Jump to content
IGNORED

Ched Evans

Real Red

By Real Red
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

Son of Fred

Son of Fred

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I don't have an opinion either way on if he was/wasn't guilty.

More interested in your firing squad suggestion and when you'd pull the trigger as you said 'all rapists should be shot and killed' and until his conviction was overturned, Evans was guilty of that crime (rightly or wrongly).

Only time to wish anyone shot-whomever they may be-is if your genuinely prepared to squeeze the trigger yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BCFC Jimmer

BCFC Jimmer

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Robbored said:

The girl that cried rape essentially made Evans unemployable once he was convicted and now that conviction has been overturned she walks away without a stain on her character.

She should hang her head in shame.

Jesus wept.  That sends out a great message to young girls doesn't it.:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BRISTOL86

BRISTOL86

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Perhaps they did or perhaps they did not. I wasn't at the orginal trial and could not possibly speculate.

Surely by its very definition, if there is evidence that proves his innocence then there could never have been evidence that proved his guilt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fordy62

Fordy62

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Surely by its very definition, if there is evidence that proves his innocence then there could never have been evidence that proved his guilt?

What evidence is there to prove his innocence?

I'm investigating a matter at the moment. I know he's guilty, but I can't prove it due to factors I have no control over. 

You can be guilty and be found not guilty, just as you can be not guilty and be found guilty. 

As has been said before, there's no innocence been proven here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bristol Rob

Bristol Rob

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

What evidence is there to prove his innocence?

I'm investigating a matter at the moment. I know he's guilty, but I can't prove it due to factors I have no control over. 

You can be guilty and be found not guilty, just as you can be not guilty and be found guilty. 

As has been said before, there's no innocence been proven here. 

Don't want to undermine your lifetimes work, but the general rule of thumb seems to be;

Whoever smelt it, dealt it.

And of they try and deny it.... BANGED TO RIGHTS

Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
Maesknoll Red

Maesknoll Red

Posted
  • Admin
Posted
10 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

What evidence is there to prove his innocence?

I'm investigating a matter at the moment. I know he's guilty, but I can't prove it due to factors I have no control over. 

You can be guilty and be found not guilty, just as you can be not guilty and be found guilty. 

As has been said before, there's no innocence been proven here. 

So he lies in the middle then, neither guilty as he has been proven not guilty by a jury, but not proven innocent?  Does the not guilty decision make him legally innocent?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aizoon

Aizoon

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

What evidence is there to prove his innocence?

I'm investigating a matter at the moment. I know he's guilty, but I can't prove it due to factors I have no control over. 

You can be guilty and be found not guilty, just as you can be not guilty and be found guilty. 

As has been said before, there's no innocence been proven here. 

Under English law, nobody ever has to prove their innocence. It's up to the prosecution to prove their guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fordy62

Fordy62

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

So he lies in the middle then, neither guilty as he has been proven not guilty by a jury, but not proven innocent?  Does the not guilty decision make him legally innocent?

 

Yes. He absolutely does lie in the middle. I've never heard the term legally innocent before, so it's a good question. And I'm not sure there's such a thing, so I'm going to say no!

He's definitely legally not guilty though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robbored

Robbored

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

On what basis? A jury hasn't found that she lied and, so far as I can see, she had said from the off she could not remember what had happened. Evans' not guilty verdict doesn't mean she lied. It doesn't even necessarily imply that she did. All it means is a jury felt there was not sufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. No more inference can be drawn than that.

"she could not remember" is exactly my point.

She had no recollection of the event and yet accused Evans of rape........:facepalm: 

The case should never have got to court in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

"she could not remember" is exactly my point.

She had no recollection of the event and yet accused Evans of rape........:facepalm: 

The case should never have got to court in the first place.

For the HUNDRETH TIME she didn't accuse him of anything.  The CPS charged him on the basis of HIS testiment of what happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BRISTOL86

BRISTOL86

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

What evidence is there to prove his innocence?

I'm investigating a matter at the moment. I know he's guilty, but I can't prove it due to factors I have no control over. 

You can be guilty and be found not guilty, just as you can be not guilty and be found guilty. 

As has been said before, there's no innocence been proven here. 

