Ched Evans

No he was not

 

here is basics of what happened

http://news.sky.com/story/1682453/rape-convict-ched-evans-to-hear-appeal-verdict

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Evans

 

I can't remember the full details of the case offhand, but from what I'm reading here, the girl claims gnat she can't remember what happened?

And the guy gets convicted because she can't specifically remember if she said yes or not?? Ridiculous!

 

I stand corrected

 

I though he was not on trail

Strange how he is acquitted and Ched was sent down

 

iirc the medical examiner said he very much doubted she'd consumed enough to cause her any memory loss at all and the prosecution had evidence excluded that would've shown it was ****.

 

Too drunk to consent. Her initial complaint to the police was that she lost her handbag, IIRC.

Having sex with girls who are utterly smashed is risky and dubious.
Doing it when you're a successful footballer earning tens of thousands of pounds a week is moronic.
He could've pulled any number of non-pissed women and not gone to jail, so I have very little sympathy.

 

I don't see how the medical examiner could know that.
I never get memory loss from drinking and I know some people that get it fairly easily.

I take it that you're offering an opinion that there won't be a retrial and not claiming it as a fact.
I agree with you, as any evidence that would get his conviction chucked out must be quite strong.
It's a little early to be calling her a liar though, don't you think?

 

no it isn't too early, her twitter acount that got hacked showed exactly what it was all about.

Originally the story said there wouldn;t be a retrial, it's changed since then, your post has croseed with my editing

 

I haven't seen her hacked twitter account. What did it say and was it reliable?
Perhaps this was the evidence that got the conviction thrown out?

 

afaik it makes up a part of the new evidence, that's the thing about using computers, if you go on the net there's always a cache record somewhere and a US hacker found it and released it. It's why I've never used silk road.

 

The whole thing sounds like it was based on very flimsy evidence to me. Basically one person's word against another.

I'd like to hear the reasons for a judge quashing the conviction.

 

No it wasn't.

It was worse than that, she abstained any form of responsibility by saying she couldn't remember anything. So it wasn't her word against his, as she didn't claim she didn't give him consent. That's what made the entire case a complete sham. The CPS were prosecuting on the basis that she claimed she couldn't remember, not that she was accusing him.

He could have denied shagging her, as there was no DNA evidence either, but he didn't, he told the Police straight away that he'd had full sex with her.

He was prosecuted and then subsequently convicted by the jury - solely based on his status.

 

I hear what you're saying, Tobes, but by not saying she gave her consent, and testifying for the prosecution, she's effectively saying that she didn't consent. Or that she was too drunk to consent.

I'm sure she was coached in what to say by both the police and the prosecution. The whole episode smacks of a public witchunt in which the local old bill get lots of publicity for being the guardians of politically correct morality.

I'm assuming the judge in this case will make his reasons for quashing the conviction public.

 

I'm not sure of the protocol around that, it might not be made public at this point if there's going to be a re-trial.

 

I very much doubt that there will be a retrial. They would need to present significant new evidence to justify that. I can't see even the useless bunch of ****ers at the DPP being able to justify the expense, not to mention the publicity, in all that.

 

New hope for Adam Johnson and fantastic news for the Sunderland fans. I expect a full on "Free the Mackem One" protest at their next home game.

 

1) being found not guilty doesn't always mean the person making the allegation is lying...there just may not be enough evidence to justify a conviction.

2) she always said she could not remember what happened.

3) he has to face a retrial so may be found guilty again

 

As I put earlier, rcl, after a judge has quashed the conviction it would take some compelling new evidence for the DPP to justify a retrial. I doubt it will happen.