Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[Toondave]

I'm not saying I believe all drugs in themselves are evil. It's just like any product, you want the supply chain to be above board and exploitation free if you can help it. Which I imagine is very rare with anything other than small quantities of cannabis etc.

 

Anyway soz, slightly off the Ched topic.

 

Sort of hard when the government creates a black market.

[ponsaelius]

Jess Ennis didnae bother this much when they signed convicted sex offender Marlon King. Guess she doesn't follow the football that much.

 

edit: didn't even know King was back in the nick. What a fuck up that bloke is.

[Tachikoma]

I really don't like the idea that anyone who has committed a crime and been sent to jail can never, ever be punished enough for said crime. Why would anyone not just go back to crime, if its practically impossible to become reintegrated with law-abiding society?

[jdckelly]

I honestly don't know how I feel about this case, on the one hand there's the victim and how it must make her feel having this dragged up and put through the media court as it is atm on the other hand he did serve his time and his debt to society is repaid (assuming he keeps to whatever conditions there are for early release not entirely sure on them) so is he not entitled to get on with his life and career? Is that not the whole objective of the system to rehabilitate someone and reintegrate them into society? Voted yes but honestly really conflicted about the whole thing and the way its getting dragged through the media.

 

Regardless of what anyone thinks I'm almost certain some club will take a chance on him, football is not a place to look for strong moral convictions.

[afar]

I had not got a clue about this, until the beeb ran a story saying convicted rapist seeks a way back to football or something. Anyway I did a little bit of research.

 

The conviction is very very suspect imo. Especially when they found the other guy who was involved in the incident innocent. What was clear from what I read that here was a young girl who had had too much to drink, went to a hotel with one footballer, he called his mate (Evans) over to join in and she accepted it. The case seemed to hinge on how drunk she was and able to make decisions for herself. She stated that although she had a lot to drink, this was not out of the norm for her and she often drank a lot more. There was no force used here, it was consensual, the question was whether she was in a fit state to make the decision.

 

What went against Evans was really why the hell did you go to a room where your mate was shagging a girl and ask to join in ? He had a steady girlfriend, who amazingly is still with him. FFS, how difficult is it to get girls as a professional footballer ?? It was a stupid choice and he paid a big price for it.

 

The girl allegedly sent a few tweets that the Evans family got a hold of stating stuff like I'll buy you this or that "when I win big". If those tweets are real that casts some doubt on her character.

 

It's a really tough one to call, that's why I would question somewhat the jury on the trial since they the had to find him "beyond reasonable doubt" guilty. think personally from the stuff  I've read that there is too much doubt to convict the guy, his defence team did a lousy job really.

 

That's not to say that I think he was innocent, because him making a pre meditated decision to go to that hotel room was as stupid a decision anyone could make and his motivation to do so must have been huge something along the lines of his mate saying that this girl was wasted is entirely possible, if so then his mate should have been convicted as an accomplice to the crime iyam.

 

Anyway it's a really interesting case and people should serious think about this when they go out on their binge drinking nights, the UK is too famous for.

 

As far as playing again, I would say wait till the 2nd appeal they are apparently pursing, but a footballers career is so short, the appeal hearing could just take too long. Up to the individual clubs, other sports like the NFL are full of convicted criminals, football can decide if they want to follow that example.

 

[Tooj]

I had not got a clue about this, until the beeb ran a story saying convicted rapist seeks a way back to football or something. Anyway I did a little bit of research.

 

The conviction is very very suspect imo. Especially when they found the other guy who was involved in the incident innocent. What was clear from what I read that here was a young girl who had had too much to drink, went to a hotel with one footballer, he called his mate (Evans) over to join in and she accepted it. The case seemed to hinge on how drunk she was and able to make decisions for herself. She stated that although she had a lot to drink, this was not out of the norm for her and she often drank a lot more. There was no force used here, it was consensual, the question was whether she was in a fit state to make the decision.

 

What went against Evans was really why the hell did you go to a room where your mate was shagging a girl and ask to join in ? He had a steady girlfriend, who amazingly is still with him. FFS, how difficult is it to get girls as a professional footballer ?? It was a stupid choice and he paid a big price for it.

 

The girl allegedly sent a few tweets that the Evans family got a hold of stating stuff like I'll buy you this or that "when I win big". If those tweets are real that casts some doubt on her character.

