Part 2 of Samuels article ,I couldn't post it in one go.
It can be a minefield, this stuff, and the evidence from all quarters was rather sordid. Nobody would argue the young woman was wise, but you will notice the hashtags: #freeched, #justice for Ched. Now there's an irony. Evans got justice; that is what unfolded at Caernarfon Crown Court before and during last Friday. Evans' case was processed through the Crown Prosecution Service.
The jury considered evidence - more detailed than is publicly available - and gave its guilty verdict. Judge Merfyn Hughes QC then passed sentence. That's justice, right there: except football prefers its bespoke version.
Just as Joey Barton arrogantly believed the rules of sub-judice impaired his right to free speech rather than enshrining the right of others to a fair trial, so the most entrenched supporters treat a courtroom or tribunal verdict as the start of the debate, not its conclusion. Considering the fall-out from the Luis Suarez affair it would be possible to believe the panel appointed by the FA had returned an open decision, not one of guilt resulting in an eight-game ban; and whatever happens to John Terry this summer, his innocence of aiming a racial slur will be disbelieved, or his guilt unaccepted, according to allegiance. A courtroom trial no longer provides closure but is merely the prelude to the inevitable trial by phone-in. Evans was judged by a jury of his peers, who heard many hours of evidence. Not enough, apparently. There is another jury, peopled entirely by fans in red and white stripes, encouraged by our reality vote, internet messageboard, interactive age to believe that no subject is concluded until they have had their say.
Not all Sheffield United fans are blindly loyal in the face of the evidence, but there are enough out there to make a commotion, or at least demand a retrial - including 3,000 on a Facebook site - because the default position for any footballer found guilty of anything is to go to appeal (Evans is considering it, according to his legal team).
That is where we are these days. Supporting has become an extreme sport. You don't just follow your team any more, you get behind rapists, racists, cheats and violent thugs; a free pass is always on offer providing you wear the right colours. The majority of those wanting Evans free do not extend that latitude to any desire he may have to freely play elsewhere on his release. This relationship is conditional on his continued devotion to one club and one cause. Many of those crying freedom loudest do not base their views on a painstaking analysis of the minutiae of the case, either; they want Evans released because he is their man and it will benefit their club. Any argument is then tailored to fit that agenda.
Just as half of Merseyside suddenly became authorities in Rioplatense Spanish when the interpretation of this dialect was crucial to the exoneration of Suarez, so the motivations and character of a teenage girl will now be inspected and found wanting. In fact, they already have.
The identity of Evans' victim is out there, on Twitter - and courtesy of some clod, on Sky News, too - because nothing is taboo to a football pressure group with a well-honed sense of injustice. It used to be that your team got the worst referees; now they get the most trumped-up rape charges or the poorest interpretations of South American racial epithets.
The lip-reading community should brace itself for a blue storm if Terry's case goes against him this summer, while the admirable decision of the Manchester United fanzine Red Issue to denounce Ashley Young for diving became nationally newsworthy because of its unfamiliar departure from traditional party lines.
And, of course, to be biased is the nature of the fan. Loyalty, support, standing together is the essence of the role. Yet who did Evans harm, beside his victim? His club. The club they all profess to love: Sheffield United. They have enjoyed a good season but go into this weekend in second place, just a point clear of city rivals Sheffield Wednesday with two games remaining. To this end, they could really do with one of the best strikers in the league, particularly at home to useful, promotion-chasing Stevenage on Saturday. Evans has really let them down. Experience indicates, however, that far from opprobrium in his absence, far from being required to take responsibility for his behaviour and its consequences, Evans will receive vocal support.
Only one Ched Evans? That's the problem. The last few days would suggest in his attitudes at least, he is far, far from alone.
I think he is a terrific writer, but I'm not comfortable with Samuel's comment that, "We presume the jury reasoned that, despite being in an advanced state of incapability, agreeing to go to the hotel with McDonald was consent, of sorts, and she may have even initiated the one-night stand."
If by 'advanced state of incapability' he means 'blind drunk', then she was in no position to provide 'consent of sorts' and moreover, McDonald as a 'reasonable person' should have recognised this.
Indeed if only one of the two was to be found guilty, one might argue it should have been McDonald because he spent more time with her and thus had longer to assess the state she was in, regardless of any implicit or explicit consent 'of sorts' that he may have thought she had given him.
