Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by The Guvnor III V.I.K-Give me a scotch.I'm starving (U12889)
posted 5 minutes ago
Some one who has actually been raped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 4 minutes ago
Are you saying the verdict is unsound?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what this entire thread is about.

There is not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict give that the chief witness for the prosecution, and the 'victim' can't remember whether she gave consent or not. Surely that alone must throw SOME doubt on any conviction, and as has been said you have to be sure, you can't have any doubts. Doesn't make sense.

It isn't a clear case. The jury had to exercise their opinion on whether she was able to consent or not, it wasn't decided on fact.

Only three people know whether she consented. One of them claims not to remember, despite an expert telling the court the amount of alcohol she had consumed is not conducive to memory loss and another expert stating that just because she suffered memory loss, it doesn't mean she wasn't in a state to consent. She also claims to have had her drink spiked (tests on her prove otherwise), which suggests that she probably doesn't think she drank enough for memory loss.

These are facts that the press seem to omit from any report and a lot of people who argue so vehemently against him probably don't know. For now he has every right to appeal if he believes he is innocent and showing remorse for something he believes he hasn't done would damage that appeal.

If his appeal is unsuccessful then he will have to live with this for the rest of his life and accept the decision. If he is successful then I expect those arguing against him so passionately to be prepared to eat some humble pie and show the remorse towards Ched that they are expecting him to show towards the victim.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

He was refused leave to appeal by three judges.

--

And now he has been granted one. I don't see why that's relevant

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by New Year's Jay. (U16498)
posted 3 seconds ago
He was refused leave to appeal by three judges.

--

And now he has been granted one. I don't see why that's relevant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you are getting the facts wrong.What is happening is the Criminal Cases Review Commission are looking at the case.This is another step in the process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. But if you've seen the rest of the details about the case - it's hard to see why reviews have been denied given the quite obviously shaking grounds of the conviction...

Comment deleted by Site Moderator