FabSwingers.com mobile

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Ched Evans (again)

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

So he is being investigated by the police for contempt of court with regards to his website.

So for his apologists does this change your opinion? As many people seem to refer to that site as proof of his innocence.

I've previously commented on why/how the CCTV is in the public domain and the general response is that it doesn't matter how it got there. Well inevitably it looks like it does

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"So he is being investigated by the police for contempt of court with regards to his website.

So for his apologists does this change your opinion? As many people seem to refer to that site as proof of his innocence.

I've previously commented on why/how the CCTV is in the public domain and the general response is that it doesn't matter how it got there. Well inevitably it looks like it does"

Seems perfectly reasonable for evidence that may throw doubt on a conviction to be buried and kept out of the public domain. We want him to be guilty and we don't want anyone thinking otherwise, especially by seeing video evidence of a woman supposedly mortal d*unk seemingly walking, stooping and lifting quite reasonably.

Yep, good call - get the Police to investigate and bury the evidence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just had a quick look and couldn't help pick up on one of the facts mentioned on this website.

'On 15 July 2014 Ched’s new legal team David Emanuel of Garden Court Chambers London and Shaun Draycott submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission which is the first step to a second appeal.'

This would indicate that he had already appealed the conviction previously and been unsuccessful.

Looks like he could be in trouble due to the handling of evidence in the original trial and the website is currently under investigation.

It is an offence in England and Wales to publish material likely to lead members of the public to identify the victim in a rape case.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irtycpl7980Couple
over a year ago

Northumberland

Having just recently finished jury service it is amazing how easily people form opinions. Firstly, the jury who convicted may have had access to materials that you are not aware of but conversely there may have been evidence with held from the jury (and yes this does happen) that is now in the public domain. I don't know if he is guilty or not but I know he BELIEVE's he isn't (this is an opinion based on his behaviour only).

I suppose time will tell but I only hope the right conviction was made or that could be one hell of a cock up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *almh5Couple
over a year ago

Manchester

He's appealed it twice already.. I think he's on a bit of a loser here!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So he is being investigated by the police for contempt of court with regards to his website.

So for his apologists does this change your opinion? As many people seem to refer to that site as proof of his innocence.

I've previously commented on why/how the CCTV is in the public domain and the general response is that it doesn't matter how it got there. Well inevitably it looks like it does

Seems perfectly reasonable for evidence that may throw doubt on a conviction to be buried and kept out of the public domain. We want him to be guilty and we don't want anyone thinking otherwise, especially by seeing video evidence of a woman supposedly mortal d*unk seemingly walking, stooping and lifting quite reasonably.

Yep, good call - get the Police to investigate and bury the evidence."

In this country it is not the role of the Public at large to convict or acquit someone accused of a crime. This is what the courts are for.

Ched Evans was convicted of Rape in a Criminal Court.

How are we to know that what is published on this website represents all of the evidence available to the court at the time of the trial.

Guilty or not, the public domain and the Internet is not the place for him to put his case - as he is likely to discover.

There are correct ways of doing things.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

surely the best place for any evidence is 'kept out of the public domain' until any level of appeal or case review is ended..?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He gets more publicity than he deserves, and threads about him are giving it to him, book deal next I think

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"So he is being investigated by the police for contempt of court with regards to his website.

So for his apologists does this change your opinion? As many people seem to refer to that site as proof of his innocence.

I've previously commented on why/how the CCTV is in the public domain and the general response is that it doesn't matter how it got there. Well inevitably it looks like it does

Seems perfectly reasonable for evidence that may throw doubt on a conviction to be buried and kept out of the public domain. We want him to be guilty and we don't want anyone thinking otherwise, especially by seeing video evidence of a woman supposedly mortal d*unk seemingly walking, stooping and lifting quite reasonably.

Yep, good call - get the Police to investigate and bury the evidence.

In this country it is not the role of the Public at large to convict or acquit someone accused of a crime. This is what the courts are for.

Ched Evans was convicted of Rape in a Criminal Court.

How are we to know that what is published on this website represents all of the evidence available to the court at the time of the trial.

Guilty or not, the public domain and the Internet is not the place for him to put his case - as he is likely to discover.

There are correct ways of doing things."

I suggest you look back at how other miscarriages of justice have been overturned and how it took ordinary people to find and publicise evidence. Take Hillsborough as the most high profile example of how the establishment protects itself. When justice is not being served, or seen to be being served it takes efforts by the public to turn things around.