This is precisely the root of the apparently illogical nature of the verdicts that some of us are uncomfortable about.
Having studied Law, there are many cases where a mis-direction from the judge to the jury has led to a successful appeal. This could be another one.
Personally I think he is a guilty as sin, but the fact MacDonald was aquitted will imho only help his appeal.
a misdirection from a judge is NOT the same as the jury not following the 'recommendations' from the judge. However, a jury verdict which seems to be against all the evidence presented to it and is also contrary to the directions from the judge, may be grounds for an appeal.
An Appeal Court can uphold an appeal on the basis of misdirection by the trial judge.
we have been through that already .. and a judges' misdirection is not the same as a jury deciding that the judge is wrong and finding the defendant guilty or not as the case may be .. however, if on appeal the COA considers that the verdict of the jury is totally perverse, perhaps because of perceived racism, suspicion of jury tampering etc, then, a retrial can be ordered.
An Appeal Court can uphold an appeal on the basis of misdirection by the trial judge.
we have been through that already .. and a judges' misdirection is not the same as a jury deciding that the judge is wrong and finding the defendant guilty or not as the case may be .. however, if on appeal the COA considers that the verdict of the jury is totally perverse, perhaps because of perceived racism, suspicion of jury tampering etc, then, a retrial can be ordered.
Essentially English law has no means to correct a perverse decision by a jury, however the Appeal Courts can review the evidence and make a different decision.
Lincs is incorrect to suggest that a judge 'recommends' anything. He sums up the evidence both for and against but always will say 'it is a matter for you' even where he leaves the jury in little doubt as to his own view. I do not know if in this case he gave the jury any inkling as to his own view. The jury have to accept his rulings on the law but the determination of the 'facts' are solely for the jury. As none of us on this forum have a transcript of the summing up and directions (at least nobody is owning up to having a copy!!) we shall have to wait and see if either the jury must, by acquitting McDonald and convicting Evans, have failed to follow the directions on the law or if the judge misdirected them. As I said earlier, I can see significant differences in the circumstances of M and E even on media reports which would not mean that the verdicts are necessarily inconsistent.
It seems to me that the jury have been quite certain in their decision and came to it very quickly. This is a factor which will not escape the notice of the Court of Appeal IF he gets leave to appeal.
The issue of what sanctions outside the criminal process should follow a person convicted of a serious offence is a highly complex and fascinating one which deserves a thread of its own.
An Appeal Court can uphold an appeal on the basis of misdirection by the trial judge.
we have been through that already .. and a judges' misdirection is not the same as a jury deciding that the judge is wrong and finding the defendant guilty or not as the case may be .. however, if on appeal the COA considers that the verdict of the jury is totally perverse, perhaps because of perceived racism, suspicion of jury tampering etc, then, a retrial can be ordered.
Essentially English law has no means to correct a perverse decision by a jury, however the Appeal Courts can review the evidence and make a different decision.
Surely a question of semantics ..if the COA having reviewed the evidence in a case then decide that the jury's decision was wrong, that by definition is suggesting that the original jury decision was perverse .. however, I take your point.
Lincs is incorrect to suggest that a judge 'recommends' anything. He sums up the evidence both for and against but always will say 'it is a matter for you' even where he leaves the jury in little doubt as to his own view. I do not know if in this case he gave the jury any inkling as to his own view. The jury have to accept his rulings on the law but the determination of the 'facts' are solely for the jury. As none of us on this forum have a transcript of the summing up and directions (at least nobody is owning up to having a copy!!) we shall have to wait and see if either the jury must, by acquitting McDonald and convicting Evans, have failed to follow the directions on the law or if the judge misdirected them. As I said earlier, I can see significant differences in the circumstances of M and E even on media reports which would not mean that the verdicts are necessarily inconsistent.
It seems to me that the jury have been quite certain in their decision and came to it very quickly. This is a factor which will not escape the notice of the Court of Appeal IF he gets leave to appeal.
The issue of what sanctions outside the criminal process should follow a person convicted of a serious offence is a highly complex and fascinating one which deserves a thread of its own.
