Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[brummie]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

[Wullie]

Oldham have received death threats - SSN. Can't imagine anyone going for him - just not worth the hassle.

 

The fuck? So murder is now seen as morally more acceptable than rape.

 

In the common consciousness I think that actually is the case tbh.

 

Definitely.

 

I think it all depends on context, personally. This case is really not comparable to (or worse than) murder.

 

Absolutely, I wasn't commenting on this case particularly but culturally, rape is now the ultimate crime. Murder is the stuff of gentle ITV Sunday afternoon drama whilst even post-watershed rape scenes attract huge numbers of complaints. A football pundit can freely use "murdered" to describe a game but if he uses "raped", he's finished.

 

There's also this idea in the public consciousness and the media that rape is rape and that no rape is less serious than any other. That idea is so stupid I can barely comprehend it but that's why Evans is such a pariah. A few public figures who've attempted to disagree with that idea recently have either been forced to apologise or gotten threats.

 

It's fucking weird like. I don't even know who these people are that abhor rape but will quite happily threaten rape on someone that says something they don't like.

[ujpest doza]

I just find it strange how this case specifically has garnered so much public attention.

 

Especially when utterly terrible human beings such as Marlon King and Nile Ranger have been able to secure multiple contracts without so much as a muttering from the back pages from The Mirror. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people harping on about Evans haven't even heard of these 2. It just strikes me as a bit of a witchunt.

I don't recall as much outcry when Graeme Rix was released and sought football employment mind.

 

[mrmojorisin75]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a tele. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

unless evan's people are responsible for making up loads of shit that didn't happen and spinning it as the truth without anyone taking them to task for it there's a lot to question about the conviction imho - in effect he's gone down because a jury, heavily influenced by the judge at the time iirc, have decided that the lass was too drunk to consent, not that she didn't consent mind you...in fact the porter fella heard her actively participating in the act (again iirc)

 

so unless i'm missing something he wasn't sent down on hard evidence at all, the lass said she can't remember, no-one can prove otherwise and a subjective decision has been made to say he raped her when witness testimony suggests it wasn't forced and was indeed consented to at the time

 

if there's nothing grey about that then jesus

 

all of this is said with the proviso there may be evidence i've not read or heard about etc.

[Hanshithispantz]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

Really?

 

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.

 

"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.

 

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

 

"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

[mrmojorisin75]

There's also this idea in the public consciousness and the media that rape is rape and that no rape is less serious than any other. That idea is so stupid I can barely comprehend it but that's why Evans is such a pariah. A few public figures who've attempted to disagree with that idea recently have either been forced to apologise or gotten threats.

 

It's fucking weird like. I don't even know who these people are that abhor rape but will quite happily threaten rape on someone that says something they don't like.

 

[brummie]

There's also this idea in the public consciousness and the media that rape is rape and that no rape is less serious than any other. That idea is so stupid I can barely comprehend it but that's why Evans is such a pariah. A few public figures who've attempted to disagree with that idea recently have either been forced to apologise or gotten threats.

 

I think there are two arguments here. Of course some rapes are "worse" than others, but it wasn't that that caused the ruckus when whoever it was (I can't remember) (remembered - Judy Finnigan). It was the implication that that meant that there was some forms of rape which "aren't really too bad".

 

That's the dodgy ground.

 

Rape is a hideous crime, whichever format it takes. In that sense, rape is rape, the media are correct on that.

[brummie]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

Really?

 

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.

 

"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.

 

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

 

"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

 

What on earth do you mean by that?

 

He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted.

 

That's why Evans was found guilty.

 

if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of  a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy.

[ED209]

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

 

might influence a few peoples thoughts on the case.

[mrmojorisin75]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

Really?

 

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.

 

"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.

 

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

 

"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

 

i remember reading a link to some transcript stuff and the judge's opinion weighed heavily like, i'm sure he as good as told the jury to ignore testimony from an expert witness that would have meant evans wasn't convicted - he was an intoxication expert or something like that and basically said she would have been able to consent

 

 

[Wullie]

There's also this idea in the public consciousness and the media that rape is rape and that no rape is less serious than any other. That idea is so stupid I can barely comprehend it but that's why Evans is such a pariah. A few public figures who've attempted to disagree with that idea recently have either been forced to apologise or gotten threats.