 

It's a really tough one to call, that's why I would question somewhat the jury on the trial since they the had to find him "beyond reasonable doubt" guilty. think personally from the stuff  I've read that there is too much doubt to convict the guy, his defence team did a lousy job really.

 

That's not to say that I think he was innocent, because him making a pre meditated decision to go to that hotel room was as stupid a decision anyone could make and his motivation to do so must have been huge something along the lines of his mate saying that this girl was wasted is entirely possible, if so then his mate should have been convicted as an accomplice to the crime iyam.

 

Anyway it's a really interesting case and people should serious think about this when they go out on their binge drinking nights, the UK is too famous for.

 

As far as playing again, I would say wait till the 2nd appeal they are apparently pursing, but a footballers career is so short, the appeal hearing could just take too long. Up to the individual clubs, other sports like the NFL are full of convicted criminals, football can decide if they want to follow that example.

 

 

[Stottie]

If, like me, all you've heard is "Ched Evans-rapist", its worth reading the writeups other posters have linked because it is a very complicated case with some degree of doubt.

 

He may be guilty or he may be innocent, but as sex offenders go, Ched Evans will be getting far more attention and flak than he deserves. It would be better directed toward those who enabled Savile, the MP peado ring or those twats at Meadomsley.

 

 

[Tooj]

Still can't get my head round how if she was deemed too intoxicated to consent to anyform of sex, then how did Evans get convicted but the other one didn't? 

[brummie]

If, like me, all you've heard is "Ched Evans-rapist", its worth reading the writeups other posters have linked because it is a very complicated case with some degree of doubt.

 

He may be guilty or he may be innocent, but as sex offenders go, Ched Evans will be getting far more attention and flak than he deserves. It would be better directed toward those who enabled Savile, the MP peado ring or those twats at Meadomsley.

 

 

 

The thing is, no matter what we might think of the case, going by what we read in the press, the bloke is a convicted rapist. He was found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, by a jury. There's no "may be" guilty about it - in the eyes of the law, he did it. Until a legal process takes place under which he clears his name, Ched Evans is a convicted rapist.

 

The fact that the woman was drunk doesn't in any way suggest it was any more acceptable - it is no excuse whatsoever.

 

My problem with Evans is, every time I have seen him on tv or read stuff he has said in the newspapers, he refers to it as "my infidelity" which his girlfriend has forgiven him for.  This sort of thing:

 

"Ched Evans: cheating on my girlfriend was unforgivable" - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/19/ched-evans-no-remorse-rape-woman

 

It wasn't "infidelity", it was rape.

 

There is nothing normal about this - two professional footballers have sex with a woman so drunk she can hardly stand up, whilst two other men watch.

 

I don't have an opinion one way or the other about whether Sheffield United should have him back, I can see both sides of the argument, but I find the creeping acceptance (and I don't mean anyone here, I mean in general) of what he did as in some way not actual rape more than a little bit unpleasant.

[Hanshithispantz]

Surely he has every right to call it infidelity though? Just because he was convicted in a court of law doesn't mean he has to accept it and I don't think there's enough evidence out there for us to say without any trepidation that "it was rape." The jury decided it was but that's hardly water tight.

 

If it is true though and she was in a state, although what he did would have been rape by the very definition of the word, there's a completely different mentality behind what he would have done and what we would usually classify as rape. I just don't think this is the monstrous crime it's been painted as in the media, it's been seen as rape (which again by the very definition of the word it would be) and that's that, Ched Evans is a RAPIST. Ched Evans is a monster etc.

 

Again I'm not trying to play down what he's done (if it's true), I just think for what he's been accused of he's served a sentence which more than covers for the crime and should be allowed to get on with his life. RAPIST though, it'll always stick, rightly or wrongly.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Still can't get my head round how if she was deemed too intoxicated to consent to anyform of sex, then how did Evans get convicted but the other one didn't? 

 

Presumably she admitted having sex with the other bloke?

[Guest Geordiesned]

If, like me, all you've heard is "Ched Evans-rapist", its worth reading the writeups other posters have linked because it is a very complicated case with some degree of doubt.

 

He may be guilty or he may be innocent, but as sex offenders go, Ched Evans will be getting far more attention and flak than he deserves. It would be better directed toward those who enabled Savile, the MP peado ring or those twats at Meadomsley.

 

 

 

The thing is, no matter what we might think of the case, going by what we read in the press, the bloke is a convicted rapist. He was found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, by a jury. There's no "may be" guilty about it - in the eyes of the law, he did it. Until a legal process takes place under which he clears his name, Ched Evans is a convicted rapist.