I used 'recommend' as a similie for 'directs' in order to avoid repetition. I agree to having used 'recommends' incorrectly, as directs carries much more force than 'recommends' .. in future I will attempt to be more accurate with my wording
Thank you legaladdick, highly informative posts and also to Richard because it would never have occurred to me to read anything in the Mail, especially on this topic. My prejudices clearly need updating.
I can not see a situation in which Evans will not go for an appeal on this, and I am fairly sure he will get the appeal (based on my LIMITED knowledge as an armchair QC of the case)
Whether or not his appeal will be successful or not is a whole other question.
I don't buy the fact that he got convicted and McDonald didn't as a key part of the appeal however as the circumstances in which both men ended up having sex with the women were significantly different. Although McDonald is at best morally repugnant.
The whole thing is unsavoury to say the least. This is a case of third or ( in McD's case) fourth rate footballers attempting to emulate fifth rate porn stars. Perhaps the jury was simply disgusted by the whole affair and reflected that in the speed with which it reached a decision. Caernavon and rural North Wales in particular is a fairly conservative (with a small 'c') area and the verdict may reflect the morals of the local populace and the disgust with which such behaviour is viewed. Good on them.
I dont know the details of this case, but if she has no recollection of the event? was someone watching?
Not just watching but two of Evans's associates allegedly tried to film it
Not read the whole thread but still very confused as both admitted they had sex with her, she says it was not consentual but MCD gets a not guilty but Evans is convicted???? Someone please explain
I dont know the details of this case, but if she has no recollection of the event? was someone watching?
Not just watching but two of Evans's associates allegedly tried to film it
Not read the whole thread but still very confused as both admitted they had sex with her, she says it was not consentual but MCD gets a not guilty but Evans is convicted???? Someone please explain
As legal Addick has so clearly explained without hearing ALL the evidence we don't know.
It is possible that the jury felt that having got into a taxi and walked into the hotel with MCD it was reasonable for him to think that consent was given or that at least it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that she had not. There doesn't seem to be any evidence the CE sought or received any consent.
But we don't know. We can all play amateur QCs but without all the evidence and the context we are trying to work out the picture on a jigsaw puzzle with only a few pieces.
I dont know the details of this case, but if she has no recollection of the event? was someone watching?
Not just watching but two of Evans's associates allegedly tried to film it
Not read the whole thread but still very confused as both admitted they had sex with her, she says it was not consentual but MCD gets a not guilty but Evans is convicted???? Someone please explain
As legal Addick has so clearly explained without hearing ALL the evidence we don't know.
It is possible that the jury felt that having got into a taxi and walked into the hotel with MCD it was reasonable for him to think that consent was given or that at least it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that she had not. There doesn't seem to be any evidence the CE sought or received any consent.
But we don't know. We can all play amateur QCs but without all the evidence and the context we are trying to work out the picture on a jigsaw puzzle with only a few pieces.
My understanding was that if someone are/was drunk, then consent is automatically assumed not given in a court of law?
DA9 Please go to my post on April 21 (page 9 of this thread) where you will see that I set out the second condition which has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt (ie the jury must be sure). Not only that she did not consent but also that the defendant had no reasonable grounds for thinking that she did consent. It is possible (perhaps likely) that tthis was the reason McDonald was acquitted. A complainant will be deemed not to have consented where: 'the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act; (S.75(2)(d) Sexual offences Act 2003
DA9 Please go to my post on April 21 (page 9 of this thread) where you will see that I set out the second condition which has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt (ie the jury must be sure). Not only that she did not consent but also that the defendant had no reasonable grounds for thinking that she did consent. It is possible (perhaps likely) that tthis was the reason McDonald was acquitted. A complainant will be deemed not to have consented where: 'the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act; (S.75(2)(d) Sexual offences Act 2003
ie, only she knew how drunk she was, and there was no way of proving that she either was or wasnt?
I am still confused. Where do all these suppositions of mis-direction, iignoring the judges instructions and perverse verdicts come from?
And why would the failure of the jury to convict his co-defendant constitute grounds for an appeal by Evans?
I have a sneaking suspicion there is a lot of idle speculation here and if it is coming from the same sources as some of the tweets I have seen then I'm not sure I should be believing it
I am still confused. Where do all these suppositions of mis-direction, iignoring the judges instructions and perverse verdicts come from?
