The comment I made was based on some of the comments expressed on this thread you included such as using the term ' genuine rape victim' suggesting the woman who Evans was convicted of raping was not raped , others have referred to the woman ' bringing rape claims into disrepute' what ? A jury found Evans guilty they didn't study the case on a first year college course they heard the whole of the evidence. Making comments such as ' bogus if ever I saw one' indicates you are clueless how many rape cases have you studied ? Others have said the victim ' should be ashamed' really ? What for. ? For being raped ? For having a jury find in her favour ? For having 3 high court judges decide Evans has no grounds for appeal ?. I have acknowledged miscarriages of justice occur and can and do have a devastating impact on those falsely imprisoned or convicted . However I stand by my comments there is a nasty underlying theme to some of the comments on here. So you think he's innocent and was wrongfully imprisoned and as a consequence lost his job and had his reputation shredded.. Well to paraphrase one comment ' my heart bleeds' Evans is a rapist get over it
Now who's being insulting? I'm not belittling students, I'm belittling the idea that the information you covered in your law class is as comprehensive as that which was available to the jury and the trial judge. There is only so much information you could have been privy to so the idea that your class knew better than the trial judge and jury is a little far-fetched. I wonder why he wasn't granted leave to appeal?
And from this you deduced that people believed 'because she was drunk she was asking for it'? That's a huge leap to make and your essentially saying people here are actively condoning rape which quite obviously they are not.
I think the appeals system is seriously flawed, the judges that review the evidence only get to read the transcript of the evidence given, for the appeals system to be effective they need to film court cases and let the judges see the evidence being given first hand. I brought a High Court action against someone, they lost the case, but got off paying any damages due to a technicality. I went to the Court of Appeal to try and get that addressed, but reading the court transcript from the first trial, they couldn't see the obvious lying that was going on with the defendant and his witnesses and as a consequence not only did they not overturn the damages decision, they cut the amount of costs they had to pay me. It was an utter farce and I'd never bring another High Court action, as it has absolutely nothing to do with justice. The law is a complete and utter ass.
No that's not what I have said at all , the point I have been making is that a number of people you included have taken it upon themselves to make disparaging comments about a woman who a court of law ruled had been raped. What gives you the right to suggest she is not 'genuine' do you know something the jury didn't ? You might not condone rape per se but making statements like you have, suggests you seem to think a man who penetrates a woman so inebriated that she was effectively unconscious is not rape.Thankfully that's not how the law see's it.
I don't think anything of the sort and once again your are implying that I or others are condoning rape.
Why wasn't Clayton McDonald convicted of rape? He admitted to having sex with her but denied raping her. How could she consent to having sex with McDonald if she was "effectively unconscious"?
I don't think anybody's suggested that, what they've suggested is this girl was just trying it on, the £15k she requested to drop the case lends some credence to this theory. PS - If you're a lawyer, please let us know which firm you work for, so we can all avoid you, thanks.
The law can be an utter ass your're right but I'm not sure you understand what the appeals system is Evans sought leave ( permission ) to appeal , in order to take his case to appeal his counsel would have had to convince 3 high courts judges that their was either a serious flaw in the original decision or their was a point of law on which to base an appeal. Of course the appeal judges do not at that stage conduct a full re hearing of the case they examine whether on the evidence presented by counsel that their are grounds for an appeal. That Evans legal team was unable to convince the court there was therefore he was not granted the right to a re hearing. Not sure I understand what point you are making with regard to the case you say took to the Court of Appeal. If you won a case but was dissatisfied by the damages awarded surely whoever was providing you with legal representation should have told you that seeking to challenge the damages award in a higher court run the risk that not only may you not win but you ran the risk of having costs ruled against you. It true that for employment cases for example often the damages awarded do not adequately match the losses incurred, that's more to do with statutory caps which limit what courts can award. In any event none of that is relevant to Evans, unless he can produce some evidence not available to either the original trial or which appeal judges his conviction will stand. Incidentally students who do a first year course in Law then think that they can say with such authority based on a class discussion that the verdict of a judge and jury and 3 high court judges is wrong open themselves up to ridicule.
Given the **** up you claim you suffered at the Court of Appeal I'd suggest you get better legal advice next time, I'm way too expensive for you
The case cost me roughly £100k and the legal counsel I employ are far too busy to **** about on football message boards during the day. But if I need any simple conveyancing done, I'll let you know.
I guess on a slight tangent, when a written statement's read out in Court, it leaves an opportunity for the emphasis to be put on different words or sentences, which can give a different impression of what was said. I don't undertstand why they don't just replay the recorded interview.
