Ched Evans

Scrote

Well-known member
The judge had no choice but to hear the case.
Agreed - should have worded this as the judge could have directed a not-guilty verdict on points of law (as I think I did make clear much earlier in the conversation).

If you actually think a jury always gets it right history proves you horribly wrong.
Juries do get things wrong, which is why we have a process of checks and balances.

The trial judge was happy that the law was followed AND the first appeal judge was happy that the verdict was safe.

If the jury had got it horribly wrong IN THIS FIRST TRIAL then both judges would have made serious errors.

The CPS has long been accused of not pursuing 'weaker' rape cases - i.e. where it's difficult to prove and get a conviction. This actually makes the guilty verdict a good indicator that they were right to pursue this, even though the later evidence was enough to throw doubt on the conviction.

I don't actually know what you mean by "no actual evidence of rape" - sticking your d*ck in someone without consent is rape. Full stop. The original trial judge made it abundantly clear to the jury the drunken consent was still consent. The jury decided there was enough evidence to convict 'beyond reasonable doubt' and the judge didn't think there was such a lack of evidence that he needed to direct them otherwise.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Agreed - should have worded this as the judge could have directed a not-guilty verdict on points of law (as I think I did make clear much earlier in the conversation).


Juries do get things wrong, which is why we have a process of checks and balances.

The trial judge was happy that the law was followed AND the first appeal judge was happy that the verdict was safe.

If the jury had got it horribly wrong IN THIS FIRST TRIAL then both judges would have made serious errors.

The CPS has long been accused of not pursuing 'weaker' rape cases - i.e. where it's difficult to prove and get a conviction. This actually makes the guilty verdict a good indicator that they were right to pursue this, even though the later evidence was enough to throw doubt on the conviction.

I don't actually know what you mean by "no actual evidence of rape" - sticking your d*ck in someone without consent is rape. Full stop. The original trial judge made it abundantly clear to the jury the drunken consent was still consent. The jury decided there was enough evidence to convict 'beyond reasonable doubt' and the judge didn't think there was such a lack of evidence that he needed to direct them otherwise.
Go read the trial transcript instead of snippets on the Internet your just plain wrong with the basic facts.
 

Scrote

Well-known member
Go read the trial transcript instead of snippets on the Internet your just plain wrong with the basic facts.
I read them at the time and argued this on the old board. Probably with you if you were under a different name.

I've re-read the first appeal decision (to check that it was deemed a safe verdict - it was).

I've re-read the actual appeal trial documents to make sure I remembered the reasons behind the additional evidence being admitted (the S41 stuff).

There's nothing in any of it that suggests, even for a second, that anything was wrong, in fact, with the first trial.

The only people who seem to think there was is yourself and Evans's team.

But I'm sure you can list the "basic facts" that I've got wrong. Should be fairly straight-forward.

You can probably also explain why you wouldn't "trust him with your daughters" despite him only engaging in consenual sex after a night out.
 

S7DiscoDown

Well-known member
No thank you

1. Behaved horribly regardless of whether "rape" was committed
2. Not good enough
I'm not convinced that behaving 'horribly' is an issue. I imagine it's exactly what 'lads' and women get up too every weekend or on holiday.

Drunken sex and one night hook ups happen daily in every walk of life. If you didn't sign footballers on moral fibre or just being decent humen beings then you'd struggle to sign any.

The likes of Ronaldo and Van Persie were both accused of Rape/sexual assault. Andy Cole and Dwight Yorke had a 3 sum. You could go on and on about the amount of footballers who cheat (Defoe sh#gged everything that moved in his early 20s.... He's some CV of page 3s😂). John Terry and Wayne Bridge....the list is endless.

I think being innocent means none of this should be an issue. It clearly is looking at the amount of comments so on that alone I'd say probably not worth it. I also don't think he's particularly great and at 32 must be better options. Then again as a target man he's better than we have and more so cheaper (although that's a low bar of improvement 😂).

I just look at this situation as if it was me. If I had been acquitted of a sexual charge and people still wouldn't employ me after reading about it. You know full well an employer would be thinking 'no smoke without fire' even if you were innocent.

I've read on here that people wouldn't want him around their daughters etc. I imagine he's no 'worse' than any other footballer throwing his money about to impress people into bed.
 