And why would the failure of the jury to convict his co-defendant constitute grounds for an appeal by Evans?
I have a sneaking suspicion there is a lot of idle speculation here and if it is coming from the same sources as some of the tweets I have seen then I'm not sure I should be believing it
it is all speculation HZ .. but is still a topic for conversation and is, for me at least, quite educational
I am still confused. Where do all these suppositions of mis-direction, iignoring the judges instructions and perverse verdicts come from?
And why would the failure of the jury to convict his co-defendant constitute grounds for an appeal by Evans?
I have a sneaking suspicion there is a lot of idle speculation here and if it is coming from the same sources as some of the tweets I have seen then I'm not sure I should be believing it
it is all speculation HZ .. but is still a topic for conversation and is, for me at least, quite educational
Yes it is, but that doesn't alter the fact that there seems to be an awful lot of suppostion going on - either that or there were an awful lot of people in that courtroom.
It seems to me a no-brainer that Evans will look to appeal if he can. If he's on £18k a week then he stands to lose £5m of earnings whilst in jail. The application for leave to appeal has got to be worth a punt. That doesn't necessarily mean he is not guilty or the verdict will be over-turned.
But fundamentally I don't see why people should have difficulty accepting that 2 men accused of essentially 2 separate crimes (albeit against the same victim) at 2 different times cannot get different verdicts without it somehow being a miscarriage of justice.
I have found this thread to be informative and interesting. However, I do have a question for the CL mods. This thread was started once Evans was convicted of rape. I'm assuming that is why it has been allowed to continue as the decision had been reached so the outcome of the trial could not be compromised. However, if Evans Appeals and it is granted couldn't this thread and similar ones be deemed prejudicial? I'm not one for over censorship and I mention this because I believe this kind of discussion has been grounds for closing threads in the past. Or is that understanding incorrect? I'm just trying to understand what is acceptable and what isn't here.
I have found this thread to be informative and interesting. However, I do have a question for the CL mods. This thread was started once Evans was convicted of rape. I'm assuming that is why it has been allowed to continue as the decision had been reached so the outcome of the trial could not be compromised. However, if Evans Appeals and it is granted couldn't this thread and similar ones be deemed prejudicial? I'm not one for over censorship and I mention this because I believe this kind of discussion has been grounds for closing threads in the past. Or is that understanding incorrect?
please please please ... do not wish even more censorship and erosion of freedom of speech and thought upon us poor miserable sinners ... but seriously, when does sub judice impinge on open internet forums ? .. or has the issue still to be tested in the courts
I have found this thread to be informative and interesting. However, I do have a question for the CL mods. This thread was started once Evans was convicted of rape. I'm assuming that is why it has been allowed to continue as the decision had been reached so the outcome of the trial could not be compromised. However, if Evans Appeals and it is granted couldn't this thread and similar ones be deemed prejudicial? I'm not one for over censorship and I mention this because I believe this kind of discussion has been grounds for closing threads in the past. Or is that understanding incorrect?
please please please ... do not wish even more censorship and erosion of freedom of speech and thought upon us poor miserable sinners
I have found this thread to be informative and interesting. However, I do have a question for the CL mods. This thread was started once Evans was convicted of rape. I'm assuming that is why it has been allowed to continue as the decision had been reached so the outcome of the trial could not be compromised. However, if Evans Appeals and it is granted couldn't this thread and similar ones be deemed prejudicial? I'm not one for over censorship and I mention this because I believe this kind of discussion has been grounds for closing threads in the past. Or is that understanding incorrect? I'm just trying to understand what is acceptable and what isn't here.
This thread was started more than a week before the verdict.
It is interesting, though, that if you try googling "Ched Evans court case" you get a couple of references to this thread in the first 2 pages of results. Yesterday it was 3.
I have found this thread to be informative and interesting. However, I do have a question for the CL mods. This thread was started once Evans was convicted of rape. I'm assuming that is why it has been allowed to continue as the decision had been reached so the outcome of the trial could not be compromised. However, if Evans Appeals and it is granted couldn't this thread and similar ones be deemed prejudicial? I'm not one for over censorship and I mention this because I believe this kind of discussion has been grounds for closing threads in the past. Or is that understanding incorrect? I'm just trying to understand what is acceptable and what isn't here.