 

I think there are two arguments here. Of course some rapes are "worse" than others, but it wasn't that that caused the ruckus when whoever it was (I can't remember) (remembered - Judy Finnigan). It was the implication that that meant that there was some forms of rape which "aren't really too bad".

 

That's the dodgy ground.

 

Rape is a hideous crime, whichever format it takes. In that sense, rape is rape, the media are correct on that.

 

There was also this: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/18/david-cameron-urged-sack-kenneth-clarke-rape

 

Ken Clarke basically explained what the UK sentencing guidelines say (i.e. that some rapes, like any crime, are more serious than other crimes of that type) and nearly got the bullet for it. I'm sure other people have had similar treatment for similar comments.

[mrmojorisin75]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

Really?

 

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.

 

"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.

 

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

 

"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

 

What on earth do you mean by that?

 

He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted.

 

That's why Evans was found guilty.

 

if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of  a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy.

 

he's not interpreting the law there, he's interpreting CCTV footage and deciding that someone stumbling cannot legally consent to sex when i believe expert testimony said otherwise

[ujpest doza]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

Really?

 

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.

 

"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.

 

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

 

"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

 

What on earth do you mean by that?

 

He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted.

 

That's why Evans was found guilty.

 

if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of  a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy.

 

he's not interpreting the law there, he's interpreting CCTV footage and deciding that someone stumbling cannot legally consent to sex when i believe expert testimony said otherwise

I've seen cctv of her going into the hotel and going back outside to pick up a pizza in high heels and she wasn't stumbling at all.

 

[sempuki]

Tinges of contrition in his statement. Probably told to apologise by his lawyers as his current strategy was certainly not working.

[mrmojorisin75]

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

 

might influence a few peoples thoughts on the case.

 

ah this was the thing i read about the judge's summing up influencing the jury aye

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a tele. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

Brummie, I have seen firsthand people who were probably innocent, convicted and vice versa. Juries sometimes make strange decisions, it's rare but it can and does happen.

 

Hans, obviously you can read up on the case and form your own conclusions about the factual basis of his conviction. That said, as a society as a whole we must treat people who are convicted of an offence (by a lay Jury no less) of being guilty of the offence, subject to any appeals.

 

[mrmojorisin75]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

Really?

 

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.

 

"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.

 

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

 

"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

 

What on earth do you mean by that?

 

He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted.

 

That's why Evans was found guilty.

 

if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of  a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy.

 

he's not interpreting the law there, he's interpreting CCTV footage and deciding that someone stumbling cannot legally consent to sex when i believe expert testimony said otherwise

I've seen cctv of her going into the hotel and going back outside to pick up a pizza in high heels and she wasn't stumbling at all.

 

 

yep same aye

[Hanshithispantz]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

Really?

 

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.

 

"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.

 

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

 

"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

 

What on earth do you mean by that?

 

He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted.

 

That's why Evans was found guilty.

 

if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of  a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy.

The judge's comments indicate that his verdict has come down to individual opinion. Obviously there was more to it than that, but he specifically uses the CCTV footage in his sentencing remarks and emphasises that it's in fact just an opinion. The jury would have had there own opinions too, which apparently matched the judges. It's still an opinion though, "was she drunk enough to consent going by this CCTV footage?"

 

 

[brummie]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

Really?

 

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.

 

"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.

 

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

 

"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

 

What on earth do you mean by that?

 

He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted.

 

That's why Evans was found guilty.

 

if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of  a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy.

 

he's not interpreting the law there, he's interpreting CCTV footage and deciding that someone stumbling cannot legally consent to sex when i believe expert testimony said otherwise

 

He is saying he believes she was too intoxicated, and that the cctv footage shows how intoxicated she was. That's not the same as saying "I think she was intoxicated because she looks pissed on the cctv footage".

