Nah, my verdict is based on inconsistencies from the prosecution and the 'victim'. We studied this case in my Law class and after analysing all the facts of the case the majority of us concluded that he was innocent and that the jury cocked-up.
Ah I see, hate then to inform you I also know a little bit about the law, you should know then that studying the 'facts' of a case is entirely different from the way in which a trial is conducted in a court room. I don't know what level your law class is but I suggest putting the word victim in inverted commas would not win you many marks. I assume you understand the way in which evidential burden is decided in such cases. The fact is whatever your verdict based on class room study is the verdict reached by a jury is the one which counts. Perhaps if Evans is granted leave to appeal you should go along.
Of course. I don't see any damning evidence that implicates Evans, there was no DNA evidence that proved a rape occurred and the inebriation of the victim means she couldn't provide a credible testimony as she "didn't know". You can't say someone raped you if you can't remember it. Actually, you can, but normal people won't believe you.
Now I know it has been said that drunken consent is still consent if someone is so drunk that they cannot even remember what happened how would the accused convince a jury they had a reasonable belief that there was consent ? As a law student you should know that there is no requirement for there to be DNA evidence ( usually in the form of semen) for rape to be proven. If Evans penetrated the victim and had no reasonable belief in the woman's consent the law says that is rape. Using the logic of your argument if a man knocked a woman out then penetrated her whist she was unconscious that would not be rape because she would be unable to remember it.
Simplistic argument. There's also the fact that another person was acquitted, despite having the same allegations made against him. I'm not bothered what you think, I think he's innocent and the woman is a liar. The thread was created to find out what our views were on the subject. I think he should continue to play for Sheffield United following his release because I think he's innocent and even convicted criminals should be able to find work. You have 11 posts and ten of them are on this thread, I'm starting to think you're a WUM.
I new a lad that was convicted of raping an older lady in hull years ago,he was walking home from seeing his girl friend, was stopped by the police and fitted up by them, nobody who new him could believe it we all new he was innocent but he still went down for it,his family and friends fought the case, then about 3 or 4 years later the police arrested a guy that admitted to raping women in hull and confessed to raping this lady,the lad was released from prison and sued the police for wrongful arrest ,the sad thing was his gran died while he was in prison caused by the grief of his arrest ,his life desrtoyed his families life destroyed all because of crooked cops.
You say "the majority" felt he was innocent, is there any indication which parts of the evidence the others thought proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt?
No. The others didn't like him because he was an "overpaid footballer" and automatically assumed he was a rapist.
And there was me trying to be kind ! Good to see whatever law course you do or did seems to have equipped you with the ability to discern the validity of a verdict in contra distinction to the jury who heard the totality of the evidence and I understand 3 high court judges who refused to allow Evans leave to appeal. You don't care what I think ...big deal... Though you might discover that considering what others have to say who may know a little more about the law than you might well help you in later life...but somehow I doubt it. Evans is not innocent regardless of what your class decided he is a convicted rapist, the woman he raped had her identity outed by his friends and has had to flee , maybe your idea of justice is this kind of behaviour, probably so going by some of your comments. It's irrelevant how many posts I put on any thread so what's the big deal , but perhaps reading the ****e you've written motivated me to try to put a counter argument. If that winds you up tough with views like yours do you expect everyone else to just roll over and say ' hey this fella can disprove a court verdict because he's studied it on a law course and he just knows the guy is innocent wow ' Incidentally you never said what the law course was 'A' level or 'O' ?
And there was me trying to be kind ! Good to see whatever law course you do or did seems to have equipped you with the ability to discern the validity of a verdict in contra distinction to the jury who heard the totality of the evidence and I understand 3 high court judges who refused to allow Evans leave to appeal. You don't care what I think ...big deal... Though you might discover that considering what others have to say who may know a little more about the law than you might well help you in later life...but somehow I doubt it. Evans is not innocent regardless of what your class decided he is a convicted rapist, the woman he raped had her identity outed by his friends and has had to flee , maybe your idea of justice is this kind of behaviour, probably so going by some of your comments. It's irrelevant how many posts I put on any thread so what's the big deal , but perhaps reading the ****e you've written motivated me to try to put a counter argument. If that winds you up tough with views like yours do you expect everyone else to just roll over and say ' hey this fella can disprove a court verdict because he's studied it on a law course and he just knows the guy is innocent wow ' Incidentally you never said what the law course was 'A' level or 'O' ?
Its these sort of remarks that make you a WUM, completely unnecessary. By all means join in a debate, people don't have to agree on everything, but don't resort to cheap insults like these or people will stop taking you seriously.
I heard you the first time. I think it was a wrongful conviction and that he should still play football, others on this forum agree, get over it.
Why does he have to "get over it"? Isn't he allowed to put across a counter-argument instead? It has to be said your "we covered the case in law class" is a bit laughable to say the least.
Its a very ignorant comment to make. Its completely unfounded and potentially very insulting, it has no fact or grounding and is merely an assumption designed to provoke people.
And that's relevant because? He didn't think he was being a WUM, I merely pointed out how is comments could have been construed.
Quite a few people on this thread believe it was a wrongful conviction and that the case should have been thrown out of court, me included. He's entitled to put a counter-argument across, but don't expect everyone to agree with him. It doesn't matter how good his argument is, people will have different opinions on things and that's the thing he should get over. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it suck your cock. I said "we covered the case in law class" because he assumed I based my opinion on information from the internet. It's nice to see you belittle students though.
I'm not insulted, it's just childish to assume someone condones rape because they think a person was wrongly convicted.
