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)?