 

The fact that the woman was drunk doesn't in any way suggest it was any more acceptable - it is no excuse whatsoever.

 

My problem with Evans is, every time I have seen him on tv or read stuff he has said in the newspapers, he refers to it as "my infidelity" which his girlfriend has forgiven him for.  This sort of thing:

 

"Ched Evans: cheating on my girlfriend was unforgivable" - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/19/ched-evans-no-remorse-rape-woman

 

It wasn't "infidelity", it was rape.

 

There is nothing normal about this - two professional footballers have sex with a woman so drunk she can hardly stand up, whilst two other men watch.

 

I don't have an opinion one way or the other about whether Sheffield United should have him back, I can see both sides of the argument, but I find the creeping acceptance (and I don't mean anyone here, I mean in general) of what he did as in some way not actual rape more than a little bit unpleasant.

 

Completely agree and couldn't have put it better myself.

 

The fact is that if you have sex with someone who is clearly too drunk to give true consent then you are committing rape. It matters not whether you personally think you have committed rape or are ignorant of the law.

[Rob W]

Agreed - but he's done his time so in my book he gets to start again

 

I don't have to like him, iI don't have to applaud him but he gets a chance to rebuild his life

 

If we don't offer such a chance what the hell will he do?  A downward spiral of drink, drugs, more bad behavior etc etc

[ujpest doza]

I think there should be a don't know vote rather than just Yes or No.

 

I've read his website about this and it all seems a bit off.

The girl actually approached and picked up his mate in the street as he was getting in a taxi. Asked him where he was going and when he replied back to my hotel she apparently said right then I'm going back with you.

 

Just seems odd that she says she can't remember a thing but only one of them was convicted and one walked free.

[ujpest doza]

Still can't get my head round how if she was deemed too intoxicated to consent to anyform of sex, then how did Evans get convicted but the other one didn't? 

 

Presumably she admitted having sex with the other bloke?

From what I read she couldn't remember having sex with either of them and only knew she had because they told the police they had.

[brummie]

Surely he has every right to call it infidelity though? Just because he was convicted in a court of law doesn't mean he has to accept it and I don't think there's enough evidence out there for us to say without any trepidation that "it was rape." The jury decided it was but that's hardly water tight.

 

If it is true though and she was in a state, although what he did would have been rape by the very definition of the word, there's a completely different mentality behind what he would have done and what we would usually classify as rape. I just don't think this is the monstrous crime it's been painted as in the media, it's been seen as rape (which again by the very definition of the word it would be) and that's that, Ched Evans is a RAPIST. Ched Evans is a monster etc.

 

Again I'm not trying to play down what he's done (if it's true), I just think for what he's been accused of he's served a sentence which more than covers for the crime and should be allowed to get on with his life. RAPIST though, it'll always stick, rightly or wrongly.

 

We have to rely on the legal system, though. He has been through the legal process, tried, found guilty and convicted. He even had the right to an appeal turned down.

 

Evans and another bloke had sex with a woman too drunk to consent whilst two other men watched. That is the top and bottom of it. Calling it infidelity just makes it sound like what it would be if you or I started shagging someone behind our partner's back.

 

Evans can call it what he likes, but that doesn't mean that is what it is. Somewhere there is the victim listening to this, or maybe there are other women who have been raped and scared to go to the police about it, being put off by Evans's brushing it off as infidelity.

 

CCTV footage of the evening apparently showed she could barely stand, she was so off her face.

 

He might not think he's raped anyone, but the law thinks otherwise. I can't help but think that, if he came to terms with what had happened and stopped trying to minimise it, people might be more understanding in allowing him to rebuild his life.

[Stottie]

Still can't get my head round how if she was deemed too intoxicated to consent to anyform of sex, then how did Evans get convicted but the other one didn't? 

 

Presumably she admitted having sex with the other bloke?

 

The other bloke was acquitted of rape, i.e., a charge of rape was brought against him too.  For him to be acquitted, the court must have been satisfied that the sex between him and the woman was consensual, i.e., she must have been capable of giving consent and did so. The "it was rape because she was too drunk to give consent" reasoning did not apply against him.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Surely he has every right to call it infidelity though? Just because he was convicted in a court of law doesn't mean he has to accept it and I don't think there's enough evidence out there for us to say without any trepidation that "it was rape." The jury decided it was but that's hardly water tight.