FatCat

Well-known member
You can probably also explain why you wouldn't "trust him with your daughters" despite him only engaging in consenual sex after a night out.
He was clearly it a nice guy at the time of the incident - gaming women, just playing the numbers game, taking advantage of a situation - remember he went from his room to another and just joined in with what was going on with his other mates trying to film the incident. I don’t blame Laughing for not wanting this fella near his daughters. The guys moral compass was not right at the time - he’s not guilty in the eyes of the law but come on do you really think his morals are those of someone you would want to associate yourself or your family with.
 

Scrote

Well-known member
remember he went from his room to another and just joined in with what was going on
...after getting consent

@Laughing appears to be saying that he doesn't trust someone who he clearly believes hasn't at any point done anything to suggest he wouldn't seek consent before engaging in sexual shenanigans.

I'm trying to work out if Laughing wants to exert control over his daughter in some form of chattel/ownership deal, or if he actually doesn't think the Evans case was quite as straightforward as he's trying to make out.
 

FatCat

Well-known member
...after getting consent

@Laughing appears to be saying that he doesn't trust someone who he clearly believes hasn't at any point done anything to suggest he wouldn't seek consent before engaging in sexual shenanigans.

I'm trying to work out if Laughing wants to exert control over his daughter in some form of chattel/ownership deal, or if he actually doesn't think the Evans case was quite as straightforward as he's trying to make out.
I expect his aspirations for his daughter are that she ends up with a man with better moral standards than the fella in question but I guess that’s for Laughing to answer that one.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
I read them at the time and argued this on the old board. Probably with you if you were under a different name.

I've re-read the first appeal decision (to check that it was deemed a safe verdict - it was).

I've re-read the actual appeal trial documents to make sure I remembered the reasons behind the additional evidence being admitted (the S41 stuff).

There's nothing in any of it that suggests, even for a second, that anything was wrong, in fact, with the first trial.

The only people who seem to think there was is yourself and Evans's team.

But I'm sure you can list the "basic facts" that I've got wrong. Should be fairly straight-forward.

You can probably also explain why you wouldn't "trust him with your daughters" despite him only engaging in consenual sex after a night out.
Where to start Scrote.

Firstly some basic stuff. A judge is there to ensure that evidential rules are followed and to make rulings when there is a dispute. He has no say in the final verdict directly. Once he has instructed the jury on how to apply the law to the evidence, the verdict is the domain of the jury and only the jury. I don't know if the judge had an opinion in the first trial as to whether Evans was guilty or not. The turth is it doesn't matter to me, to you or to the entire judicial system. Verdict is the domain of the jury, not the judge.

It is entirely up to the jury how they balance one bit of evidence against another.

Now to the "safe verdict" That doesn't mean it was a good or accurate verdict. It just means that the jury made a decision based on the evidence before them. They were not misled, they were not denied access to pertinent information before reaching their verdict. It says nothing about whether the verdict was a good one and whether the judge ruling on an appeal thought the defendant was guilty or innocent. Providing there is no evidential problems appeals almost always get denied. It doesn't mean the jury got it right. The initial appeal was refused because the jury had done their job, whether they did it well or not is not the subject of appeal.

The appeal was then allowed to go ahead because of new evidence. The jury did not have all the facts, so their judgement is thrown in to doubt.

The appeal had nothing, absoloutely nothing to do with the jury's decision being correct and everything to do with evidentiary rules being followed, thats it.

Some facts about how often jury's get iy wrong. In 18 percent of appeals there is a reversal. between 2019 and 2020 there were over 100 succesful appeals against convictions in a crown court. That is judgements that were later overturned. It is fairly common for a jury to get it wrong.

The reason I know the jury got it wrong is fairly simple. If Evans did not commit the crime of rape there cannot be proof that he did. That is not my opinion, it's an absoloute fact. It is impossible to prove that someone commited a crime if they didn't. Is it possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, if a person is innocent, that they committed a crime? Possibly, but it is such a high bar it is very close to zero. The jury got it wrong, even without the additional evidence, the jury should not have convicted Evans, because if he didn't do it, the prosecution couldn't have proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

My saying the jury got it wrong is not contempt of court, that is a silly assertion.

My problem with evans is not that he didn't rape someone, it's that he is a reprehensible human being who I wouldn't want near my daughters. That's not difficult to understand, nor should it be questioned.

Clearly Scrote you don't know an awful lot about UK criminal proceedings so let's leave it there.

This says nothing about how often a jury get an azquital wrong we don't know, but it is
 

Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret

Well-known member
I'm not convinced that behaving 'horribly' is an issue. I imagine it's exactly what 'lads' and women get up too every weekend or on holiday.

