Ched Evans: not guilty

[J.Perkins]

Thought I'd start the thread, as its bound to be discussed.

[jarv]

Will be interesting to see who he can sue for lost earnings over 5 years.

[Fulham76]

Will be interesting to see who he can sue for lost earnings over 5 years.

So he should. Hope he finds someone to sue

[cmg]

Will be interesting to see who he can sue for lost earnings over 5 years.

So he should. Hope he finds someone to sue

Well, yes. Hopefully Sue is careful to make her intentions clear.

Seriously though, although the 'incident' was, at best, the ultimate in sleazy behaviour and cast him in a very disreputable light, I always felt that the original sentence was  harsh based on the evidence made available to the public.

[Logicalman]

What is so interesting about this case is the fact that the 'victims' previous history was admitted, following the appeal ruling, into evidence, and it was as much, if not more, damning than what Evans did. There is a very fine line between protecting the victim in such cases from undue pressure and scandal upon cross-examination, and that of seeing justice is served fairly. Evans wasn't on trial for being a scumbag, or morally-loose perhaps, and that is all that needs to be taken from this rape trial.

It brings into question whether the CPS needs to ensure all it's decisions would be upheld upon appeal, as, if they had tested the basis of the appeal ruling in the first place, then they might well have decided, having heard the victims history, that perhaps ruining a footballers life just because they don't agree with his morals could have been avoided. As for Jessica Ennis-Hill's viewpoint, I hope the stand in question is renamed after someone a lot more deserving and that she will look upon all her decisions with less of the same holier-than-thou attitude.

[Fulham 442]

Just goes to show how stupid people are to make moral judgments based on legal decisions.

To me he was never a "rapist" in the proper sense of the word, irrespective of that conviction. But he was still a scumbag for cheating on his girlfriend, engaging in some pretty lewd behaviour with his mate, and taking advantage of a drunk girl. I don't need a court to tell me any of that so nothing has changed.

You are either a rapist or you're not.  There is no middle ground.  Whilst I accept that his behaviour on that night was reprehensible, for all the reasons you have named, I never thought he was guilty of what he was charged with.   He has now been found not guilty but his career has been completely ruined and he will never recover it.  Some may think that is just for his actions on that night but I am not among them as I think he has suffered enough.  If I was his fiancée I would not have stayed with him because of the nature of his betrayal but as I said earlier I didn't ever think he was guilty.

[Mince n Tatties]

Guilty...Hang the Scumbag. :031:

[westcliff white]

Please all be carful what you say and how it can be interpreted on this thread. Some posters may have been affected by similar incidents within their family or upon their friends.

Word things carefully so nothing can be misinterpreted and lead to arguments etc

[snarks]

I wanted to think about this before  posting and to read what has been written about it. I have to say I'm very concerned about the ethics of his acquittal, two witnesses for the defence changed their statements after a 4 year gap to make their statements more emphatic about the things she apparently said, comments that they didn't make at the time.

The appeal seemed to be based on "she was a slapper so it couldn't be rape"  defence. Which leaves a bad taste. I feel sorry for her and believe he bought his way out of a conviction. Still he is now not guilty in the eyes of the law, but I do feel in overturning the original decision the law is an ass.

[kempkong]

This is a very interesting case and (speaking from experience) this was always going to be a tall order to get a guilty verdict not just because the conviction rate for rape is ridiculously low but also because the second male in the room was found not guilty in the first trial and because for some reason the victims sexual history has been disclosed and used as evidence which as far as I'm aware hasn't been allowed before.
The issue here from a legal and moral stand point is if a female is drunk then she can not consent and therefore if a male goes ahead and has sex it is rape in every sense of the term. I'm just glad I wasn't on the jury as I would hate to have the victim and defendants lives in my hands over an issue as difficult to understand as consent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[snarks]

This is a very interesting case and (speaking from experience) this was always going to be a tall order to get a guilty verdict not just because the conviction rate for rape is ridiculously low but also because the second male in the room was found not guilty in the first trial and because for some reason the victims sexual history has been disclosed and used as evidence which as far as I'm aware hasn't been allowed before.
The issue here from a legal and moral stand point is if a female is drunk then she can not consent and therefore if a male goes ahead and has sex it is rape in every sense of the term. I'm just glad I wasn't on the jury as I would hate to have the victim and defendants lives in my hands over an issue as difficult to understand as consent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The reason why her history and subsequent sex life was allowed in was as the question was one of consent, in such circumstances if the evidence to be heard is based on consent then it's allowed. I still think that's wrong and am appalled at the verdict this time.

[Rhys Lightning 63]

He may have been found not guilty, but that doesn't neccessary make him innocent.

For our American viewers - see Ray Lewis

[Buffalo76]

Will be interesting to see who he can sue for lost earnings over 5 years.

So he should. Hope he finds someone to sue

The accuser would be a good start.

[Skatzoffc]

I don't know the full story, but I thought the idea this has been overturned is because she said she was drunk and clearly wasn't  when she left as was captured on video.

It appears a clear cut case on that respect.


Whether he is a suspect character in past times is not relevant in this instance.

And yes the law is an ass. But it always had been.

[fulhamben]

One of the reasons he got off is because two witnesses changed their story. Make of that what you will.

[snarks]

I don't know the full story, but I thought the idea this has been overturned is because she said she was drunk and clearly wasn't  when she left as was captured on video.

It appears a clear cut case on that respect.


Whether he is a suspect character in past times is not relevant in this instance.

And yes the law is an ass. But it always had been.

No she was drunk, part of what got him off was she slept with someone 2 weeks after the "rape" and so the evidence of that was allowed in and comments she made to him were of similar type (he's a bloke that amended his statement 4 years later to add those comments) ergo she couldn't have been raped because she led an active sex life. That decision is so wrong in my view but still. The law now says he didn't rape her, but it doesn't say he not a disgusting human being.

[stevehawkinslidingtackle]

I don't know the full story, but I thought the idea this has been overturned is because she said she was drunk and clearly wasn't  when she left as was captured on video.

It appears a clear cut case on that respect.


Whether he is a suspect character in past times is not relevant in this instance.

And yes the law is an ass. But it always had been.

No she was drunk, part of what got him off was she slept with someone 2 weeks after the "rape" and so the evidence of that was allowed in and comments she made to him were of similar type (he's a bloke that amended his statement 4 years later to add those comments) ergo she couldn't have been raped because she led an active sex life. That decision is so wrong in my view but still. The law now says he didn't rape her, but it doesn't say he not a disgusting human being.

A little bit more to it than than that, specifically one bloke who slept with this angel just before the 'rape', and another who slept with her just after this 'traumatising rape'. Do me a favour, Evans is a bell end, but her being a promiscuous slag clearly hasnt helped her case.

[kempkong]

I suggest you all look at the secret barrister online as he answers some of these points with some facts and not just opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stevehawkinslidingtackle]

I suggest you all look at the secret barrister online as he answers some of these points with some facts and not just opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dont need to read the views of some frustrated feminist barristers view. Not guilty, the end. Its not just people innocent of murder that are locked up. All too easy for a woman to cry rape and destroy a guys life. These alleged victims, when the tables have been turned, should be charged with perjury and perverting the course of justice.

[MikeW]

If anyone comes out of this tawdry affair with any credit its the hotel receptionist who apparently resisted a £50.000 'bribe' from Evan's fiancée to change his evidence at the second trial.  His response was 'I told the truth the first time around, there's nothing to change.'  Good on him but what does it say about those around Evans?