Ched Evans Wins Appeal

Paully D

Ex-Sunderland player Cabral also cleared of rape today too.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/06/ex-sunderland-player-cabral-varela-cleared-rape?CMP=share_btn_tw

A former Premier League footballer has been cleared of raping a woman he met in a nightclub.

The woman, who cannot be named, told a jury that ex-Sunderland player Cabral, whose real name is Adilson Tavares Varela, pinned her down on his bed and raped her after they met during a night out in Newcastle.

But Varela, 27, told Hull crown court he did not know why the woman would try to destroy his life.

The player said they had consensual sex after going back to his flat in Gateshead with friends, including the retired French international Anthony Réveillère, in January last year.

Giving evidence, Varela told the jury of five men and seven women: “She’s lying.”

The midfielder said: “I never raped her, I was not aggressive towards her.

“When you are accused of raping someone, you then sit down and start thinking thoroughly why would someone come up with all these lies if not trying to destroy your life.”

Giving evidence, the 22-year-old woman repeatedly denied that she liked and sought out black footballers. She admitted knowing a number of players but denied having sex with all but one, with whom she had a longer relationship.

The jury was shown mobile footage of the complainant apparently in bed with two Newcastle United footballers just two days before the trial began.

But one of them, Kevin Mbabu, told the jury that the woman returned to the flat he shares with teammates Rolando Aarons and Ivan Toney after a night out in Newcastle.

The defender said the footage was taken of himself, Aarons, the woman and her friend in his bed, but that nothing sexual happened.

Cape Verde-born Varela, who now plays for Swiss team FC Zurich, gave evidence with help from an interpreter.

He was cleared of two counts of rape.

wonga77

I presume she will remain nameless and slip off into the wilderness?

Harry Palmr

The guardian predictably is on point duty - four articles all basically in the corner of the accuser and dealing in cliche and sterotyping about footballers and "shopgirls"

marklazarcovic

TheNap wrote: »

How did the cops get involved if she didnt accuse him of anything ?

reported a missing handbag or something like that,she has never said she was raped

mikeym

He should be left get on with his career now.

niallo27

marklazarcovic wrote: »

reported a missing handbag or something like that,she has never said she was raped

How does that come up when you report a missing handbag. Why didn't she deny it.

CSF

People are way too quick to come up with really extreme opinions on things like this without facts to back it up.

The verdict today does not make the girl a liar. Nor am I implying that she is telling the truth. I wasn't there and there is no evidence to suggest either party is guilty of what they're being accused of so it is right that one is entitled to the assumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

What today's verdict illustrated instead was that regardless of what did or didn't happen that night (we weren't there and we don't know) there was insufficient evidence to convict him and he never should have had to spend those years in prison.

Red Kev

One thing it shows is that there's a need to have anonymity for men accused of sex crimes unless they are proven guilty.

Brendan Filone

Astounded by the verdict and the vitriol to the girl here.

How would Evans know whether or not she consented?

He lied to get a room key, he kept the lights off, he never said a word to her before, during or after, and he left via a fire escape.

All of that he admitted.

marklazarcovic

niallo27 wrote: »

How does that come up when you report a missing handbag. Why didn't she deny it.

The cops questioned Evans and his mate about the bag,they told the cops we had sex with her and took no bag etc.. cops decided she was raped..

It went from there,she couldn't remember so they said she was too drunk to having given consent to sex...

He got jailed,his buddy didnt

Richard Hillman

cms88 wrote: »

The first verdict is a disgrace and I hope the likes of Jessica Ennis Hill and the other feminist mouthpieces who did everything to stop him making a living when released come forth and apologise.

Charlie Webster completely bitched out giving an apology on Twitter.

I remember Sky dumped her because sky don't like their ladies having opinions but I am delighted she won't be on television much anymore. She is a horrendous human being and sick in the head.

Jess Ennis is just pretending it hasn't happened.

They were both part of the witch-hunt that chased him around the country making sure no clubs sign him. They owe him retribution

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

They were both part of the witch-hunt that chased him around the country making sure no clubs sign him. They owe him retribution

No they don't.

A jury arrived at a decision. It survived attempts to appeal it. They were entitled to rely on that. It was only reversed when new evidence was produced.

Ben Gadot

marklazarcovic wrote: »

thing is she didnt accuse him of anything,she couldnt remember is what she said.

it was the cps that said it was rape,not her.. although i think she lied about how drunk she was

I heard this previously, but I'm wondering what was the original intention of going to the police if she was unsure about what happened.

Surely she thought some kind of assault happened, or that was the intention she wanted to convey anyway.

marklazarcovic

Jesus man it was the missing handbag she reported,not hard to find out ,even on this thread

gosplan

I'm glad the men in this thread and boards as a whole aren't representative of society.

Ben Gadot

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Jesus man it was the missing handbag she reported,not hard to find out ,even on this thread

I recall reading that alright. Apologies, still early in the morning.