In that case one could never speak about any case that has gone through the courts, yet entire TV channels are devoted to the topic. Indeed last night I watched a documentary on John Cooper, a convicted Welsh murderer (including taped police interviews, reconstructions etc.) - it ended by stating that he is currently seeking leave to appeal.
I have found this thread to be informative and interesting. However, I do have a question for the CL mods. This thread was started once Evans was convicted of rape. I'm assuming that is why it has been allowed to continue as the decision had been reached so the outcome of the trial could not be compromised. However, if Evans Appeals and it is granted couldn't this thread and similar ones be deemed prejudicial? I'm not one for over censorship and I mention this because I believe this kind of discussion has been grounds for closing threads in the past. Or is that understanding incorrect? I'm just trying to understand what is acceptable and what isn't here.
This thread was started more than a week before the verdict.
It is interesting, though, that if you try googling "Ched Evans court case" you get a couple of references to this thread in the first 2 pages of results. Yesterday it was 3.
M15 will soon be on the case .. also, if you've been on the site recently, google will highlight it for you as you have a history of visiting the CL Ched Evans site .. if you see what i mean
Comments
It can be a minefield, this stuff, and the evidence from all quarters was rather sordid. Nobody would argue the young woman was wise, but you will notice the hashtags: #freeched, #justice for Ched. Now there's an irony. Evans got justice; that is what unfolded at Caernarfon Crown Court before and during last Friday. Evans' case was processed through the Crown Prosecution Service.
The jury considered evidence - more detailed than is publicly available - and gave its guilty verdict. Judge Merfyn Hughes QC then passed sentence. That's justice, right there: except football prefers its bespoke version.
Just as Joey Barton arrogantly believed the rules of sub-judice impaired his right to free speech rather than enshrining the right of others to a fair trial, so the most entrenched supporters treat a courtroom or tribunal verdict as the start of the debate, not its conclusion.
Considering the fall-out from the Luis Suarez affair it would be possible to believe the panel appointed by the FA had returned an open decision, not one of guilt resulting in an eight-game ban; and whatever happens to John Terry this summer, his innocence of aiming a racial slur will be disbelieved, or his guilt unaccepted, according to allegiance.
A courtroom trial no longer provides closure but is merely the prelude to the inevitable trial by phone-in. Evans was judged by a jury of his peers, who heard many hours of evidence. Not enough, apparently. There is another jury, peopled entirely by fans in red and white stripes, encouraged by our reality vote, internet messageboard, interactive age to believe that no subject is concluded until they have had their say.
Not all Sheffield United fans are blindly loyal in the face of the evidence, but there are enough out there to make a commotion, or at least demand a retrial - including 3,000 on a Facebook site - because the default position for any footballer found guilty of anything is to go to appeal (Evans is considering it, according to his legal team).
That is where we are these days. Supporting has become an extreme sport. You don't just follow your team any more, you get behind rapists, racists, cheats and violent thugs; a free pass is always on offer providing you wear the right colours. The majority of those wanting Evans free do not extend that latitude to any desire he may have to freely play elsewhere on his release.
This relationship is conditional on his continued devotion to one club and one cause. Many of those crying freedom loudest do not base their views on a painstaking analysis of the minutiae of the case, either; they want Evans released because he is their man and it will benefit their club. Any argument is then tailored to fit that agenda.
Just as half of Merseyside suddenly became authorities in Rioplatense Spanish when the interpretation of this dialect was crucial to the exoneration of Suarez, so the motivations and character of a teenage girl will now be inspected and found wanting. In fact, they already have.
The identity of Evans' victim is out there, on Twitter - and courtesy of some clod, on Sky News, too - because nothing is taboo to a football pressure group with a well-honed sense of injustice. It used to be that your team got the worst referees; now they get the most trumped-up rape charges or the poorest interpretations of South American racial epithets.
The lip-reading community should brace itself for a blue storm if Terry's case goes against him this summer, while the admirable decision of the Manchester United fanzine Red Issue to denounce Ashley Young for diving became nationally newsworthy because of its unfamiliar departure from traditional party lines.
And, of course, to be biased is the nature of the fan. Loyalty, support, standing together is the essence of the role. Yet who did Evans harm, beside his victim? His club. The club they all profess to love: Sheffield United. They have enjoyed a good season but go into this weekend in second place, just a point clear of city rivals Sheffield Wednesday with two games remaining.
