Sheffield United and Wales footballer Ched Evans found guilty of Rape

Pro. F

CSF wrote: »

No that wouldn't be true. Those reasons are absolutely shambolic. I don't know how they can come to the conclusion that based on the time in the hotel Ched Evans knew she couldn't consent, but Clayton McDonald didn't. If there were grounds for Ched Evans to know, there were grounds for Clayton McDonald. They were both there.

That isn't logical, and is purely demonising Ched Evans because his meeting of the girl was more seedy than Clayton McDonald (but not that much when you consider he texted his mate to come over).

Well fair enough if you have read the summary. At least you have gone to the effort of reading the thing you disagree with. I think anybody who is arguing against the verdict, but hasn't read the case, needs to have a long look at themselves and what they are doing in the discussion.

On this particular question of the McDonald/Evans views of what consent they had, I don't agree with you. It seems reasonable enough to me that the two very different ways they came to be having sex with the girl could be seen as the difference between receiving consent and not.

CSF

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you suggesting evidence was wrongly excluded?

What was it?

No I'm saying if there's more conclusive evidence which led to the jury making their decision it's strange that it hasn't come out in the open. So much has.

CSF

Pro. F wrote: »

Well fair enough if you have read the summary. At least you have gone to the effort of reading the thing you disagree with. I think anybody who is arguing against the verdict, but hasn't read the case, needs to have a long look at themselves and what they are doing in the discussion.

On this particular question of the McDonald/Evans views of what consent they had, I don't agree with you. It seems reasonable enough to me that the two very different ways they came to be having sex with the girl could be seen as the difference between receiving consent and not.

I really really don't see how, particularly when the requirements for judgement is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

bucketybuck

CSF wrote: »

No I'm saying if there's more conclusive evidence which led to the jury making their decision it's strange that it hasn't come out in the open. So much has.

Its hard to imagine what other evidence there could when the entire case revolves around the fact the girl says she cannot remember anything, the evidence cannot come from her and there were no other people in the room.

Besides, if there were other evidence surely it would have been noted in the case notes released?

CSF

bucketybuck wrote: »

Its hard to imagine what other evidence there could when the entire case revolves around the fact the girl says she cannot remember anything, the evidence cannot come from her and there were no other people in the room.

Besides, if there were other evidence surely it would have been noted in the case notes released?

I'm purely working off that guy's point.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

:D

"We all" and "more than a few people"...it's like a little gang!

You pretty much made sure they are all blushing for you now though!

Just stop digging and relax. Get back on topic. It's not about me.

Now, do you accept that a source like chedevans.com may be biased?

Would they be allowed to publish untrue facts though. What about that girl in ennis that was raped years ago and he was allowed off by the judge and allowed to travel home with her on the train and ****ed a fag butt at her. He was done on appeal after that. According to you we should have just accepted he was innocent.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

Would they be allowed to publish untrue facts though. What about that girl in ennis that was raped years ago and he was allowed off by the judge and allowed to travel home with her on the train and ****ed a fag butt at her. He was done on appeal after that. According to you we should have just accepted he was innocent.

Huh?

Because I am sceptical about the merits of his family's site as a source of information, I was wrong about a case in Clare?

I have never even mentioned the Ennis case. What are you on about?

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

Because I am sceptical about the merits of his family's site as a source of information

Then ignore the website and form your opinion based on the information released from the court.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

Then ignore the website and form your opinion based on the information released from the court.

And the clear and unequivocal information from the courts is that the jury who sat in Court and heard all of the evidence, saw the parties give that evidence, react to cross exam and so on, were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he raped her.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

Huh?

Because I am sceptical about the merits of his family's site as a source of information, I was wrong about a case in Clare?

I have never even mentioned the Ennis case. What are you on about?

You told us before to accept the courts findings.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

And the clear and unequivocal information from the courts is that the jury who sat in Court and heard all of the evidence, saw the parties give that evidence, react to cross exam and so on, were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he raped her.

Yes the judge in ennis was satisfied this man was innocent.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes the judge in ennis was satisfied this man was innocent.

Are you talking about the case where a man was actually convicted (not acquitted as you suggest), given a suspended sentence, flicked a cigarette butt at the victim, and was imprisoned?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/court-criticises-unduly-lenient-sentence-of-rapist-26340001.html

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you talking about the case where a man was actually convicted (not acquitted as you suggest), given a suspended sentence, flicked a cigarette butt at the victim, and was imprisoned?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/court-criticises-unduly-lenient-sentence-of-rapist-26340001.html

Yes should we have accepted the first judges ruling.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes should we have accepted the first judges ruling.

So despite the fact that you clearly got the entire case wrong, suggesting the man was acquitted when he wasn't, and I never mentioned it, for some bizarre reason you have dragged it into this thread?

If you think the Court got Evans wrong, does that mean you think the Court that imposed a 7 year term in the case you mention was also wrong, the Court that convicted Larry Murphy was wrong etc. etc.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you talking about the case where a man was actually convicted (not acquitted as you suggest), given a suspended sentence, flicked a cigarette butt at the victim, and was imprisoned?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/court-criticises-unduly-lenient-sentence-of-rapist-26340001.html

I never said he was acquitted. He raped a girl, it went to court and he walked free. In my mind he got off.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

So despite the fact that you clearly got the entire case wrong, suggesting the man was acquitted when he wasn't, and I never mentioned it, for some bizarre reason you have dragged it into this thread?

