It has bern turned down once by the court of appeal. No guarantee it will even get that far. If it does his case will have to prove she lied about being unable to consent. No evidence so far she lied at all. So why should she be locked up?
Ched Evans
- Thread starter Spook
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
It has bern turned down once by the court of appeal. No guarantee it will even get that far. If it does his case will have to prove she lied about being unable to consent. No evidence so far she lied at all. So why should she be locked up?
The thing is, she doesn't know for certain if she was raped or not. Well, that's assuming she was too drunk to consent, which CCTV has disproven as she could walk in and out of the hotel on her own to receive a pizza.
He said, she said. I'm starting to believe Ched's side of the story.
The judicial system in this country is a farce. Every case that reaches a trial is subjected to a jury as everyone's aware in this country. Problem is that half the ****ing idiots that go on jury duty know what the **** is going on. I worked for a year in the courts as jury supervisor (if they requested evidence I got it for them etc) and none of them had a clue and some didn't care about being there.
We need to move over to what some countries have and have an inquisitorial system where a judge (who is more likely to be educated on the matter) makes a decision based on the law. If there's a miscarriage of justice it's far easier to appeal and it's a lot cheaper on the taxpayer
We need to move over to what some countries have and have an inquisitorial system where a judge (who is more likely to be educated on the matter) makes a decision based on the law. If there's a miscarriage of justice it's far easier to appeal and it's a lot cheaper on the taxpayer
Again the same cctv that the judge and the jury saw? Cctv has not disproven anything. Where are you getting this from? Cheds website?
That's not what I asked.
I said if the conviction is quashed, should she be locked up for 2 1/2 years?
Like you, AKCJ, I don't know much about it but, whatever state she was in he jeopardized all those ^^^ things, by getting involved in a sordid event.
Because having sex with someone who's had a drink isn't rape, if it was, roughly half the people who ever have sex are guilty of rape. It's a ****ing ridiculous assertion.
Rape is about consent, it's got **** all do with how many beers you've had.
If you're so drunk or unconscious then how do you give consent exactly?
I'd say no, she shouldn't. There's no doubt sex took place, the issue is if it was consensual with Evans.
As it is here, before it got to Court, the Police gathered evidence that the CPS reviewed and felt they had enough to secure a conviction. Two reviews have found the same.
If we turn from that to punishing what is a victim with imprisonment, we'd need to review the whole legal system. Some societies have a rule that a failed rape allegation from a married woman is an admission of adultery, for which they are stoned. They have few reported rapes, but I doubt it's a safer society.
Okay then.
If she was drunk/unconscious, how did she consent to having sex with Clayton McDonald?
She wasn't though, as CCTV evidence proves she could walk without help.
Unconscious people can't walk and carry pizzas.
His Police record says different. The best legal team his money could buy put an argument forward that's been rejected at least twice.