To this end, they could really do with one of the best strikers in the league, particularly at home to useful, promotion-chasing Stevenage on Saturday. Evans has really let them down. Experience indicates, however, that far from opprobrium in his absence, far from being required to take responsibility for his behaviour and its consequences, Evans will receive vocal support.
Only one Ched Evans? That's the problem. The last few days would suggest in his attitudes at least, he is far, far from alone.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2134622/Ched-Evans-Only-football-rapist-round-applause--Martin-Samuel.html#ixzz1t2bkz1WY
If by 'advanced state of incapability' he means 'blind drunk', then she was in no position to provide 'consent of sorts' and moreover, McDonald as a 'reasonable person' should have recognised this.
Indeed if only one of the two was to be found guilty, one might argue it should have been McDonald because he spent more time with her and thus had longer to assess the state she was in, regardless of any implicit or explicit consent 'of sorts' that he may have thought she had given him.
This is precisely the root of the apparently illogical nature of the verdicts that some of us are uncomfortable about.
a misdirection from a judge is NOT the same as the jury not following the 'recommendations' from the judge. However, a jury verdict which seems to be against all the evidence presented to it and is also contrary to the directions from the judge, may be grounds for an appeal.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040122/conn-1.htm
Essentially English law has no means to correct a perverse decision by a jury, however the Appeal Courts can review the evidence and make a different decision.
The jury have to accept his rulings on the law but the determination of the 'facts' are solely for the jury. As none of us on this forum have a transcript of the summing up and directions (at least nobody is owning up to having a copy!!) we shall have to wait and see if either the jury must, by acquitting McDonald and convicting Evans, have failed to follow the directions on the law or if the judge misdirected them. As I said earlier, I can see significant differences in the circumstances of M and E even on media reports which would not mean that the verdicts are necessarily inconsistent.
It seems to me that the jury have been quite certain in their decision and came to it very quickly. This is a factor which will not escape the notice of the Court of Appeal IF he gets leave to appeal.
The issue of what sanctions outside the criminal process should follow a person convicted of a serious offence is a highly complex and fascinating one which deserves a thread of its own.
Whether or not his appeal will be successful or not is a whole other question.
I don't buy the fact that he got convicted and McDonald didn't as a key part of the appeal however as the circumstances in which both men ended up having sex with the women were significantly different. Although McDonald is at best morally repugnant.
Someone please explain
It is possible that the jury felt that having got into a taxi and walked into the hotel with MCD it was reasonable for him to think that consent was given or that at least it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that she had not. There doesn't seem to be any evidence the CE sought or received any consent.
But we don't know. We can all play amateur QCs but without all the evidence and the context we are trying to work out the picture on a jigsaw puzzle with only a few pieces.
Please go to my post on April 21 (page 9 of this thread) where you will see that I set out the second condition which has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt (ie the jury must be sure). Not only that she did not consent but also that the defendant had no reasonable grounds for thinking that she did consent. It is possible (perhaps likely) that tthis was the reason McDonald was acquitted. A complainant will be deemed not to have consented where: 'the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act; (S.75(2)(d) Sexual offences Act 2003
And why would the failure of the jury to convict his co-defendant constitute grounds for an appeal by Evans?
I have a sneaking suspicion there is a lot of idle speculation here and if it is coming from the same sources as some of the tweets I have seen then I'm not sure I should be believing it
Yes it is, but that doesn't alter the fact that there seems to be an awful lot of suppostion going on - either that or there were an awful lot of people in that courtroom.
It seems to me a no-brainer that Evans will look to appeal if he can. If he's on £18k a week then he stands to lose £5m of earnings whilst in jail. The application for leave to appeal has got to be worth a punt. That doesn't necessarily mean he is not guilty or the verdict will be over-turned.
But fundamentally I don't see why people should have difficulty accepting that 2 men accused of essentially 2 separate crimes (albeit against the same victim) at 2 different times cannot get different verdicts without it somehow being a miscarriage of justice.
It is interesting, though, that if you try googling "Ched Evans court case" you get a couple of references to this thread in the first 2 pages of results. Yesterday it was 3.