My guess is that the video was put up as a calculated gamble. The woman is not identifiable but the video evidence is pretty damning rebuttal of the claim that she was incapable of consenting to sex at that time. It is pretty hard to imagine how a person can walk, trot, kneel, lift and walk unaided but be incapable of telling a man that she did not want sex.

In any event, this is just an investigation at the moment.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"surely the best place for any evidence is 'kept out of the public domain' until any level of appeal or case review is ended..?

"

The Guildford Four, Birmingham Six and the Hillsborough families might disagree.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"surely the best place for any evidence is 'kept out of the public domain' until any level of appeal or case review is ended..?

The Guildford Four, Birmingham Six and the Hillsborough families might disagree. "

pardon, yes your right about those examples..

worded my above poorly, disclosure to ones representatives by all means but not sure that anyone putting it on social media is acceptable..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"He gets more publicity than he deserves, and threads about him are giving it to him, book deal next I think"

Yes I'm sure he loves all the publicity from the adoring public keeping his profile in the news.

Which do you think he would prefer a book deal or to return to playing the professional sport he enjoys and gets paid handsomely for.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly RogererMan
over a year ago

Braintree

What I do find odd is the wording off the OP's post. Almost as though this recent situation gives more credibility to "what ive already said" And then wanting to discuss the views of supporters rather than the actual subject itself. (Or thats hiw it reads to me so apologies if not)

For my ten bobs worth, I havnt seen the clip, I havnt viewed the websitr nor read any articles about said page, all I have is this topic thread and bits and pieces on the radio and my view is that the website is being investigated for "revealing" the identity of the lady.

If thats the case then I would say it changes not one thing on how people think about the trial, Evans or his guilty conviction

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It should have kept to the lawyers and the Attorney General in lieu of a review of the case, not published in a totally biased way on a website in contempt of court.

It doesn't change much, her state at the time of the CCTV has nothing to do with her ability to say yes or no at the time Evans broke into the room, saw her for the first time and did what he did.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

2 things:

Case in point it was RAPE.

1) It is VERY VERY difficult to get a conviction on somebody for a crime a serious as that.

It's incredibly difficult to get a judge to even hear the case let alone a FULL trial and FULL conviction.

2) There were 2 men in the room..1 got convicted, the other didn't. Yet they both had sex with her.

The other chap didn't even get to court = consensual sex.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"2 things:

Case in point it was RAPE.

1) It is VERY VERY difficult to get a conviction on somebody for a crime a serious as that.

It's incredibly difficult to get a judge to even hear the case let alone a FULL trial and FULL conviction.

2) There were 2 men in the room..1 got convicted, the other didn't. Yet they both had sex with her.

The other chap didn't even get to court = consensual sex.

"

You need to read up on the case. Both guys were on trial for the same offence of having sex with a woman who was unable to consent through intoxication - rape. One guy was found guilty and the other was found innocent.

The judge fluffed his lines in the summing by making points that would incriminate both defendants despite the fact that one was walking free.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"2 things:

Case in point it was RAPE.

1) It is VERY VERY difficult to get a conviction on somebody for a crime a serious as that.

It's incredibly difficult to get a judge to even hear the case let alone a FULL trial and FULL conviction.

2) There were 2 men in the room..1 got convicted, the other didn't. Yet they both had sex with her.

The other chap didn't even get to court = consensual sex.

"

McDonald was acquited - he definitely appeared in court

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"2 things:

Case in point it was RAPE.

1) It is VERY VERY difficult to get a conviction on somebody for a crime a serious as that.

It's incredibly difficult to get a judge to even hear the case let alone a FULL trial and FULL conviction.

2) There were 2 men in the room..1 got convicted, the other didn't. Yet they both had sex with her.

The other chap didn't even get to court = consensual sex.

McDonald was acquited - he definitely appeared in court"

I wasn't sure.

In my eyes that makes Ched Evans ultimate conviction rock solid then.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"2 things:

Case in point it was RAPE.

1) It is VERY VERY difficult to get a conviction on somebody for a crime a serious as that.

It's incredibly difficult to get a judge to even hear the case let alone a FULL trial and FULL conviction.

2) There were 2 men in the room..1 got convicted, the other didn't. Yet they both had sex with her.

The other chap didn't even get to court = consensual sex.

McDonald was acquited - he definitely appeared in court

I wasn't sure.

In my eyes that makes Ched Evans ultimate conviction rock solid then."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top