Drunken sex and one night hook ups happen daily in every walk of life. If you didn't sign footballers on moral fibre or just being decent humen beings then you'd struggle to sign any.

The likes of Ronaldo and Van Persie were both accused of Rape/sexual assault. Andy Cole and Dwight Yorke had a 3 sum. You could go on and on about the amount of footballers who cheat (Defoe sh#gged everything that moved in his early 20s.... He's some CV of page 3s😂). John Terry and Wayne Bridge....the list is endless.

I think being innocent means none of this should be an issue. It clearly is looking at the amount of comments so on that alone I'd say probably not worth it. I also don't think he's particularly great and at 32 must be better options. Then again as a target man he's better than we have and more so cheaper (although that's a low bar of improvement 😂).

I just look at this situation as if it was me. If I had been acquitted of a sexual charge and people still wouldn't employ me after reading about it. You know full well an employer would be thinking 'no smoke without fire' even if you were innocent.

I've read on here that people wouldn't want him around their daughters etc. I imagine he's no 'worse' than any other footballer throwing his money about to impress people into bed.
It's not about drunken sex. People don't get prosecuted for having drunken sex. The judge even clarifys this. It's about being so drunk you are unable to give consent. It isn't about impaired judgement, it is about being incapable of making a judgement.
 

newusername

Well-known member
...he went from his room to another and just joined in with what was going on with his other mates trying to film the incident.
...after getting consent
That isn't correct.
On getting a text from McDonald he called his brother & friend & told them to go to the window to film it.
On entering the room, he didn't speak with the woman, he did just join in.
 

r00fie1

Well-known member

Middlesbrough transfer links should force Preston North End's hand over Ched Evans

Middlesbrough have been linked with the PNE striker while Liverpool defender Sepp van den Berg continues to impress

0_GettyImages-1231760908.jpg

Ched Evans of Preston North End battles for possession with Middlesbrough's Dael Fry
Preston North End have six games to go in the Championship and the summer transfer window will then become the main focus following a period of rest and reflection.

The Lilywhites will have plenty of decisions to make in the coming months, ahead of the 2021/22 season.

Players will leave the club whether that be loan-men heading back to their parent clubs, contracts expiring or sales.

Two of North End's current squad who have caught the eye recently are players who - as things stand - will not be under contract at Deepdale once the season concludes.

Ched Evans is on a short-term deal until the end of the campaign and Sepp van den Berg is on a season-long loan from Liverpool.

Last week, reports emerged that Middlesbrough were planning to swoop for the striker if PNE do not manage to extend his stay at the club beyond the summer.


Evans has blown all expectations out of the water at Deepdale and it would be an unnecessary blow to see him at a different Championship club next season.

By all accounts, he is enjoying his time with PNE - who took a big chance on him in January - and has had a positive impact on the rest of the squad too.

The 32-year-old is in excellent condition physically and has only scored the three goals, but has offered a great deal more than that on the pitch - he can certainly compete at this level.

North End left it too late with some of their contract situations last summer and this is one that can be wrapped up and put to bed easily, assuming Evans craves a longer-stay.

With regards to van den Berg, the young Dutchman stood out in the win at Swansea on Easter Monday and continues to come out of his shell on the pitch.

He has done little wrong during his time at the club and is clearly progressing and benefitting, from the regular exposure to Championship football.

Assuming Liverpool give another loan the green light in the summer, PNE will have first refusal on taking van den Berg again next season per reports.

Attitude wise, van den Berg ticks all the boxes and on the ball his technical quality shows in games - the physicality was always going to be his big test but the defender has not been overawed in that department.

Him and Evans have performed well during testing times for PNE as a club.

Should the chance to have them both in a North End shirt again next season present itself, it shouldn't take much consideration.
 

BoroFur

Well-known member
Didn't Joey Barton bomb him out at Fleetwood Town due to disciplinary issues?

If that's not a red flag I don't know what is.

Oh, and he's nowhere near good enough.
 

Scrote

Well-known member
That isn't correct.
On getting a text from McDonald he called his brother & friend & told them to go to the window to film it.
On entering the room, he didn't speak with the woman, he did just join in.
That can't be right, because if he just joined in then a jury might reasonably find him guilty of rape (without any evidence to the contrary).

@Laughing will be along to correct you in a minute.
 

