Ched Evans

Sorry MO but you are very wrong. Being convicted doesn't mean you are actually guilty of something. It means you have been found guilty.

Do you think my mate is guilty of indecent assault as per my post above? I worked in the courts for years and have seen an awful lot of innocent men go down and an awful lot of guilty men get off scott free. Conviction does not mean guilt

 

I am not wrong Marcus, he is guilty, it doesn't mean that he did it but he has been found guilty in a court of law so in the eyes of the law he is guilty.

If your mate was found guilty in a court of law then he is guilty, it is how the law works.

You might think I am being pedantic but, if you want to say he didn't do it say that, but to say he is not guilty after a guilty verdict is wrong.

 

My opinion is my opinion, that opinion has been formed by reading alot of information about the case and applying some common sense.

The fact that he was convicted merely means that a jury concluded he was guilty based on their perception of the evidence laid in front of them, it doesn't mean he actually did it - it's not a definiteive statement of fact, merely a collective opinion.

 

Which means that he is guilty

As it happens, I agree with the second part of your post, I have read the judges comments in the summing up and don't know how he was found guilty (but he was).

I think he was very unlucky and in my experience of the CCRC his conviction will be deemed unsafe and overturned, but until then he his guilty.

 

The rape law is an utter mess, I feel for Ched Evans. "I was too drunk to remember saying yes." Well you know what, tough. Drink less next time. It shouldn't be on the man to judge how drunk the woman is, especially when the man himself might well be intoxicated. Sexist law.

 

HE isn;t guilty. You are only "guilty" by definition if you have done something. My ex-wife accused me of cheating and I hadn't - but in hers and her families eyes I had. Them being the jury makes me guilty in your eyes. Where I didn;t do anything. The word "Guilty" means to have done something. He is not guilty if he did not do it - regardless of verdict.

 

No, it merely means he was found guilty in a court of law.

The Birmingham Six say hello.....

 

What stank about this case, was that the woman never accused either man of rape.

She merely stated she couldn't remember what happened.

The coppers took the fact that they both admitted to shagging her as enough to then conclude she was not consenual therefore they raped her!

Not remembering saying Yes can never be right as reason enough to concoct a rape case.

It should have never got to court and if it was Tina from the Chippy who'd been boned by Ian and Mick the builders after a gallon of vodka and red bull in a flat in Wigan, it's have never have been given the time of day by either the bizzies or the CPS.

What's even more blindingly obvious, is the simple fact that they convicted Evans on the basis of her not being able to remember anything, then they had to conclude that his mate raped her aswell. As she didn't remember saying yes to him either. The whole case is a farce imo.

 

The Birmingham six had their convictions overturned so they were subsequently found not guilty What is your point?

 

If that's the case then it's quite astonishing it even got to court.

 

You are making everything personal, I am talking about the law and he is guilty in the law, I don't understand how much clearer I can make that (it has been in every newspaper and news programme that I have seen and heard)

The word guilty means that the due process of law has been completed and a person charged with a particular offence has been found guilty in a court of law.

You say that you worked in courts so you should know how important the terminology is, I have worked in the criminal justice system for 34 years and have dealt with both guilty and innocent people.

A person remanded in custody is innocent and has more rights and privileges until they are found guilty and convicted of the offence, then they lose their privileges and become a convicted prisoner.

 

How did the police get involved in the first place then?

I have made a thread about this in the past and declared I don't know enough about the case to form an educated opinion on whether he committed the crime or not. That surprises me though, that you mention she never accused him of raping her.

I think Ennis and the Patrons who have distanced themselves from the club have every right to by the way, he's a convicted rapist, who cheated on his Mrs to spitroast some slut with his pal. Even if his conviction was to be overturned then I'm sure they still reserve the right to think he's a ****ing scumbag.

 

The point being that they were never 'guilty' of anything.

 

As has been stated earlier in this thread, the rape law is in a right mess in this country..How on earth case such as this one be classed in the same bracket as someone who has dragged a woman into a park and beat her to **** before raping her?

 

I don't know why I keep repeating the same thing if you cant understand it, go and read a bit more about the criminal justice system then we might have a conversation.

I am not saying that he did it, I am saying that he is guilty because he was found guilty in court, defendants found not guilty in court are never convicted of that particular offence. Its not that hard to understand honestly

 

There are degrees of rape MrRaw, and sentencing reflects that

 

Yes they were, until the finding of guilt was overturned

 

The Police got involved because she'd lost her bag and claimed she couldn't remember what happened the night before.

She never accused them of rape and there was no forensic evidence against either man. had they not admitted to having sex with her, it'd have ended there.

The Police decided that a female with no memory + men admitting sex = rape.

Ennis has distanced herself to protect her image rights and the rest of the morally outraged queuing up to stick their two penneth in, are just a symptom of the modern age. Everyone must have their view aired, same as we're doing here.

It's fairly obvious that evans and his mates are pretty scummy blokes who were trading off their footballer status and doing as they pleased. However, if we're going to pass moral judgement on every footballer who'd cheated on his Mrs and engaged in a spitroast, and decree that they're not fit to grace the turf........then half the top divisions players better get down the Jobcentre, and a fair chunk of the crowd while we're at it......

 

In a court of law, not in reality, that's the salient point.

A trial by jury is merely a collective subjective opinion, that we choose to accept as 'fact' in our society, until proven otherwise, but it doesn't make it anything other than formalised opinion.

 

You missed my point mate..I did say classed in the same bracket! By that I mean that a drunken sex session where a girl who has willingly went back with a man but later said she did not consent to the sex, but agreed at no time was violence or threats used should not be worded as rape..
I wonder how many blokes on here have went with a lass when they have been pissed and then woke up next day and thought Jesus Christ..I wouldn't have touched her with a barge pole if I had been sober...Does that mean we could charge her with rape for taking advantage of the man when he was pissed?