 

If it is true though and she was in a state, although what he did would have been rape by the very definition of the word, there's a completely different mentality behind what he would have done and what we would usually classify as rape. I just don't think this is the monstrous crime it's been painted as in the media, it's been seen as rape (which again by the very definition of the word it would be) and that's that, Ched Evans is a RAPIST. Ched Evans is a monster etc.

 

Again I'm not trying to play down what he's done (if it's true), I just think for what he's been accused of he's served a sentence which more than covers for the crime and should be allowed to get on with his life. RAPIST though, it'll always stick, rightly or wrongly.

 

We have to rely on the legal system, though. He has been through the legal process, tried, found guilty and convicted. He even had the right to an appeal turned down.

 

Evans and another bloke had sex with a woman too drunk to consent whilst two other men watched. That is the top and bottom of it. Calling it infidelity just makes it sound like what it would be if you or I started shagging someone behind our partner's back.

 

Evans can call it what he likes, but that doesn't mean that is what it is. Somewhere there is the victim listening to this, or maybe there are other women who have been raped and scared to go to the police about it, being put off by Evans's brushing it off as infidelity.

 

CCTV footage of the evening apparently showed she could barely stand, she was so off her face.

 

He might not think he's raped anyone, but the law thinks otherwise. I can't help but think that, if he came to terms with what had happened and stopped trying to minimise it, people might be more understanding in allowing him to rebuild his life.

 

Why do we have to rely upon the legal system in this instance? I mean obviously yes, in the grand scheme of things our society has to, but when it's still questionable there's no reason to...

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Still can't get my head round how if she was deemed too intoxicated to consent to anyform of sex, then how did Evans get convicted but the other one didn't? 

 

Presumably she admitted having sex with the other bloke?

 

The other bloke was acquitted of rape, i.e., a charge of rape was brought against him too.  For him to be acquitted, the court must have been satisfied that the sex between him and the woman was consensual, i.e., she must have been capable of giving consent and did so. The "it was rape because she was too drunk to give consent" reasoning did not apply against him.

 

Ah right, I didn't know that.

[UV]

CCTV footage of the evening apparently showed she could barely stand, she was so off her face.

 

http://www.chedevans.com/index.files/html5video/travelodge.m4v

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Why do we have to rely upon the legal system in this instance? I mean obviously yes, in the grand scheme of things our society has to, but when it's still questionable there's no reason to...

 

On the other hand, we weren't in court to listen to the evidence and we weren't there when the crime happened, so what better measure than the decision of a jury?

[BlueStar]

I think people are putting too much stead in the fact the other guy didn't go down for it. Being acquitted isn't the same as being found innocent though, is it? It just means there's not enough evidence for a conviction. It's not like the accuser had been tried and convicted of a false allegation. You don't get a not guilty verdict only if you can prove conclusively the crime didn't occur, just if you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that it did. There may well be different evidence, different statements from the accused etc which means one holds up and the other didn't.  Wasn't Evan's later encounter filmed by his mates while the other guy's wasn't? There's been times when I've had a skinful and been able to play FIFA and engage in conversation and 30 minutes later, without having drunk anything else I'm flat out and you could shave my eyebrows off. A lot of people seem to be dismissing the court judgement which was made by a jury after studying both sides of the evidence for a considerable period of time based on having an 'aha!' moment based on a soundbite.

[ujpest doza]

CCTV footage of the evening apparently showed she could barely stand, she was so off her face.

 

http://www.chedevans.com/index.files/html5video/travelodge.m4v

The only thing appearing to impair her ability to stand or walk on that video is her high heels.

She's not falling about drunk or being carried in unconscious or anything.

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

Why do we have to rely upon the legal system in this instance? I mean obviously yes, in the grand scheme of things our society has to, but when it's still questionable there's no reason to...

 

On the other hand, we weren't in court to listen to the evidence and we weren't there when the crime happened, so what better measure than the decision of a jury?

 

I don't buy that at all. There would have to be no reasonable doubt in their minds.

 

Please bear in mind that I watched 12 Angry Men last night and I'm in the middle of listening to Serial though.

[oldtype]

The man is a convicted rapist and we certainly shouldn't be casting aspersions over the validity of that conviction based on facts we know very little about.

 

Whether he should be allowed to return to his trade after serving his time is a separate question.