If you think the Court got Evans wrong, does that mean you think the Court that imposed a 7 year term in the case you mention was also wrong, the Court that convicted Larry Murphy was wrong etc. etc.

I never said he was acquitted. That's twice you said that. What I am saying is courts get it wrong. Can you accept that.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

I never said he was acquitted. He raped a girl, it went to court and he walked free. In my mind he got off.

So you don't even know the difference between "getting off" and being convicted?!

niallo27 wrote: »

I never said he was acquitted. That's twice you said that. What I am saying is courts get it wrong. Can you accept that.

I already answered that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh they certainly can.

In the vast majority of cases, do they get it right?

Roughly how many jury decisions are overturned in the UK?

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

And the clear and unequivocal information from the courts is that the jury who sat in Court and heard all of the evidence, saw the parties give that evidence, react to cross exam and so on, were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he raped her.

And myself and many others have heard the reasoning and our opinion is that it doesn't make any logical sense, thus the thread. We are discussing the reasoning and the holes in it, as well as the secondary issue of Evans right to return to work. All the while we are well aware that our opinion counts for very little.

You, on the other hand, marched in to declare that the guy was found guilty and that is that, no point in discussing any further.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

And myself and many others have heard the reasoning.

Have ye?

Wow. That's pretty remarkable. Because in this country we do not see the reasoning of the decision makers at all, the juries merely record whether they find the accused guilty or not guilty. Thought the UK was the same.

Where is their reasoning available?

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

So you don't even know the difference between "getting off" and being convicted?!



I already answered that.

If your looking at time and you get a suspended sentence then you got off kid.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

In my mind he got off.

niallo27 wrote: »

If your looking at time and you get a suspended sentence then you got off kid.

I see what was in your mind a few posts back has now become some accepted norm!

Either way, your point remains nonsense. You were suggesting I had commented on an entirely different case in a different country with different laws at a different time, when I had done nothing of the sort.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

Have ye?

Wow. That's pretty remarkable. Because in this country we do not see the reasoning of the decision makers at all, the juries merely record whether they find the accused guilty or not guilty. Thought the UK was the same.

Where is their reasoning available?

I am shocked, shocked!!! to see that despite all your blathering you had not bothered your hole to read the case summary which has been linked a few times in this thread.

Heres the link to the summary, which also includes a link to the full transcript. Why don't you try reading it and drawing your own conclusion rather than parroting the line that if he was found guilty then there is nothing else to discuss.

That said, even if you did read it, I doubt we would hear your honest opinion.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

I am shocked, shocked!!! to see that despite all your blathering you had not bothered your hole to read the case summary.

Heres the link to the summary, which also includes a link to the full transcript. Why don't you try reading it and drawing your own conclusion rather than parroting the line that if he was found guilty then there is nothing else to discuss.

That said, even if you did read it, I doubt we would hear your honest opinion.

Um.

You are confusing the transcript of the Court of Appeal with the reasoning in the case!

That's not the reasoning in the case at all. That is the reasoning in rejecting the appeal...and I was the poster who linked it!

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

Um.

You are confusing the transcript of the Court of Appeal with the reasoning in the case!

That's not the reasoning in the case at all. That is the reasoning in rejecting the appeal...and I was the poster who linked it!

And it lays out the facts of the case as determined, so whats the problem?

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

I see what was in your mind a few posts back has now become some accepted norm!

Either way, your point remains nonsense. You were suggesting I had commented on an entirely different case in a different country with different laws at a different time, when I had done nothing of the sort.

This is what arguing with you is like.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

And it lays out the facts of the case as determined, so whats the problem?

No no.

You referred to the reasoning in the case.

We don't know the reasoning in the case as it is not published. Not even the Judges know what happens in the jury deliberations.

You then, hilariously, demonstrated that you really are floundering here by getting irritated and linking the reasoning, not in the case, but of another Court in the narrow issue of whether an appeal should be allowed.

Pro. F

CSF wrote: »

I really really don't see how, particularly when the requirements for judgement is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

I think it's really easy to see how, so we're not going to agree on it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

It is the same as every other conviction, in that it only demonstrates that the case was established beyond reasonable doubt. If by fact you mean some absolute truth, well then no, the Evans case is only like every other criminal case and they did not devise a new standard of proof for him.

Not sure what the last line means. There was no reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jury, that's the whole point. You may disagree with their verdict, of course, but again one goes back to the point I made pages ago. They sat through the entire matter, the critics seem to be relying on Google and chedevans.com and other second hand analyses of the case.

By "reasaobale doubt" I mean that the victim herself had reasonable doubt.

acquiescefc

Chesterfields spire hasnt taken the news well.

GoldFour4

Some PR job for the Chesterfield front office now. This will be the big talking point on twitter etc tonight. They obviously see him as an upgrade for whoever they have right now and think the reward outweighs the risk.