 

He is an experienced judge making his comments in the closing of the trial having heard all the evidence and cross examinations. The second judge who considered the request for an appeal agreed with him. The jury, having been guided as to the law, agreed with him.

 

You're suggestion that you "believe" an expert suggested otherwise and that it is just the judge's opinion.

 

And that is exactly what I mean by pointing out that the grey area people talk about here doesn't exist legally, it is just people throwing suggestions around, rather than anything based on actual fact.

 

And therein lies the problem with some of the reaction to this case.

 

While all this is going on, his victim is finding herself persecuted, forced to keep changing address, and having her identity revealed online. How fucking depressing. You'd think she was the one in the wrong.

[mrmojorisin75]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

Really?

 

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.

 

"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.

 

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

 

"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

 

What on earth do you mean by that?

 

He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted.

 

That's why Evans was found guilty.

 

if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of  a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy.

The judge's comments indicate that his verdict has come down to individual opinion. Obviously there was more to it than that, but he specifically uses the CCTV footage in his sentencing remarks and emphasises that it's in fact just an opinion. The jury would have had there own opinions too, which apparently matched the judges. It's still an opinion though, "was she drunk enough to consent going by this CCTV footage?"

 

 

 

read that thing ED209 just posted wrt the judge's summing up hans, if you've not done so already

[brummie]

The judge's comments indicate that his verdict has come down to individual opinion. Obviously there was more to it than that, but he specifically uses the CCTV footage in his sentencing remarks and emphasises that it's in fact just an opinion. The jury would have had there own opinions too, which apparently matched the judges. It's still an opinion though, "was she drunk enough to consent going by this CCTV footage?"

 

No, as i said above, that is not what he is saying at all.

 

Of course opinion gets involved. It almost always does in legal cases. It is an opinion formed after seeing all the evidence, listening to questioning, and applying the law as exists. That's how juries work, too. That is how the legal system works.

 

There is a massive difference between a few people discussing a legal case on a football forum, and a court of law with a judge and jury.

 

A high court judge, a jury, having sat through the trial, having seen all the evidence, decided that Evans was guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". As did the second judge who rejected the appeal.

 

His comments also don't suggest it has "all come down to his personal opinion", either. He was found guilty by a jury. The judge expressing his opinion - that he agrees with the jury - and mentioning the CCTV do not in anyway suggest that he was the one to decide (he wasn't) or that it was on the basis of just the cctv coverage (it wasn't).

[Hanshithispantz]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

Really?

 

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.

 

"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.

 

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

 

"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

 

What on earth do you mean by that?

 

He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted.

 

That's why Evans was found guilty.

 

if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of  a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy.

The judge's comments indicate that his verdict has come down to individual opinion. Obviously there was more to it than that, but he specifically uses the CCTV footage in his sentencing remarks and emphasises that it's in fact just an opinion. The jury would have had there own opinions too, which apparently matched the judges. It's still an opinion though, "was she drunk enough to consent going by this CCTV footage?"

 

 

 

read that thing ED209 just posted wrt the judge's summing up hans, if you've not done so already

half way through it.

[mrmojorisin75]

He is saying he believes she was too intoxicated, and that the cctv footage shows how intoxicated she was. That's not the same as saying "I think she was intoxicated because she looks pissed on the cctv footage".

 

yet the CCTV footage from the hotel showing her not looking pissed and walking around fine enough should just be ignored, even though time-wise it is closer to the incident in question than when she was looking more pissed

[brummie]

He is saying he believes she was too intoxicated, and that the cctv footage shows how intoxicated she was. That's not the same as saying "I think she was intoxicated because she looks pissed on the cctv footage".

 

yet the CCTV footage from the hotel showing her not looking pissed and walking around fine enough should just be ignored, even though time-wise it is closer to the incident in question than when she was looking more pissed

 

You've just totally ignored the point about the cctv footage and decided "she looks alright to me" and on the basis of that, Evans has been unfairly treated?

 

Christ, no wonder rape is such a sensitive subject.

[Dave]

Evans has blatantly been reading this thread.