Heam44

Well-known member
It's not about drunken sex. People don't get prosecuted for having drunken sex. The judge even clarifys this. It's about being so drunk you are unable to give consent. It isn't about impaired judgement, it is about being incapable of making a judgement.
It’s a tricky concept though. Obviously other than in cases whereby the victim was so drunk that they were comatose / unable to walk / speak etc. Which although I never followed the case closely I’m pretty certain the victim wasn’t that drunk, I remember seeing cctv footage of her walking through the hotel reception on her way to the hotel room and she was walking normally, not staggering or swaying etc.

Other than situations which I have described above (comatose / too drunk to speak / walk) it’s very complicated / shades of grey etc. In most crimes whereby the victim states they were so drunk that they don’t know what they were doing, their evidence is considered as almost worthless.

Also people act differently when they are drunk, if it’s the first time you’ve met someone, how do you know if they’re slightly or very drunk.

Also what if she was very drunk but was consenting but then can’t remember and therefore what if she consents.

What if both parties are too drunk to consent etc and have effectively both committed a crime on each other.

IMO “too drunk to consent” can be complex in real life situations.
 

newusername

Well-known member
I never followed the case closely I’m pretty certain the victim wasn’t that drunk, I remember seeing cctv footage of her walking through the hotel reception on her way to the hotel room and she was walking normally, not staggering or swaying etc.
Ched Evans had met the lady earlier in the evening when he stepped over her as she lay on the floor of the takeaway.
 

Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret

Well-known member
It’s a tricky concept though. Obviously other than in cases whereby the victim was so drunk that they were comatose / unable to walk / speak etc. Which although I never followed the case closely I’m pretty certain the victim wasn’t that drunk, I remember seeing cctv footage of her walking through the hotel reception on her way to the hotel room and she was walking normally, not staggering or swaying etc.

Other than situations which I have described above (comatose / too drunk to speak / walk) it’s very complicated / shades of grey etc. In most crimes whereby the victim states they were so drunk that they don’t know what they were doing, their evidence is considered as almost worthless.

Also people act differently when they are drunk, if it’s the first time you’ve met someone, how do you know if they’re slightly or very drunk.

Also what if she was very drunk but was consenting but then can’t remember and therefore what if she consents.

What if both parties are too drunk to consent etc and have effectively both committed a crime on each other.

IMO “too drunk to consent” can be complex in real life situations.
Well yes. Much of what you say is what is debated in court. CCTV. Toxicology. There will be experts called who can speak to a person's condition. But the post I was responding to seemed to me to be equating it to the kind of stuff everyone gets up to, which it really isn't. The behaviour displayed to meet the standard in rape cases would be abhorant to any reasonable individual.
There are plenty of cases where the victim has memory loss which would not be prosecuted. Thousands of cases where the standard is not met. The current debate in the media is due to the very low number of cases which get prosecuted. If a case goes before the courts believe me there will be a case to answer.
 

Heam44

Well-known member
Ched Evans had met the lady earlier in the evening when he stepped over her as she lay on the floor of the takeaway.
I wasn’t aware of that, but still it doesn’t prove anything.

She may have fell over and just lay there whilst she laughed it off.

She might not have even fell over because she was drunk, could have been stilettos on a wet floor etc.

Did he even know that was the same person?

Was that a couple hours earlier and she’s sobered up somewhat since?

Or was she actually hammered but due to how drunk she was and having lost her inhabitions she encouraged Ched to have sex with her?

If he’s only met her that night how does he know how drunk she is or isn’t? How she normally acts etc. Especially if his judgement is impaired due to him being drunk etc.
 

Scrote

Well-known member
Where to start Scrote.

Firstly some basic stuff. A judge is there to ensure that evidential rules are followed and to make rulings when there is a dispute. He has no say in the final verdict directly. Once he has instructed the jury on how to apply the law to the evidence, the verdict is the domain of the jury and only the jury. I don't know if the judge had an opinion in the first trial as to whether Evans was guilty or not. The turth is it doesn't matter to me, to you or to the entire judicial system. Verdict is the domain of the jury, not the judge.

It is entirely up to the jury how they balance one bit of evidence against another.

Now to the "safe verdict" That doesn't mean it was a good or accurate verdict. It just means that the jury made a decision based on the evidence before them. They were not misled, they were not denied access to pertinent information before reaching their verdict. It says nothing about whether the verdict was a good one and whether the judge ruling on an appeal thought the defendant was guilty or innocent. Providing there is no evidential problems appeals almost always get denied. It doesn't mean the jury got it right. The initial appeal was refused because the jury had done their job, whether they did it well or not is not the subject of appeal.

