Why are they stupid questions? Because you can't answer them sufficiently? If people didn't question verdicts then a lot of innocent people would have spent a lot of time in jail for nothing. A lot of them have
Then you shouldn't post stuff like 'are you suggesting the judge doesn't know the law?' It's not exactly the issue.
I guess we'll have to wait and see. If he appeals and wins, then presumably Dev will think he's innocent.
Why should'nt I? Is that the law or summat? I've spent the better part of two days trying to explain the law and why I think he was convicted so you'll forgive me if I don't plan to explain it all again for your benefit because you are to idle to go back and read all the thread.
You haven't answered them at all. All you've done is cut and paste quotes from newspapers which doesn't clear up anything. In fact, most of your answers have just added to the confusion. Now, I'm not one for usually arguing with you Dev. I agree with a lot of what you say. There have also been a few threads on GC over the past year or so relating to court verdicts (Amanda Knox for example) and I've never once argued the toss either way with the results but something about the Chad Evans case just doesn't add up to me and to others. That's why I keep asking the question of how one man having sex with a very drunk woman (who is incapable of giving consent) is seen as rape while another man who did the exact same thing is found innocent. Nothing you've said has sufficiently explained how that is possible.
if it helps, i know someone who worked at man city when he was there and he says evans is dumb as **** e.g finds it hard to string a sentence together
At least he's in the League 1 Team of the Year. I'm sure that'll make up for his recent disappointment.
