Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

The jury are liable to have got it wrong.They are not gods. There judgement is not superior to mines or yours. For all we know they could all have hated footballers.

-----

And just as likely to be football fans who found one innocent because the evidence suggested he was and the other guilty because the evidence suggested he was.

Their judgement is superior, it's better informed.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt that she consented? No.

Can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt she refused consent? No.

Did she claim she was raped? No.

Did anyone involved claim she was raped? No.

How can he possibly be convicted of rape beyond any reasonable doubt? If there is doubt, he must be found innocent unless more information can be produced that proves his guilt.

The hounding of the woman that has occurred since the verdict is reprehensible but it is irrelevant in the context of the thread because, unless we're suggesting that Evans is personally responsible for it, it has no bearing on whether he committed the crime or whether he should be able to continue to play professional football.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Of course it has a bearing.

Whether you understand the verdict or not is the real irrelevance here.

The fact he's been denied professional contract is the other side of the public reaction to a public figure being found guilty of raping someone and showing no remorse.

You're only looking at selected facts though Draws, you must accept you don't know everything the jury did.

I respect a jury before a random footy fan with Google.

If a group of Evan's fans/supporters choose to hound this woman he can't be held responsible for their actions and it has noting to do with his guilt or innocence.

For me, his guilt has not be proven beyond doubt, this doesn't make me or anyone holding the same opinion an apologist for rapists it means that I feel their are grounds to doubt the safety of his conviction.

I'm not saying he's responsible.

I'm saying that the public reaction to him is proportional to what happened to the victim. There are obviously strong opinions on either side, we're not going to agree here.

His guilt has been proven to a group of people like us with all of the evidence in front of them.

I think you'd have to have some kind of bias to assume they got it wrong. I guess we'll find out, but like I said earlier, lots of guilty men walk free..

Lots of women don't report rapes because they can't prove it or don't want the stigma etc. Yes a false rape conviction would be terrible but a rapist going free on technicalities far worse IMO.

Bales

You berate us for having doubt - not saying he is innocent by the way - and throw the whole "the legal system found him guilty therefore he is" argument.

Yet if he got it overturned, you'd change tack and just think he did it. You wouldn't respect the judgment of someone of the legal profession but go with your gut.

Hypocrite

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Bales likes to smear.

I was called a xenophobe because I didnt like AVB

comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 44 seconds ago
Bales

You berate us for having doubt - not saying he is innocent by the way - and throw the whole "the legal system found him guilty therefore he is" argument.

Yet if he got it overturned, you'd change tack and just think he did it. You wouldn't respect the judgment of someone of the legal profession but go with your gut.

Hypocrite
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I parodying the arguments put forward for his innocence, I wouldn't actually bother protesting his guilt if the supreme court found his conviction unsafe. Assuming they found major flaws in the case that stopped the jury from being able to judge on the facts.

As I've said repeatedly, we don't know.

I the fact they found him guilty not as the final word as such, but because its more reliable than what people have read online. I'm not convinced I know better, just genuinely confused and slightly concerned at the apparent need and desire to overturn the court's verdict.

AFAIK no one here is connected to the player, club, or victim, let's be friends and let the courts decide who's guilty.

The media was always going to be a factor and for me has impacted on the victim's life far worse than Evan's. He still stands a good chance of living a privileged life, she's struggling to live a normal one.

Should he be found innocent?

It would be a terrible miscarriage of justice. Though I don't think that's an option really, a High Court judge already said there was no grounds for appeal. You can read why here:

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2012/11/28/ched-evans-appeal-refused/

"(4) The ‘lurking doubt’ ground is based on the case of Cooper from 1969. It does not assert any particular legal error but asks the Court to consider, in light of all the evidence, that there is ‘lurking doubt’, a general feeling of unease, about the conviction. This is rarely successful, and was not here. The reason for this is that the Court of Appeal traditionally respect the verdict of a jury and will not go behind it unless there is a legal error."

So yeah I think constantly questioning it, and the victim (turns out the evidence of drugs etc was inadmissable, facts, huh?) requires a certain bias I'm not comfortable with.

If that makes me a hypocrite so be it

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

HRH

It's not smear, it's genuine concern.

Fair enough, I regretted posting that after if it's any consolation

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

No worries pal

Haven't we got a game today?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator