Sheffield United and Wales footballer Ched Evans found guilty of Rape

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes I read the messages. They are easily found. I think she wanted money.

I'm happier with trial by judge and jury than trial by Google.

He was found guilty of rape. Despite the extraordinary claim by another that a finding of guilt is not a finding of guilt!

Kirby

rarnes1 wrote: »

If posters on boards think he's an innocent man surely more qualified people will be able to turn this around for team Ched

I have no idea if he's innocent. I wasn't there. But the bottom line is, he was convicted on hearsay.....not evidence. I find it scary that a person can be convicted on "he said she said" and have their entire life turned upside down.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

I have no idea if he's innocent. I wasn't there. But the bottom line is, he was convicted on hearsay.....not evidence. I find it scary that a person can be convicted on "he said she said"

Please specify exactly the hearsay evidence that was admitted and was not ruled out by the Judge.

Though seeing as you did say that a guilty finding does not mean someone is guilty, I'm sceptical about your analysis of the law of hearsay and how it was incorrectly applied here.

Kirby

Deleted User wrote: »

Despite the extraordinary claim by another that a finding of guilt is not a finding of guilt!

Nobody claimed that. I claimed that a court finding a person guilty of a crime does not mean they committed a crime. And you know this quite well despite how obtuse you are attempting to be.

You live in a fantasy world where the courts are never wrong, people are never imprisoned wrongly and murderers don't walk free. Its childlike and gullible in the extreme. You are clearly the type of person who believes everything they are told.....if it comes from a person in authority.

CSF

Kirby wrote: »

Nobody claimed that. I claimed that a court finding a person guilty of a crime does not mean they committed a crime. And you know this quite well despite how obtuse you are attempting to be.

You live in a fantasy world where the courts are never wrong, people are never imprisoned wrongly and murderers don't walk free. Its childlike and gullible in the extreme. You are clearly the type of person who believes everything they are told.....if it comes from a person in authority.

And he is being incredibly obtuse.

The notion that because a judge and jury deemed something to be so, we should not question how they came to that decision is absurd.

I think there's an extreme double standards here, if it was one of the Anglo bankers being found not guilty of wrongdoing, Id be surprised if people were being told not to raise their concerns because he was found not guilty in court.

irishgeo

He doesn't do himself any favours.

His mate phoned him and told him to come over as he had a bird.. (Who in a normal world does this). Ched arrived with 2 mates who were outside looking in the window and tried to video what was happening on a mobile. He blagged a key off the porter. Why didn't he go knoxck?.1

His mate left him with the girl and went home.

Ched left via a emergency exit.

By not showing remorse or apologising is making it much worse for him.


Lee Hughes didn't have such a fuss about him when he went back.

Kirby

irishgeo wrote: »

He doesn't do himself any favours.

His mate phoned him and told him to come over as he had a bird.. (Who in a normal world does this). Ched arrived with 2 mates who were outside looking in the window and tried to video what was happening on a mobile. He blagged a key off the porter. Why didn't he go knoxck?.1

His mate left him with the girl and went home.

Ched left via a emergency exit.

By not showing remorse or apologising is making it much worse for him..

While none of what you said is particularly gentlemanly, where exactly does that constitute rape?

And why would he show remorse or apologise? He maintains his innocence.

It's very easy to paint him in a bad light. Probably because he's not a nice chap by all accounts. But does this make him a rapist?

CSF

irishgeo wrote: »

He doesn't do himself any favours.

His mate phoned him and told him to come over as he had a bird.. (Who in a normal world does this). Ched arrived with 2 mates who were outside looking in the window and tried to video what was happening on a mobile. He blagged a key off the porter. Why didn't he go knoxck?.1

His mate left him with the girl and went home.

Ched left via a emergency exit.

By not showing remorse or apologising is making it much worse for him.


Lee Hughes didn't have such a fuss about him when he went back.

None of the lads carried themselves in glory that night. The whole 'roasting' thing is in pretty poor taste to put it mildly.

The Lee Hughes thing went much quieter because the media (Sky Sports News in particular) weren't covering it 24/7.

irishgeo

Kirby wrote: »

While none of what you said is particularly gentlemanly, where exactly does that constitute rape?

And why would he show remorse or apologise? He maintains his innocence.

