Ched Evans

Scrote

Well-known member
At no point did I use the term miscarriage of justice.
But that's what it was. You can't pretend it wasn't because it doesn't suit your narrative.

The new evidence was presented and it became clear that there MAY HAVE BEEN a miscarriage of justice. The original verdict was quashed and a retrial was set up.

Without the new evidence there would have been no retrial. The appeal on the grounds of an unsound verdict based on the original evidence was refused.

What you seem to be saying is that YOU PERSONALLY would have come to a different conclusion to the other jurors in the first trial due to your own personal view of what constitutes rape. I'd imagine the jury were given quite clear guidance on what rape actually is in UK law.

The prosecution had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was no consent. Even the possibility of consent would be enough for the judge to direct a not-guilty verdict.

The not guilty verdict relied exclusively on the new evidence.
 

FatCat

Well-known member
On balance I don’t think I’d want him at the club - primarily due to the commotion that would follow him around plus he’s not the best player, I think we should be aiming higher.

One part of me thinks he is innocent (in the eyes of the law) and should be allowed to earn a living in his chosen profession. As said earlier if we condemned footballers for their morals we would be left with a much smaller pool of talent to choose from. This sort of thing has been rife with footballers throughout the premiership years, probably before that too. It doesn’t make it morally right of course but it does happen. One thing is for certain I am sure he has learnt a lesson and we would probably be getting a dedicated footballer who probably shuns that other side of the game.

what strikes me about his case is how or why it ever got to court in the first place - amid the backdrop of record numbers of actual rape cases not even getting to court why was this case where the lady in question didn’t even accuse anybody of rape end up becoming a rape trial?

Like I said I think regardless of what he may offer the team from a footballing perspective the negatives of this signing would overshadow anything he could add to the team.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
But that's what it was. You can't pretend it wasn't because it doesn't suit your narrative.

The new evidence was presented and it became clear that there MAY HAVE BEEN a miscarriage of justice. The original verdict was quashed and a retrial was set up.

Without the new evidence there would have been no retrial. The appeal on the grounds of an unsound verdict based on the original evidence was refused.

What you seem to be saying is that YOU PERSONALLY would have come to a different conclusion to the other jurors in the first trial due to your own personal view of what constitutes rape. I'd imagine the jury were given quite clear guidance on what rape actually is in UK law.

The prosecution had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was no consent. Even the possibility of consent would be enough for the judge to direct a not-guilty verdict.

The not guilty verdict relied exclusively on the new evidence.
You're cherry picking to suite your narrative now.

I would have come to a different conclusion that is what I am saying and I would have been right.
 

festa5

Well-known member
In the eyes of the law he's innocent. His behaviour at the time though (however widespread or otherwise it might be amongst his peers) was pretty appalling. He could quite easily have carried out exactly the same actions and ended up being guilty of rape. He's lucky it hasn't.

Does that mean he doesn't deserve a second chance? Depends how much remorse he's shown. Has he done any work to raise awareness with young footballers (for example)? Or is his attitude "I was found not guilty so I've done nothing wrong" (I've no idea).

Not that it should matter, but the timing isn't great either given the focus on some men's attitudes and behaviour towards women. As a club do we really want to sign someone who arguably embodies the problem?
 

Laughing

Well-known member
I personally hope we don't go near Evans. His behaviour is hardly commendable and I wouldn't want him anywhere near our club. I wouldn't trust him with my daughters either.

He may have shown remorse for his actions and be actively trying to make amends, I don't know and good on him if he has. It would be a start. It's it enough? Not for me no.
 

Centralscrutinizer

Well-known member
No point rehashing the argument about his trial etc. Setting that baggage aside he's not good enough if we're trying to build a team capable of promotion.
 

Ex Footy Legs

Well-known member
I think he's a bit 'old' and hardly prolific in the champo. Although apparently he's done alright at PNE.

I'm not fussed about the baggage. He was found not guilty. If anything it only proves than once you've been accused of certain crimes you'll never shake them off (that's in any walk of life). I guess it would bring some stick from opposition fans... We've had worse.

