Not everyone found guilty is guilty, he's always claimed he's innocent. There is a lot more to this case than a standard he did it so was jailed. I can't say I'm an expert on his case and wouldn't want to start shouting his innocence but I also wouldn't want to condemn this person as there is a lot of evidence to support his claim.
Well he was tried by his peers and found guilty, so we have to go with that unless proof dictates otherwise. As you know all cons say they didn't do it.
As I'm said I'm no expert so don't want to get right into this but for example there were 3 footballers in the room she has sex with all 3 and was hammered but she claims she did not consent to sex with Evans. There was also some comment online from the alleged victim that she was about to come into some money because of this, the post was apparently not in good taste.
Have a look online there's loads of information about this case and some of it does show a lot of doubt about his conviction.
I have read quite a bit about the case but can't pretend to be an expert either. But some of what is available from court records - She was picked up by Evans footballer friend McDonald, outside a kebab shop where she was so drunk the cctv shows she dropped everything she was carrying on the floor, including her bag and phone, which she didn't pick up and walked away from, because she was so drunk she hadn't noticed she'd left them on the pavement [which was what got the police involved in the case when she reported them missing the next day]. She got in a taxi with McDonald [who txted Evans on the way that he'd 'got a bird] and went back to the hotel room Evans had booked for him. They were having sex when Evans, having lied to the night porter to obtain a key card, came into the hotel room and watched them. He then asked McDonald if he could 'get involved' . I could go on. ... The victim wasn't named by the court but was apparently outed by Evans family, so I'm not sure where the claims to coming into money came from.
There's so much crap posted about this, I'm wrong about there being 3 people but was sure I had read that somewhere? Anyway I don't want to get into it as I certainly don't want to end up sounding like I support him as I don't know enough.
Apparently it was on her facebook page - but was inadmissable in court. There is new footage of them arriving at the hotel and she doesn't look that drunk. She left her bag in the Taxi and went charging out after it when she realised. His lawyers have a web site set up for it http://www.chedevans.com/
No - his family have set that up : ''This website is the only official representation for Ched and the content is managed by his friends and family'' She didn't leave her bag in the taxi, it's in the court records it was outside the shop - small details maybe but rather believe the court records than other sources. Also the night porter describes her as 'extremely drunk' - she was vomiting in the room!
He was, but the case is under review for an unlawful conviction, so there is a little more to it than there seems. As for the girl being "outed", it was pretty dumb to even contemplate that, however ,again, the girl had already tweeted" about to win BIG time". Seems stupidity is on both sides. The review is why he's never apologised and why he won't speak to the press. I have no idea of the truth, but on the face of it, not straightforward at all.
The Ched Evans site is run by family, friends and his defence counsel. That site doesn't state she left her bag in the taxi. It does however show video of her arriving at the hotel and then going back outside on her own to pick up the pizza they'd forgotten. Extremely drunk? The night porter also describes listening at the door while Evans was having sex with her, and heard only the sounds of a couple having sex...... http://www.chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself
If the video evidence of them entering the hotel is legit then there is no way in hell, that is she too drunk to consent. Walking normally on high heels bending down to pick up the pizza without even so much as a wobble. She may have had a few but pissed up. No way Pedro!
I agree completely, I couldn't walk normally on high heels, nor bend down to pick up a Pizza if I was stone cold sober ! Sorry Abu, that was too good to pass.
Both the girl and her friends gave statements to the fact she drank less than was usual for her that night!
No they didn't. One of the most contentious points of the case is the fact that she claims memory loss and so wasn't able to remember how much she had to drink. Anyway, the verdict didn't rest on how drunk she was, if it did then McDonald would have been found guilty too and he wasn't. The verdicts hinge on this [taken from the court records] - ''The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her.''
When I did jury service in a conversation with a police officer he informed me that (at that time) 80% of people pleading not guilty were acquitted. My actual experience of the juries I was on clearly showed me how prejudice and ignorance were as weighty as any facts when it came to casting votes. One juror I served with knitted the whole time and when asked why she made her decision she said to me "awwwww look at his face". When I asked if there was anything she'd heard during the trial that formed her opinion she said " I don't need to hear all that I just know.". So one can draw a few conclusions from this. I do. I have no faith that even when truth is told in court juries don't always act correctly on it. That judges know this. It is hard to convict someone as we all seem to have sympathy with an accused unless we feel they are stonewall guilty. Saying that another juror I was with said they knew the defendant was guilty but voted for not guilty as they felt it was unfair. That was an assault case by the way. Our legal and justice system is terribly flawed, but I don't have a better answer.
I'm not sure how to improve the system either. In terms of what we're doing here - discussing on a forum - I'm always amazed at how some people just make stuff up. If you don't know the details of something, ask or if you're interested enough to comment about it on a forum, educate yourself first [whatever the issue being discussed]. Some believe the man's innocent, others that he's guilty, so put your argument forward as to why you believe what you believe but don't just make things up.
Read my previous. If the video is admitted as evidence, she aint pissed, drunk, ****ered or any other descriptive for had too many. and why did she remove the twitter acount that proves she was gold digging. A New York firefighter (clever with tech stuff) managed to recover her tweets, but they were not allowed as evidence. She is as guilty of a abominable act as anyone. and should be prosecuted for doing so. e
All the cctv's from the night at the various places involved were admitted as evidence and viewed by the jury - there is no new video evidence and as I said previously, the verdict didn't rest on her drunkenness, if it did why was McDonald found not guilty? [Just out of interest, the night porter's evidence was she was 'extremely drunk' - why would he say that if it was untrue? But you think you know better??] The tweets [real or not] would have no bearing whatsoever on the case, why would they? And how is it gold digging, where was the money coming from and for what? A man she didn't know and had never met, tricks his way into her hotel room where she's already with another man who she had met and consented to be with, and asks the other man if he can 'get involved' - and you think she somehow set this up? All three of them show the morals of alley cats but come on she had no idea Evans was going to let himself into that room - where she later wet the bed and vomited all over, which shows exactly what kind of state she was in btw.
No I do not, I am saying that she did not look drunk to me. I am not saying I know better at all. She may not have set this up, but she developed designs on it after the event. The tweets prove this. The only other person in the room at the time was McDonald and he confirms she gave consent. Why would he lie, is as stupid as believing her events of the story.
