Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Evans Conviction overturned (ed. signs for Chesterfield)
Comments
-
Big lols. I havent seen that episode!!!RodneyCharltonTrotta said:
Worst FAKE TAXI episode ever.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Cab driving Charlton friend just posted he's got him in the back of his cab
2 -
Surely he could sue a LOT of people if he is cleared...SantaClaus said:If he is cleared could he sue United for ripping up his contract and could he sue the police for additional loss of earnings if they've cocked up the investigation?
His name has been dragged through the mud and in the eyes of the law, for doing nothing wrong!!0 -
Does fake taxi deserve its own thread ?7
-
Who is the victim? We don't know. IF she's been lying all along then Ched is the victim.Weegie Addick said:Spare a few thoughts for the victim in all this - will have to go through the trial all over again.
5 -
Steady - I think the girl said she was so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened, it was the police who took this as a sign that she was too drunk to consent to sex and was therefore raped by Clayton Donaldson & Ched Evans. Donaldson was subsequently and Ched has had his conviction overturned.The Organiser said:
Who is the victim? We don't know. IF she's been lying all along then Ched is the victim.Weegie Addick said:Spare a few thoughts for the victim in all this - will have to go through the trial all over again.
Whatever the outcome I'm not sure the girl in question could be said to be lying.
5 -
He is not Belgian thoughMissed It said:The way things are going, Charlton will sign him!
0 -
YesBig_Bad_World said:
No.se9addick said:So does he now have the presumption of innocence until the new trial is concluded ?
2 -
And even if you believe that she wasn't raped, she has had to change her name and uproot her life at least three times because of the actions of Sheffield United fans. As far as I can see, she's definitely a victim.se9addick said:
Steady - I think the girl said she was so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened, it was the police who took this as a sign that she was too drunk to consent to sex and was therefore raped by Clayton Donaldson & Ched Evans. Donaldson was subsequently and Ched has had his conviction overturned.The Organiser said:
Who is the victim? We don't know. IF she's been lying all along then Ched is the victim.Weegie Addick said:Spare a few thoughts for the victim in all this - will have to go through the trial all over again.
Whatever the outcome I'm not sure the girl in question could be said to be lying.
Evans may be a victim too.4 -
Nocolthe3rd said:
YesBig_Bad_World said:
No.se9addick said:So does he now have the presumption of innocence until the new trial is concluded ?
0 - Sponsored links:
-
I hadn't realised he's only 27. Get acquitted in the second trial and he'll have many years potentially to play.1
-
I know, hence why I said "if". Only those present know what really happened, so we don't know who the real victims are, if any.se9addick said:
Steady - I think the girl said she was so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened, it was the police who took this as a sign that she was too drunk to consent to sex and was therefore raped by Clayton Donaldson & Ched Evans. Donaldson was subsequently and Ched has had his conviction overturned.The Organiser said:
Who is the victim? We don't know. IF she's been lying all along then Ched is the victim.Weegie Addick said:Spare a few thoughts for the victim in all this - will have to go through the trial all over again.
Whatever the outcome I'm not sure the girl in question could be said to be lying.0 -
The law is incredibly suspect in this area. If 2 people are both equally drunk and neither in a fit state to consent to anything, then how can one be adjudged to have raped the other? Also, at what state of drunkenness are you unfit to consent and how is the other party supposed to know either way? This is probably one of the reasons why so few rape cases have result in a poor prosecution, and so many never make it to court.3
-
Is there a distinction between being quashed and overturned ?0
-
I think quash means it is as if the verdict never happened ie at this moment in time he is still yet to be found guilty or not guilty. Overturned means turning an established verdict into its opposite ie guilty to not guilty.MrOneLung said:Is there a distinction between being quashed and overturned ?
0 -
Always did weird me out that Donaldson wasn't convicted either. "I have a drunk woman in my room, come and have a go" is surely an imprisonable offence3
-
Well yes as if the convictions is quashed that means he isn't guilty and therefore is innocent until the retrial takes place.Big_Bad_World said:
Nocolthe3rd said:
YesBig_Bad_World said:
No.se9addick said:So does he now have the presumption of innocence until the new trial is concluded ?
0 -
Yes but probably not by the guilty is guilty brigade on Charlton Lifese9addick said:So does he now have the presumption of innocence until the new trial is concluded ?
3 -
I respect your right to hold that view.colthe3rd said:
Well yes as if the convictions is quashed that means he isn't guilty and therefore is innocent until the retrial takes place.Big_Bad_World said:
Nocolthe3rd said:
YesBig_Bad_World said:
No.se9addick said:So does he now have the presumption of innocence until the new trial is concluded ?
However, it's still a no from me as I have yet to see or hear any evidence that tells me he's not an opportunistic, scum-bag rapist. That may well change, but I doubt it.2 - Sponsored links:
-
-
A comment taken from elsewhere:
You're right, there was no evidence to suggest spiking at all - here's a transcript of the case at appeal if anyone wants to know the facts. The problem is this:
- She stopped drinking before 3am.
- Shortly after 4am, she spoke to McDonald (Evans's friend) for the first time. It isn't in question that she was making a variety of decisions at this point.
- At about 4:15am, she arrived at the hotel and went to a room with McDonald. She was still walking in high heels, holding drunken conversations and so on.
- Around ten minutes later, Evans arrived and entered the room.