I'm not sure he's the answer to our none scoring forwards but I'm sure being free he's well in the 'bracket'

I heard Micky Gray on Talksport talking about how Boro wanted Charlie Wyke. He said Sunderland should get shot as he 'doesn't know what he does' other than the goals. I'm not sure that was a glowing reference... also free👍

Also linked in the same artical to Jack Stevens (Oxford goal keeper). Only 23 but absolutely no idea if he's any good.
Wykes open play is utter rubbish however, ched evans was a proper handful for Preston before they had a man sent off for us and stood out as an opposition forward
 

Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret

Well-known member
I think that people need to be mindful of the fact that if they read a bunch of articles on any given subject they are not an expert. I think that people are overreaching here. I would be extremely uncomfortable if this player played for my club.
 

Scrote

Well-known member
You're cherry picking to suite your narrative now.

I would have come to a different conclusion that is what I am saying and I would have been right.
I don't think cherry-picking means what you think it does.

Until the new evidence was accepted Evans was guilty. There is no suggestion anywhere that the original verdict in the original trial was wrong. The first appeal was thrown out with the judge explicitly saying the jury came to a correct verdict (as in there was nothing unsafe about it). Therefore you would have been wrong.

However you want to spin it, the first case was sound and the verdict was correct.

Evans was fortunate that the second appeal allowed the new evidence. The judge made comment to that calling it both rare and troubling.

If you believe that it's better for 10 guilty men to go free rather than 1 innocent man be punished then accepting the initial verdict and accepting the retrial and subsequent not-guilty verdict are perfectly consistent (that's not a direct judgement on Evans - just a generic statement about how we deal with proof of guilt). Also, with that in mind, feeling that Evans is not someone you want associating with the club is perfectly understandable.

Arguing that the first verdict was "wrong" is tantamount to contempt of court (in a colloquial sense).
 
Last edited:

Scrote

Well-known member
I personally hope we don't go near Evans. His behaviour is hardly commendable and I wouldn't want him anywhere near our club. I wouldn't trust him with my daughters either.
Despite him doing no wrong, in your stated opinion?

How do you square that one? I'm genuinely curious.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Despite him doing no wrong, in your stated opinion?

How do you square that one? I'm genuinely curious.
Oh I think he did plenty wrong Scrote, just nothing illegal and nothing some other predatory young men, and women perhaps do on a saturday night out.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
I don't think cherry-picking means what you think it does.

Until the new evidence was accepted Evans was guilty. There is no suggestion anywhere that the original verdict in the original trial was wrong. The first appeal was thrown out with the judge explicitly saying the jury came to a correct verdict (as in there was nothing unsafe about it). Therefore you would have been wrong.

However you want to spin it, the first case was sound and the verdict was correct.

Evans was fortunate that the second appeal allowed the new evidence. The judge made comment to that calling it both rare and troubling.

If you believe that it's better for 10 guilty men to go free rather than 1 innocent man be punished then accepting the initial verdict and accepting the retrial and subsequent not-guilty verdict are perfectly consistent (that's not a direct judgement on Evans - just a generic statement about how we deal with proof of guilt). Also, with that in mind, feeling that Evans is not someone you want associating with the club is perfectly understandable.

Arguing that the first verdict was "wrong" is tantamount to contempt of court (in a colloquial sense).
Evans was not guilty nor innocent based on evidence. He was, and still is guilty or innocent based on his actions.

On the subject of 10 guilty v 1 innocent. You're damn right I would rather 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail.

I argued at the time the guilty verdict was wrong, I believed that very strongly, and I was proven to be right.

On the subject of wanting him at our club, nah not for me, his actions were questionable, regardless of the question of guilt or innocence.
 

LeeMiller

Well-known member
I think there’s a fair chance the club have “leaked” this link to try and gauge fans reaction.
 

TeaCider

Well-known member
I think there’s a fair chance the club have “leaked” this link to try and gauge fans reaction.

Hopefully the reaction puts them off either way, I really cannot be arsed with the chew that having him at the club would cause.
 