It's very easy to paint him in a bad light. Probably because he's not a nice chap by all accounts. But does this make him a rapist?

No but I wasn't on the jury so I don't have all the facts.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

But does this make him a rapist?

irishgeo wrote: »

No but I am

You may want to edit that.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you read the messages? How do you know what she said? How many other times do we read about the rape victim's reaction on social media?

Yes, I've read them.

Among others: "Remind me never to tell **** when I win big".

This was approximately 5 months after Ched and Clayton McDonald had been charged with rape and approximately 5 months before Ched was convicted and Clayton acquitted.

Also, "On the night in question [...] Facebook messages that she sent and received during this period of time were deleted by her and when asked why she claimed ‘she was just tidying up her Facebook’".

Sure. Of course she was. Just tidying up.

irishgeo wrote: »

His mate phoned him and told him to come over as he had a bird.. (Who in a normal world does this).

Its not a normal world, if you went out for a night with a Premier league footballer you would really have your eyes opened at how other people react to them. Even the most decent of people have girls/guys throwing themselves at them prepared to do anything.

irishgeo

Kirby wrote: »

You may want to edit that.

Well spotted.

monkey9

Evans can't apologise or show remorse because he's appealing the conviction and trying to get a miscarriage of justice type ruling.

monkey9

monkey9 wrote: »

Evans can't apologise or show remorse because he's appealing the conviction and trying to get a miscarriage of justice type ruling.

He's only released on licence too afaik. Can't leave the country.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

Nobody claimed that. I claimed that a court finding a person guilty of a crime does not mean they committed a crime. And you know this quite well despite how obtuse you are attempting to be.

No you didn't. What you actually said was...

Kirby wrote: »

Being convicted of something does not mean you are guilty of it...

It means precisely that. What you are trying to say, but you are confused about it, is that it doesn't absolutely prove it.

Kirby wrote: »

You live in a fantasy world where the courts are never wrong, people are never imprisoned wrongly and murderers don't walk free. Its childlike and gullible in the extreme. You are clearly the type of person who believes everything they are told.....if it comes from a person in authority.

The thread is not about me. Just because I point out the obvious difficulty you have wrestling with guilt and trials and hearsay rules doesn't mean you can start analysing me. The topic is Ched Evans, and his rape of a woman.

bucketybuck wrote: »

Yes, I've read them.

So you found out her name and checked up her social media?

Hmmm. Don't think it's appropriate to be cyber stalking a rape victim myself.

maximoose

Deleted User wrote: »

So you found out her name and checked up her social media?

Hmmm. Don't think it's appropriate to be cyber stalking a rape victim myself.

Cyber stalking? The tweets are on chedevans.com, names redacted.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

So you found out her name and checked up her social media?

Hmmm. Don't think it's appropriate to be cyber stalking a rape victim myself.

No, I did not do that, and I think you have just demonstrated your intention in this thread.

CSF

CSF wrote: »

I think there's an extreme double standards here, if it was one of the Anglo bankers being found not guilty of wrongdoing, Id be surprised if people were being told not to raise their concerns because he was found not guilty in court.

Ched Evans raped a woman. Notwithstanding Kirby's logic of the effect of a finding of guilt and his searing critique of the application of the law of hearsay, Evans was found guilty. Maybe Kirby should point this hearsay issue out at the review stage, because Evans own legal team seems to have missed it.

The Anglo Bankers have nothing whatsoever to do with it, and your analogy is terrible.

Now whether he has done his time and should be entitled to return to work is a separate issue.

bucketybuck

Kirby wrote: »

Being convicted of something does not mean you are guilty of it.

Deleted User wrote: »

It actually means precisely that.

That's the whole point of a trial, to determine guilt.

The Guildford 4 anybody?

maximoose

maximoose wrote: »

Cyber stalking? The tweets are on chedevans.com, names redacted.

Ah. So the rapists own website contains references to the social media of the rape victim?

That sails very close to contempt of court. There is a reason that trials are in camera. Did they analyse her prior sexual history or the length of her skirt while they were at it?

Did the Court or judge analyse her social media or is his website the only source

maximoose

bucketybuck wrote: »

The Guildford 4 anybody?

West Memphis 3, 325 'guilty' folk exonerated by Innocence Project...