The appeal was then allowed to go ahead because of new evidence. The jury did not have all the facts, so their judgement is thrown in to doubt.

The appeal had nothing, absoloutely nothing to do with the jury's decision being correct and everything to do with evidentiary rules being followed, thats it.

Some facts about how often jury's get iy wrong. In 18 percent of appeals there is a reversal. between 2019 and 2020 there were over 100 succesful appeals against convictions in a crown court. That is judgements that were later overturned. It is fairly common for a jury to get it wrong.

The reason I know the jury got it wrong is fairly simple. If Evans did not commit the crime of rape there cannot be proof that he did. That is not my opinion, it's an absoloute fact. It is impossible to prove that someone commited a crime if they didn't. Is it possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, if a person is innocent, that they committed a crime? Possibly, but it is such a high bar it is very close to zero. The jury got it wrong, even without the additional evidence, the jury should not have convicted Evans, because if he didn't do it, the prosecution couldn't have proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

My saying the jury got it wrong is not contempt of court, that is a silly assertion.

My problem with evans is not that he didn't rape someone, it's that he is a reprehensible human being who I wouldn't want near my daughters. That's not difficult to understand, nor should it be questioned.

Clearly Scrote you don't know an awful lot about UK criminal proceedings so let's leave it there.

This says nothing about how often a jury get an azquital wrong we don't know, but it is
I know as much as any reasonably educated and interested person about how the law (both civil and criminal) is meant to work in the UK. I'm not a lawyer or a judge and wouldn't consider myself an expert. I fully accept that TV dramas aren't reliable sources of actual courtroom life. I've not had to serve on a jury.

The problem I have is that again, you fail to address the issues (CSP were wrong to bring the charge; Jury was wrong to convict) which you've wittered on about time and again with the supposed inference being that you're party to some information that hasn't entered the public domain - or your own interpretation of the public domain info is markedly different to everyone else involved but you're somehow more correct.

Which basic facts am I plain wrong about? List them, it can't be that difficult. Just one or two would be a start.

Why do the stats for juries getting things wrong relate to this case where there was fresh evidence presented for the appeal? Had that evidence been available in the first trial, the jury may have found differently.

Even then, how do the numbers you've presented show that it's common for juries to get things wrong?

Just looking at stats for 2019 there were approx 60,000 cases in the Crown Court with a conviction rate (for sexual offences) at 67% (one of the lowest conviction rates). Assuming all of your 100 successful appeals were against those 2019 cases, and all cases were sexual offences (with the lowest conviction rate (which boosts your figures)) that would mean the numbers work out as follows:

Total cases: 60,000
Total convictions: 40,200
Total appeals: 556 (if 100 is 18%)
Total appeal reversals: 100

So 1.4% of convictions were appealed and 0.25% of convictions were overturned (according to your numbers).

Sticking to whole numbers (as a case is thing) 1 in 400 juries get it wrong.

Even if we assume none of these appeals were based on new evidence arising, it's hardly a common occurance; although I feel for the individual people affected.

The reason I know the jury got it wrong is fairly simple. If Evans did not commit the crime of rape there cannot be proof that he did. That is not my opinion, it's an absoloute fact. It is impossible to prove that someone commited a crime if they didn't. Is it possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, if a person is innocent, that they committed a crime? Possibly, but it is such a high bar it is very close to zero. The jury got it wrong, even without the additional evidence, the jury should not have convicted Evans, because if he didn't do it, the prosecution couldn't have proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is just a logical mess. You think he was innocent. Therefore to be innocent he can't have committed rape. Therefore he didn't commit rape and the jury were wrong. It's a circular argument on steroids that fails to address the actual fact that he was found guilty. Therefore there was enough 'proof' that consent wasn't given to convince the jury that a rape occurred.

I don't know how you prove a negative. That's the major problem with rape cases in general. However, given enough CCTV and enough witness statements, a jury can reasonably judge that consent was in all probability (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt) not given.

As soon as reasonable doubt crept in (the appeal) the conviction was reversed. Ched Evans is innocent.

However, you also know that Ched Evans is a reprehensible individual, despite his innocence. I'm assuming you either know him personally or have had dealings with him as there doesn't appear to be much non-footballing information about him on the internet (other than the rape trial)?
 
Top
X