Scrote

Well-known member
Evans was not guilty nor innocent based on evidence. He was, and still is guilty or innocent based on his actions.
This is just gibberish. He was found guilty based on the evidence presented at his first trial. Without the evidence, regardless of his actions, he wouldn't have been found guilty. That's how UK law works.

I argued at the time the guilty verdict was wrong, I believed that very strongly, and I was proven to be right.
You weren't proven to be right. If you'd said "hang on guys, there's some evidence you've overlooked that'll exonerate Mr Evans" then fair enough. But you didn't. Because at the time the evidence wasn't available (I think the first of the third parties came forwards during the trial but the other was afterwards).

When the first appeal was lodged it was refused. The judge looking at the appeal found that the conviction was safe. Are you saying, again, that this Judge was wrong?

It was only when the new evidence emerged that the appeal was allowed, because it was deemed enough to cast doubt on the original verdict, despite being a rare and troubling decision.

On the subject of wanting him at our club, nah not for me, his actions were questionable, regardless of the question of guilt or innocence.

Oh I think he did plenty wrong Scrote, just nothing illegal...
So you're happy to condemn an innocent man?

Why were his actions questionable? Surely if they were legal then that's the end of the matter. Why should any instance of consensual sexual relations ever be justified as a reason not to employ someone?
 

Laughing

Well-known member
This is just gibberish. He was found guilty based on the evidence presented at his first trial. Without the evidence, regardless of his actions, he wouldn't have been found guilty. That's how UK law works.


You weren't proven to be right. If you'd said "hang on guys, there's some evidence you've overlooked that'll exonerate Mr Evans" then fair enough. But you didn't. Because at the time the evidence wasn't available (I think the first of the third parties came forwards during the trial but the other was afterwards).

When the first appeal was lodged it was refused. The judge looking at the appeal found that the conviction was safe. Are you saying, again, that this Judge was wrong?

It was only when the new evidence emerged that the appeal was allowed, because it was deemed enough to cast doubt on the original verdict, despite being a rare and troubling decision.


So you're happy to condemn an innocent man?

Why were his actions questionable? Surely if they were legal then that's the end of the matter. Why should any instance of consensual sexual relations ever be justified as a reason not to employ someone?
Are you an idiot or do you not understand what being guilty means. If he didn't rape anyone he is not guilty of raping someone, irrespective of what a jury says.

A jury has an opinion it's not a fact. If you can't understand that there is little point in debating further.

Have a good evening.
 

Scrote

Well-known member
Are you an idiot or do you not understand what being guilty means.
I originally took umbrage at your declaration that the CPS were wrong to bring the case, despite a guilty verdict at the end of it.

However you're also saying that the original judge was wrong to hear the case.

You're saying the jury were wrong to find guilt.

You're saying a second, independent judge was wrong to refuse leave to appeal.

I don't see any point continuing further, either. You're just coming across as a weird conspiracy theorist who seems to think the world and his dog had it out for Evans, despite him being given a retrial when 'actual' new evidence was available.

You also now seem to want him to be punished as if he was, in fact, guilty all along.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
I originally took umbrage at your declaration that the CPS were wrong to bring the case, despite a guilty verdict at the end of it.

However you're also saying that the original judge was wrong to hear the case.

You're saying the jury were wrong to find guilt.

You're saying a second, independent judge was wrong to refuse leave to appeal.

I don't see any point continuing further, either. You're just coming across as a weird conspiracy theorist who seems to think the world and his dog had it out for Evans, despite him being given a retrial when 'actual' new evidence was available.

You also now seem to want him to be punished as if he was, in fact, guilty all along.
The judge had no choice but to hear the case. The CPS I don't know to be honest. Was there a case to answer, maybe.

The prosecution relied entirely on supporting evidence and no actual evidence of rape. The assumption was that no consent was given because the victim couldn't remember one way or the other.

That isn't enough evidence to convict someone of rape and label them a sex offender and register them as such for life.

Evans is nevertheless a sexual predator.

You can despise someone behaviour and not think they are a criminal.

Not sure where you get the rest of your post from.

If you actually think a jury always gets it right history proves you horribly wrong.
 
Top
X