Deleted User wrote: »

That sails very close to contempt of court. There is a reason that trials are in camera. Did they analyse her prior sexual history or the length of her skirt while they were at it?

Did the Court or judge analyse her social media or is his website the only source

Not really sure tbh - supposedly an interested party in New York obtained the tweets.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

The Guildford 4 anybody?

So he was framed?

By who? Is this claimed in his own website?

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

The Guildford 4 anybody?

maximoose wrote: »

West Memphis 3

Larry Murphy?

It was a rape case for starters. So immediately it's a better analogy than either of the above, or indeed the Anglo Irish case mentioned by another poster.

wonga77

Deleted User wrote: »

So he was framed?

By who? Is this claimed in his own website?

Nobody said he was framed. Your missing the point on purpose and you know full well what buckety was saying

wonga77

How come people's reactions are so different to these types of cases, Mike Tyson was convicted of rape but was allowed to return to his sport and is a hero to many. Media play a huge role in these things

wonga77

wonga77 wrote: »

Nobody said he was framed. Your missing the point on purpose and you know full well what buckety was saying

There's a lot of people questioning my motives.

I have no issue with the findings of the Court. I'm reading a lot of attempts to discredit it, some by posters like Kirby who patently don't know the first thing about the function of trials, the meaning of a guilty verdict, hearsay etc., some by posters dropping in references to cases where people were fitted up.

Why would my motives be the one under scrutiny? I accept he's a rapist.

CSF

Deleted User wrote: »

Ched Evans raped a woman. Notwithstanding Kirby's logic of the effect of a finding of guilt and his searing critique of the application of the law of hearsay, Evans was found guilty. Maybe Kirby should point this hearsay issue out at the review stage, because Evans own legal team seems to have missed it.

The Anglo Bankers have nothing whatsoever to do with it, and your analogy is terrible.

Now whether he has done his time and should be entitled to return to work is a separate issue.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether Ched Evans was found guilty. The glaring question that has been asked many times is whether the grounds were sufficient and why the same grounds weren't applied to the other party.

The analogy used for your 'don't question a case, he was found guilty in a court of law' attitude actually fits perfect.

Why not discuss and refute the points being made rather than a dismissive 'he was found guilty. he raped a woman'? We know he was found guilty, and some of us (myself included) aren't even claiming he was necessarily innocent. He may well have been guilty but having read and studied the case I don't feel the evidence put forward really proved his guilt, particularly with the contrasting judgement for the other party.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a lot of people questioning my motives.

And rightly so.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

No you didn't. What you actually said was...



It means precisely that. What you are trying to say, but you are confused about it, is that it doesn't absolutely prove it.



The thread is not about me. Just because I point out the obvious difficulty you have wrestling with guilt and trials and hearsay rules doesn't mean you can start analysing me. The topic is Ched Evans, and his rape of a woman.



So you found out her name and checked up her social media?

Hmmm. Don't think it's appropriate to be cyber stalking a rape victim myself.

I don't understand your mentality here and other posts. Your making us out to be rapist apologists. We are just questioning how this outcome was reached. This is far from a clear case of rape. Should we just accept everything we are told and question nothing.

Kirby

CSF wrote: »

Why not discuss and refute the points being made rather than a dismissive 'he was found guilty. he raped a woman'? We know he was found guilty, and some of us (myself included) aren't even claiming he was necessarily innocent. He may well have been guilty but having read and studied the case I don't feel the evidence put forward really proved his guilt, particularly with the contrasting judgement for the other party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

He knows what he's doing. He'll just keep repeating himself and avoiding any question levelled at him.

"Surely you don't think the courts never make mistakes?"
"He was found Guilty! He raped her!"
"But when look at the history of..."
"Guilty! Raaaaape!"

And so on. Charlie Haughey used to do this in debates and despite the fact that it made him look uneducated, it had the desired effect of frustrating and exasperating his opponents. I wont be responding to him anymore because I think he's doing it wilfully....on purpose and there is nothing to be gained from discussing it with him.

CSF

CSF wrote: »

I don't think anyone is questioning whether Ched Evans was found guilty. The glaring question that has been asked many times is whether the grounds were sufficient and why the same grounds weren't applied to the other party.