You can't be found 'innocent' though, can you? So if sufficient evidence has been presented to turn a guilty verdict into a not guilty one, then surely the evidence that supported a guilty verdict is no longer creditable? 

Perhaps im getting the terminology mixed up. I thought I'd read that new evidence was presented which undermined the original guilty verdict. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fordy62

Fordy62

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SARJ said:

It wasn't rape. Hence she consented. Otherwise he'd be guilty of rape.

It doesn't necessarily matter whether a person consents to sex or not so long as the person 'raping' reasonably believes that they do consent. Certain caveats apply, those being people under duress cannot give true consent, people unconscious cannot give consent, and persons aged under 13 are not old enough to consent. 

My point is that you're making these silly statements without having a true understanding of what the legislation says. Because he's not guilty does not mean she consented. It means that the jury cannot be sure that he raped her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedRock

RedRock

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Yes. He absolutely does lie in the middle. I've never heard the term legally innocent before, so it's a good question. And I'm not sure there's such a thing, so I'm going to say no!

He's definitely legally not guilty though. 

That's bizarre.

Does that mean if you're wrongly accused by the CPS of a crime, go to court, found not guilty then you can't claim to be innocent? 

Personally, I think the CPS should be found guilty. The case has probably cost the tax payer in excess of £2-3 million. Wonder if the CPS do a case review that is made public? Probably the obscenely paid legal people feel they should be exempt from any public scrutiny of their decision making, unlike the rest of public service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fordy62

Fordy62

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

You can't be found 'innocent' though, can you? So if sufficient evidence has been presented to turn a guilty verdict into a not guilty one, then surely the evidence that supported a guilty verdict is no longer creditable? 

Perhaps im getting the terminology mixed up. I thought I'd read that new evidence was presented which undermined the original guilty verdict. 

A jury is told they must be sure to convict someone. 

The first jury was sure. 

As someone informed me today, the ex boyfriend then brought about his new evidence. 

The second jury was therefore not sure. 

None of it implies innocence, merely that the arrival of the new evidence took away the surety of the jury so they found him not guilty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
Maesknoll Red

Maesknoll Red

Posted
  • Admin
Posted
4 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

A jury is told they must be sure to convict someone. 

The first jury was sure. 

As someone informed me today, the ex boyfriend then brought about his new evidence. 

The second jury was therefore not sure. 

None of it implies innocence, merely that the arrival of the new evidence took away the surety of the jury so they found him not guilty. 

So is the often banded phrase "innocent until proven guilty" a phallacy?  Is it actually "under suspicion until proven guilty and even if found not guilty".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fordy62

Fordy62

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Moor2Sea said:

That's bizarre.

Does that mean if you're wrongly accused by the CPS of a crime, go to court, found not guilty then you can't claim to be innocent? 

Personally, I think the CPS should be found guilty. The case has probably cost the tax payer in excess of £2-3 million. Wonder if the CPS do a case review that is made public? Probably the obscenely paid legal people feel they should be exempt from any public scrutiny of their decision making, unlike the rest of public service. 

Of course you can claim to be innocent. But you cannot say that the judicial system found you innocent. 

The CPS run cases based on whether they feel they have a realistic prospect of conviction. We know that they did, because they achieved one so the case was rightly run. I know they're under immense pressure with rape cases because the conviction rate is as low as they come (about 5% but don't quote me on that!). 

But the fact is sometimes cases need to be run. Sometimes 12 ordinary people need to be asked if they're absolutely sure that a defendant has committed a crime. This time they weren't absolutely sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BRISTOL86

BRISTOL86

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Of course you can claim to be innocent. But you cannot say that the judicial system found you innocent. 

The CPS run cases based on whether they feel they have a realistic prospect of conviction. We know that they did, because they achieved one so the case was rightly run. I know they're under immense pressure with rape cases because the conviction rate is as low as they come (about 5% but don't quote me on that!). 

But the fact is sometimes cases need to be run. Sometimes 12 ordinary people need to be asked if they're absolutely sure that a defendant has committed a crime. This time they weren't absolutely sure. 

Surely they can't still claim they achieved a conviction now it's been 'reversed'? Or does it still count as a win on their stats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...