To convict Evans, the jury must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a) she didn't consent to have sex with him, and b) he didn't reasonably believe that she consented to have sex with him. Her testimony was that she couldn't remember any of the events, and nobody else was able to contradict McDonald's and Evans's accounts of what happened in the room, so the jury can't be sure that she didn't consent unless they are sure that she couldn't possibly have done so, i.e. in practice, that she was too intoxicated to have consented.
The law on that point after R v Bree is that "if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting".
We know that she had the capacity to make choices at 4am, an hour after she stopped drinking, but according to the verdict she must have lost her capacity to make choices by about 4:30am. This is the problem. How could the jury be sure - beyond reasonable doubt, remember - that she had become significantly more drunk between 4am and 4:30am when she last had a drink before 3am?
--------------------------------------
Personally, I think the trial is following due processes. I also know from a variety of lawyer friends that it is pretty difficult to get a rape conviction, so there must be more than what I've just put above.
We'll see what happens in time enough.2 -
Oh well since you were clearly at trial and have had access to all the evidence I'll go along with your assessment.Big_Bad_World said:
I respect your right to hold that view.colthe3rd said:
Well yes as if the convictions is quashed that means he isn't guilty and therefore is innocent until the retrial takes place.Big_Bad_World said:
Nocolthe3rd said:
YesBig_Bad_World said:
No.se9addick said:So does he now have the presumption of innocence until the new trial is concluded ?
However, it's still a no from me as I have yet to see or hear any evidence that tells me he's not an opportunistic, scum-bag rapist. That may well change, but I doubt it.
4 -
makes you wonder what the "new evidence" that has emerged is though0
-
Are we talking about the trial whereby he was found guilty? or are you talking about the appeal process where Lady Justice Hallett, Mr Justice Flaux and Sir David Maddison have heard fresh evidence which lead to the 'quashing'?colthe3rd said:
Oh well since you were clearly at trial and have had access to all the evidence I'll go along with your assessment.Big_Bad_World said:
I respect your right to hold that view.colthe3rd said:
Well yes as if the convictions is quashed that means he isn't guilty and therefore is innocent until the retrial takes place.Big_Bad_World said:
Nocolthe3rd said:
YesBig_Bad_World said:
No.se9addick said:So does he now have the presumption of innocence until the new trial is concluded ?
However, it's still a no from me as I have yet to see or hear any evidence that tells me he's not an opportunistic, scum-bag rapist. That may well change, but I doubt it.
Until I've heard this 'fresh' evidence then I can't form an opinion other than the one I previously held.
If you don't like that or it doesn't sit well with you, then fair enough. There's no need to get all mardy over it though. Life's too short.1 -
Think you should get the other players name right, it was Clayton Mcdonald not Donaldson.se9addick said:
Steady - I think the girl said she was so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened, it was the police who took this as a sign that she was too drunk to consent to sex and was therefore raped by Clayton Donaldson & Ched Evans. Donaldson was subsequently and Ched has had his conviction overturned.The Organiser said:
Who is the victim? We don't know. IF she's been lying all along then Ched is the victim.Weegie Addick said:Spare a few thoughts for the victim in all this - will have to go through the trial all over again.
Whatever the outcome I'm not sure the girl in question could be said to be lying.5 -
I thought Nigel Quashed played for Portsmouthi_b_b_o_r_g said:1 -
Really not surprised by this. Looked at the case a lot when it first went to trial and I'm no expert but there was a lot on there that looked suspect to me. There still is a real trial but I reckon it's unlikely he will be conivcted again after this was overturned. Fair play to him for fighting to clear his name...if he's found not guilty again I hope he finds a club and can get on with his life tbh.4
-
There is every chance she didn't consent to either but the jury couldn't be sure beyond reasonable doubt that McDonald couldn't have reasonably believed that she had.randy andy said:The law is incredibly suspect in this area. If 2 people are both equally drunk and neither in a fit state to consent to anything, then how can one be adjudged to have raped the other? Also, at what state of drunkenness are you unfit to consent and how is the other party supposed to know either way? This is probably one of the reasons why so few rape cases have result in a poor prosecution, and so many never make it to court.
Not guilty (if that is what the ultimate outcome is) does not mean innocent. It just means the prosecution cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. There may still have been a crime and thus a victim.IA said:
And even if you believe that she wasn't raped, she has had to change her name and uproot her life at least three times because of the actions of Sheffield United fans. As far as I can see, she's definitely a victim.se9addick said:
Steady - I think the girl said she was so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened, it was the police who took this as a sign that she was too drunk to consent to sex and was therefore raped by Clayton Donaldson & Ched Evans. Donaldson was subsequently and Ched has had his conviction overturned.The Organiser said:
Who is the victim? We don't know. IF she's been lying all along then Ched is the victim.Weegie Addick said:Spare a few thoughts for the victim in all this - will have to go through the trial all over again.
Whatever the outcome I'm not sure the girl in question could be said to be lying.
Evans may be a victim too.1 -
Regardless if he does clear his name and finds a new club... Football fans will never let him forget thisNomadicAddick said:Really not surprised by this. Looked at the case a lot when it first went to trial and I'm no expert but there was a lot on there that looked suspect to me. There still is a real trial but I reckon it's unlikely he will be conivcted again after this was overturned. Fair play to him for fighting to clear his name...if he's found not guilty again I hope he finds a club and can get on with his life tbh.
0