The validity of returning different verdicts was neatly summed up in this summary the decision of the Court of Appeal

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

What did you think of Kirby's hearsay point, seeing as you joined him in accusing me of being obtuse? Where do you think there were issues with the law of hearsay?

niallo27 wrote: »

I don't understand your mentality and other posts. Your making us out to be rapist apologists. We are just questioning how this outcome was reached. This is far from a clear case of rape. Should we just accept everything we are told and question nothing.

Could you point to the post where I referred to others being apologists for rapists and I'll look at it again?

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

He knows what he's doing. He'll just keep repeating himself and avoiding any question levelled at him.

"Surely you don't think the courts never make mistakes?"
"He was found Guilty! He raped her!"
"But when look at the history of..."
"Guilty! Raaaaape!"

And so on. Charlie Haughey used to do this in debates and despite the fact that it made him look uneducated, it had the desired effect of frustrating and exasperating his opponents. I wont be responding to him anymore because I think he's doing it wilfully....on purpose and there is nothing to be gained from discussing it with him.

You won't be responding to me anymore because you don't have the first clue about the function of trials, the effect of guilty verdicts etc. and I have pointed this out.

Your analysis of me by reference to Charles Haughey can only be an effort at humour, because it is laughable.

CSF

Deleted User wrote: »

The validity of returning different verdicts was neatly summed up in this summary the decision of the Court of Appeal

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

What did you think of Kirby's hearsay point, seeing as you joined him in accusing me of being obtuse? Where do you think there were issues with the law of hearsay?



Could you point to the post where I referred to others being apologists for rapists and I'll look at it again?

I'd prefer you reference Kirby's points to him, and mine to me.

Instead of providing a link to an entire case summary, use your own words please. Why do you think Evans was guilty with someone who was too drunk to consent but Clayton McDonald wasn't?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Facts smachts? Evans is a convicted rapist. She is a rape victim. Anyone who has seen what rape does to a person knows that it is the rapist who deserves the contempt and derision.

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no requirement in the laws of rape that the victim must suffer.

If you know what rape is, you would know that the victim may have had no objection or recollection at all, rape victims may be asleep, drugged, drunk, may have an intellectual disability and be unable to comprehend what has happened to them and so on.

Plus, it doesn't matter whether you are convinced. The fact is that he was convicted. He is a rapist. She is a victim. Even if she lacks the broken nose and blood streaming down thighs that some might expect from rape victims.

So what exactly did this specific "rape" do to this specific "victim"?

Your implication here is that she automatically suffered. My point is that if she was tweeting and boasting about it, she did not. She has no recollection of whether it even happeend or not. If I suffer something, you better be damn sure I rememeber it happening.

He is not nessecarily a rapist just because he is convicted of it. Courts can and do get it wrong. I'd argue he's just as dangerous and guilty as McDonald (or McDonald is just as dangerous or guilty as he is, whichever way you look at it).

ThunbergsAreGo

Well he is not being signed by Oldham now due to "threats to staff and their families"

Wonder what the nature of the threats were, or was it just a convenient excuse

CSF

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Your implication here is that she automatically suffered. My point is that if she was tweeting and boasting about it, she did not. She has no recollection of whether it even happeend or not. If I suffer something, you better be damn sure I rememeber it happening.

The last part here of this is way off the mark. You tell that to someone who has been drugged.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CSF wrote: »

The last part here of this is way off the mark. You tell that to someone who has been drugged.

Fair point generally speaking, accetped.

But specific to this case, she wasn't. Certainly not by the men she has sex with.

CSF

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair point generally speaking, accetped.

But specific to this case, she wasn't. Certainly not by the men she has sex with.

Still, I don't think it is fair to say that a vulnerable individual should be open season because they consumed that amount of alcohol of their own accord.

ThunbergsAreGo

CSF wrote: »

Still, I don't think it is fair to say that a vulnerable individual should be open season because they consumed that amount of alcohol of their own accord.

Agree with this, I think the verdict seemed strange (not having a clue about law etc) but bringing the victim into this isnt doing any favours.

