity if she chooses -- I somehow doubt it, though. In the last few years she has had her life utterly destroyed as a result of this case, having to move all over the place to escape harassment and worse.
I wish it ended here. It won't, of course, but it's still worth wishing for.
