they do get it wrong sometimes, otherwise there would be no successful appeals. aussie, how you keeping!
sounds like a murder case over here earlier this year, bloke was sentenced after killing his wife, all evidence was circumstantial, no proof at all
I just find it hard to believe that a jury can find someone guilty - beyond all doubt, if a person had nothing to do with the crime. I'm not saying the system is perfect, but surely it's right 99% of the time ?
You believe this? My experience tells me some on the Jury have their minds elsewhere? You would think that the fact that they are sitting in judgement of a fellow human being would ensure they pay attention to at least the key evidence in a trial, but they do not sadly, and it's all too easy then for them to wash it away by 'not enough evidence' or 'not guilty' I'm not convinced etc. I'm not convinced of the jury system being bullet proof, I do know selection of Jury members and background has some thought put into it, but I can see first hand it's flaws and how so many convictions have been overturned as unsafe......................
I would say that percentage is rather high, but it is the best we have at the minute.................
Maybe its because she went back to the hotel with McDonald who then left via reception. Evans turned up later deceived a receptionist into getting the card for the room and let himself in. Then exited via a emergency exit. Jury gave McDonald the benefit of the doubt.
Even turning up at the hotel on her own accord would not have counted as consent, as they deemed her too drunk to give proper consent. The only reason McDonald got off with it is that they believed he had genuine reason to believe it was ok to have sex, like the instance in town where she said she would go back to the hotel. But yet she is also supposedly to have said yes to Evans in the hotel room, which both he and McDonald said, so he surely is also under the impression its ok to have sex with her right? Same ****, different times is all. So if they deemed her to drunk to give proper consent to one, they have to find both guilty, as both instances were after she stopped drinking.
No, because she wishes to remain anonymous. There are sites out there where people stick it to Evans though...plus newspaper articles and TV shows.
but surely she could still remain anonymous even with a website....just "change the names to protect the innocent" sort of thing.... If you read the ChedEvans site - it makes it sound like he is totally innocent of anything other than cheating on his girlfriend and only a complete idiot would think anything other. This makes me think there's a whole lot more to it than we hear on his site.
I still think he was stupid to get involved with this tart, and I think his guilty verdict is not safe, and if I had been on that jury, I would have not found him guilty, she was down town boozing and looking for a man, she got what she wanted, and freely went to the hotel room, where she new she would be dropping her knickers, sorry but as far as I see it, there are many questions over her conduct in this not least her consent to sex, all her actions are those of a woman wanting sex, and not that of saying no!.................... The police arrested both Ched and Clayton at the station, they acknowledged that the only evidence that sexual activity had taken place was their admission. There was no complaint of rape, no forensic evidence, no injury and no complaint. Finally it should be noted that the burden of proof in criminal law lies with the Prosecution and that in order to gain a conviction the Prosecution must prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that a crime was committed i.e. the Jury has to be sure an offence has taken place. Essentially, this means that following the submissions of the Prosecution if there remains any doubt that a crime has been committed the accused must be acquitted. It is not for the accused to prove his innocence.
Too Drunk to remember a thing or consent? Yet sober enough to walk into the hotel twice without even falling over? Even her own friends who were with her on the night all testified that she was not particularly drunk. [video]http://www.chedevans.com/index.files/html5video/travelodge.m4v[/video] CCTV footage showed this tart approaching Clayton at a street corner. A brief conversation ensued and within seconds the two of them got in a taxi which she had flagged down. In his evidence Clayton stated that the complainant asked him where he was going, he replied that he was going back to his hotel to which she replied “I’m coming with you”. The taxi driver was concerned about food being consumed in the back of his vehicle. He asked the complainant to get out of the back seat and into the front, which she did whilst carrying a large pizza box. The taxi driver also noticed that the complainant’s blouse was unbuttoned but that she was able to button it up. They left in the taxi heading for the Premier Inn. The ‘When I win big’ Tweets, that she deleted and thought would never surface, and how the once again inept North Wales Police denied had ever existed. Link: http://www.chedevans.com/the-disputed-tweets THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT IS WORSE THAN RAPE AND THAT'S BEING FALSLY ACCUSSED AND CONVICTED OF IT.