Its the mob rule mentality "threats made against staff and family" I have a problem with. Its also hard to see how this doesnt impact on any appeal he has made

homerjay2005

from reading on twitter and other places, there doesnt seem to be as many football fans against him as the media is making out. for me, it appears that the majority of noise is coming from outside football and non football fans are jumping on the bandwagon.

can mods add a poll to this thread please to gauge whether boards users think he deserves to play football again or not?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CSF wrote: »

Still, I don't think it is fair to say that a vulnerable individual should be open season because they consumed that amount of alcohol of their own accord.

Just to be clear, I did NOT say that.

There's two sides to this: what Evans did was stupid, but he was under the impression she concented when he had sex with her. He did not go into this thinking "she's not agreeing to this - I'm raping her".

The other side, while you may not be responsible for what happens while you are drunk, you are (assuming no spiking has taken place) responsible for how much you drink.

Also, to get back to my original point, if she's tweeting and boasting about it, she's not suffering.

pmasterson95

Originally my cousin was adamant is was a money scam she wanted. She consented to one but not the other International Footballer hes the one she didn't consent to. Even tho she was so ****faced drunk she remembers nothing but she remembers that. It never added up. Just some kind od scam he didn't pay out and it went to court. One innocent one guilty made no sense.
That was before we even heard about her boasting holiday tweets.

Was her going to the flat seen as consent for Mc Donald?

Evans turned up uninvited by her and her being intoxicated meant she's couldn't consent to Evans. No consent = rape

bucketybuck

rarnes1 wrote: »

Was her going to the flat seen as consent for Mc Donald?

Evans turned up uninvited by her and her being intoxicated meant she's couldn't consent to Evans. No consent = rape

If she was so intoxicated then how could she consent to anything? Including agreeing to go to the flat with McDonald.

Thats the issue here, not that she said the words "no", but that she was so drunk she therefore wasn't responsible for any words she spoke or actions she took.

Yet that has been applied very inconsistently. She was sober enough to make one decision but at the same time so drunk that she couldn't make a second decision. It just doesn't stand scrutiny.

CSF

rarnes1 wrote: »

Was her going to the flat seen as consent for Mc Donald?

Evans turned up uninvited by her and her being intoxicated meant she's couldn't consent to Evans. No consent = rape

Her going to the flat in a highly intoxicated state could not be seen as consent. Those probably are the grounds to which they distinguished guilt and innocence but that is absolutely shambolic.

Either a girl is in a physical state to consent or she isn't. It shouldn't matter whether you managed to woo the highly intoxicated and unable to consent to a decision girl(this is the assumption we're working off if we're assuming guilt for Ched Evans) back to your hotel or not.

Chucky the tree

wonga77 wrote: »

How come people's reactions are so different to these types of cases, Mike Tyson was convicted of rape but was allowed to return to his sport and is a hero to many. Media play a huge role in these things

Talent plays a bigger role. If Ched was more talents he'd have a club by now. If Messi or Ronaldo got done for rape and finished their sentences at 25/26 and wanted to go back to football they wouldn't have any problem finding a club to take them on.

CSF

CSF wrote: »

Her going to the flat in a highly intoxicated state could not be seen as consent.

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure how this played out in the trial.

What was seen as consent for Mc Donald? Haven't seen anyone mention it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

rarnes1 wrote: »

Was her going to the flat seen as consent for Mc Donald?

Evans turned up uninvited by her and her being intoxicated meant she's couldn't consent to Evans. No consent = rape

But according to the defendents, they had consent.

When he [Evans] arrived at the room it was immediately apparent to him that McDonald and the complainant were engaged in enthusiastic consensual sex. When she was asked if the applicant could join in, the complainant clearly replied "Yes". McDonald stopped. The complainant asked the applicant to perform oral sex on her. He did so and then they had sexual intercourse.

Source

They're claiming they asked, she said yes.
She's saying she had no reocollection of being asked.

maximoose

CSF wrote: »

Her going to the flat in a highly intoxicated state could not be seen as consent.

From the CCTV of her arriving at the Premier Inn, she doesn't appear to be 'highly intoxicated' at all, especially not to the point of not being able to make conscious decisions.

CSF

maximoose wrote: »

From the CCTV of her arriving at the Premier Inn, she doesn't appear to be 'highly intoxicated' at all, especially not to the point of not being able to make conscious decisions.

Hard to judge that from a video camera recording.