Kiith

gosplan wrote: »

I'm glad the men in this thread and boards as a whole aren't representative of society.

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Should we not be angered at the automatic assumption of guilt on Chad Evans just cause he's a man? At the absolutely disgusting treatment he received from the press? Of how little evidence of any wrong doing was actually there?

The entire thing was a tabloid dream come through, and they will milk it as far as they can. Truth be damned.

eagle eye

We will never know exactly what happened on the night but the man has been found not guilty and as such is an innocent man.

There is always the possibility that he did do wrong and the girl should not be harassed in this particular case either.

I have a problem with all those who were screaming that he should never have a job. Those people would have been part of a lynch party that would have hung him before an appeal in olden times. They should all suffer now that the man has been found not guilty.

I have to agree with the poster who said that the accused should have anonymity until he has been convicted. This should be the case for all cases like this no matter who the accused is.

This shows the ugly side of the media which is all too prevalent and accepted in society today. The media don't seem to pay a tough enough price when they do wrong. Something has to be done to protect society from lowlife media who prey on the gullible.

marklazarcovic

people would have a different opinion if it was their own son involved,not a famous footballer

RasTa

Could you sue them over below?

Kirby

Jesus christ. How they can print that page with a straight face is beyond me.

"Total slimeball. But more on that later. I, as an upstanding gentlemen want to see all of Ola."

wonga77

Bit rich of the sun of all rags to be taking the moral high ground, they should have at least had the sense to leave a pic of a half naked woman off the front page today

Dirty Dingus McGee

wonga77 wrote: »

Bit rich of the sun of all rags to be taking the moral high ground, they should have at least had the sense to leave a pic of a half naked woman off the front page today

It's the Sun.Would you honestly expect anything better from them

You only have to read the little bit contained in the red top: "For a Greater Britain" to know it's a piece of **** that only a moron would read.

StringerBell

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's the Sun.Would you honestly expect anything better from them

You only have to read the little bit contained in the red top: "For a Greater Britain" to know it's a piece of **** that only a moron would read.

All that needs to be said.

CSF

Kiith wrote: »

gosplan wrote: »

I'm glad the men in this thread and boards as a whole aren't representative of society.

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Should we not be angered at the automatic assumption of guilt on Chad Evans just cause he's a man? At the absolutely disgusting treatment he received from the press? Of how little evidence of any wrong doing was actually there?

The entire thing was a tabloid dream come through, and they will milk it as far as they can. Truth be damned.

I think the assumption of guilt was reasonable given he was found guilty given he was found guilty in a court of law.

That doesn't mean it's unreasonable to ask questions about how the process went on, I'd read up the case notes and was surprised he'd been found guilty based on the evidence presented.

The real target for criticism should be the process that seen him found guilty and the first place. Oh and that Sun headline is an absolute disgrace. Stuff like that shouldn't be legal.

Topper Harley

eagle eye wrote: »

We will never know exactly what happened on the night but the man has been found not guilty and as such is an innocent man.

I agree with everything else you said but as for not knowing exactly what actually happened on the night, that was never really in doubt. It wasn't so much one person's word against another, rather a question of whether what everyone agreed happened was wrong.

The police were searching for the missing handbag and ended up questioning Ched Evans about it as his name was on the hotel room where the girl woke up. He (stupidly) told them everything that happened thinking all was ok and the police decided that was rape as the girl couldn't remember it and therefore must have been too drunk to legally consent (whether or not she said so on the night). Ched Evans' confession was what screwed him over but as far as he was aware everything was consensual. The question before the court then became whether or not she was capable of giving consent (because sometimes women are incapable or making decisions themselves after a few drinks and a court has to do it for them. This line of thought doesn't apply to men though. I think that's pretty insulting to women).

CSF wrote: »

I think the assumption of guilt was reasonable given he was found guilty in a court of law.

That doesn't mean it's unreasonable to ask questions about how the process went on, I'd read up the case notes and was surprised he'd been found guilty based on the evidence presented.

The real target for criticism should be the process that seen him found guilty and the first place. Oh and that Sun headline is an absolute disgrace. Stuff like that shouldn't be legal.

But for people baying for blood and wouldn't let him get on with his career after completing his sentence, surely they could have considered that not only has he done his time but there was always a question mark over the finding and maybe...maybe he didn't deserve to rot away without having a chance to get on with his life.

CSF

I was never fully comfortable with the campaign going on, led largely by people who didn't seem to have a massive interest in the clubs in the question.

But at the same time, would I be particularly comfortable having a convicted sex offender playing for the team I support? Not especially. Which makes it all the more important that the process in convicting these people is correct.

We shouldn't have cases where it later transpires that the evidence which someone was convicted because of is deemed insufficient, or worse again the person in question is exonerated altogether (obviously that's not what we're dealing with here) because its an insanely difficult reputation to shake.

