That was never proven, yet it could have been relatively easy to set up and catch her if it was true.
I'm reading her comments from the case notes, it's not clear from them if it was said in court, or if it's just from her written statement.
Rape doesn't have to be violent to be rape. It's no more no less rape than if he dragged her off kicking and screaming. I don't know where people think there can be any kind of lesser rape. That violent rape is much worse than rape that happens with no violence. Seriously people, ask your daughters what they would prefer. I think the answer would be actually neither ta.
Someone closed the curtains before he had sex with her to stop it being filmed. Gallantry or not wanting any evidence you take your pick.
Not if it was a 'without prejudice' offer from her solicitor, they're not daft. I had a 'without prejudice' offer in a High Court action once, it pretty much proved the guilt of the party who made the offer, but it was a crap offer and I rejected it. I was unable to use it in court and it ended up costing me £100k, as they ended up getting off on a technicality. Maybe that's why I have so little confidence in our legal system, that and the fact that I did jury service with twelve people I wouldn't trust with ownership of a goldfish, never mind deciding on someone's incarceration.
IF it's true, it doesn't prove he's innocent. It simply shows she could guess at the whirlwind heading her way with abuse from Chad's friends meaning she's had to move and change names several times now.
You're misunderstanding me, there is no good rape or bad rape, there's only bad, my only concern with this case is whether or not there was any rape at all.
So if a woman can't remember whether she consented or not, its not rape? He got 5 years because the jury decided, after being told she couldn't remember, that she didn't give her consent. They considered the other available evidence and decided that she wasn't in a fit state to consent. I suspect, but don't know, that the film of her in the hotel room helped make up their mind. It was the last recorded evidence of the state she was in.
Well that's an honest statement to make so fair play to you. Now we are probably not going to agree on this subject (for various reasons) but can you at least admit that the facts of this case carry more weight than your opinion in this matter.
You're looking at it a different way to me. If Evans was guilty and could make it all go away for £15k, then why wouldn't he, it's only a few weeks money? He could have avoided all of this for a few quid, but decided he wasn't going to have someone get one over on him(that's according to his mates), it's this that most makes me think the whole thing is iffy. No doubt he regrets that now and would happily pay to make it go away, but as with my case, I think we both thought justice would prevail.
I fully accept that I wasn't involved in the court case, I didn't see anyone directly giving their testimony and I may well be completely wrong. But this is just a football message board and I'm merely voicing my opinion on the evidence as I've seen it presented and my reservations about the evidence that saw the bloke convicted.
IF the offer was made, £15k's **** all compared to what he'd lose from his potential in-laws by effectively admitting rape. He preferred the facts to be considered rather than rumours and opinion, and the facts as perused by four or more legal bods say he's a rapist.
The biggest difference between men and women, which is evident particularly on this issue, is that women look at actions whereas men look at motives. Do you not distinguish between a man who rapes a woman because of irrepressible urges, a man who rapes out of hatred for women, a man who has sex with a woman where he believes he has consent, and a man who has sex that is consensual but which is otherwise illegal in accordance with the law (i.e. statutory rape, such as that of a consenting 15-year-old girl)?
You argue your point where you consistently say 'has', I have explained why you are wrong, you make no effort to explain your 'has'. Everyone is confined by the judgments of the legal systems, but their mind can believe their innocence. It's how many folk have had their sentences revoked. Do you really believe that someone who knows their innocence, but is found guilty, should then, to enable them to get justice, falsely admit to the offence? Barmpot, nothing less.
So you don't have a link? You have't explained where I'm wrong. It HAS to be guilt or there's no sentence to accept. So, please post a link to a specific example where somebody deemed innocent at the time by the Court has requested a shorter sentence, because that's the point.
If someone was deemed innocent by a court there wouldn't be any sentence at all, obviously. If someone is found guilty by a court, then in the eyes of the law they are guilty and regardless of whether they claim to be innocent or not, they will be considered guilty until such time as that verdict is overturned. There is nothing to stop anyone convicted of a crime from appealing against their punishment for that crime, even if they claim they are innocent, it's merely a technical argument over the punishment being appropriate for the conviction. I wonder if there would be a similar thread to this in 1974 if Gerry Conlan was a Birmingham City player and if there were such things as football message boards at the time.
Alternativly if a woman can't remember giving consent, it is rape. There must be millions of case's where a drunk guy meets a drunk girl and end up in bed. What happens in the morning ? the guy is a bit of a hunk and they agree to see each other again. Or the guy is a bit of a dork, the girl is a bit embarassed at what happened, maybe getting teased by her mates. So she calls rape and it takes 12 good men ( or women ) to decide WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