There's definitely something to be said for banning the media from discussing ongoing criminal cases until a verdict has been reached. This wouldn't have helped Evans anyway seeing as he was found guilty but still, I can't see any negatives for doing so.

Donnielighto

You serve your sentence you serve your sentence. He should have been let sign.

CSF

CSF wrote: »

We shouldn't have cases where it later transpires that the evidence which someone was convicted because of is deemed insufficient, or worse again the person in question is exonerated altogether (obviously that's not what we're dealing with here) because its an insanely difficult reputation to shake.

There's definitely something to be said for banning the media from discussing ongoing criminal cases until a verdict has been reached. This wouldn't have helped Evans anyway seeing as he was found guilty but still, I can't see any negatives for doing so.

There is no suggestion that the evidence was deemed insufficient.

The whole point is that Evans brought in new evidence in the new trial. It was not available at the first. This was not simply another run of the same case with the same evidence, he was convicted by a jury, appeals were rejected. He then produced new evidence.

As for anonymity pre conviction, not for me generally. I didn't see why someone like say, Pat Hickey, should be kept out of the media. There may be an argument that it should be just for the narrow confines of rape and sexual assault.

Topper Harley

Deleted User wrote: »

As for anonymity pre conviction, not for me generally. I didn't see why someone like say, Pat Hickey, should be kept out of the media.

To be honest, I haven't followed the whole Pat Hickey ticket thing too closely. I don't know what he has or hasn't done, all I know for sure is that he's guilty as sin.

The thing is, once someone's name is linked to a crime, even if that person is found innocent, their name will always be tarred. It seems to be human nature to think that there's no smoke without fire.

Agent Coulson

Ched Evans: Sheffield United set to re-sign striker from Chesterfield

League One champions Sheffield United are set to re-sign striker Ched Evans from Chesterfield.

BBC Radio Sheffield reports the Blades have agreed a fee of ?500,000 with the Spireites, who have been relegated to League Two.

Evans, 28, joined Chesterfield last summer and scored seven goals in 29 appearances this season.

He scored 42 goals in 103 league appearances in his first spell at Bramall Lane.

In October 2016 Evans was found not guilty, following a retrial, of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room in 2011.

He was initially found guilty in 2012 and served two-and-a-half years of a five-year prison sentence, but his conviction was quashed in April 2016.

More to follow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39697804?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sport&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport

acquiescefc

#MINDTHEGAP

spiralism

Good for him, glad he's getting his life somewhat on track. Good on Sheffield United for having him back, there's a lot of talk here about the witch hunt against him and attempts to stop him from making a living when he got out and at least Sheff Utd are atoning and taking him back into the fold.

I've a lot of respect for him, he was wrongly incarcerated and maintained his innocence throughout, working extra jobs in prison in order to stay fit and be able to afford a healthy diet with the aim of getting back into football once he cleared his name.

He won't make premier league ever most likely, but in all honesty he probably was not good enough for that level. Championship it's more than possible to make a good living anyways and i'd expect there'll be compensation coming his way from the state before too long.

acquiescefc

spiralism wrote: »

Good for him, glad he's getting his life somewhat on track. Good on Sheffield United for having him back, there's a lot of talk here about the witch hunt against him and attempts to stop him from making a living when he got out and at least Sheff Utd are atoning and taking him back into the fold.

I've a lot of respect for him, he was wrongly incarcerated and maintained his innocence throughout, working extra jobs in prison in order to stay fit and be able to afford a healthy diet with the aim of getting back into football once he cleared his name.

He won't make premier league ever most likely, but in all honesty he probably was not good enough for that level. Championship it's more than possible to make a good living anyways and i'd expect there'll be compensation coming his way from the state before too long.

Theyre paying half a million for him, as what an apology?
Sheff United have had their best season in years and theyre buying somebody who has barely scored 3 League One goals in 6 years.

Chessie will be laughing all the way to the bank.

yabadabado

How is paying 500k to Chesterfield an apology to Evans ?

spiralism

CSF wrote: »

I think the assumption of guilt was reasonable given he was found guilty given he was found guilty in a court of law.

That doesn't mean it's unreasonable to ask questions about how the process went on, I'd read up the case notes and was surprised he'd been found guilty based on the evidence presented.

The real target for criticism should be the process that seen him found guilty and the first place. Oh and that Sun headline is an absolute disgrace. Stuff like that shouldn't be legal.

What the **** else is new with that despicable rag. Don't buy the Sun.

Arghus

Is there no one else they could sign? So much baggage with Evens. It's like a bad romance between him and Sheffield United that won't end. Maybe they deserve each other.

acquiescefc

yabadabado wrote: »

How is paying 500k to Chesterfield an apology to Evans ?

Hes not worth 500k, word was 100k was bandied about over the weekend. Theyre taking him back is the apology they didnt take him back when he got out.