Ched Evans (1 Viewer)

Covstu

Well-Known Member
Well he's playing anyway, so not a lot, unless a more high profile club wishes to take a punt on him.

I still wouldn't want him here, but now he has been found not guilty I am sure a lot of clubs will now be taking an interest in the bloke.
Marlon syndrome isn't it? Takes a club to take the plunge and it will all blow over when he is performing on the pitch? Trip to Scotland or somewhere would be best initially I reckon but I guess he has been cleared fully so why can't a club offer him a deal
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Marlon syndrome isn't it? Takes a club to take the plunge and it will all blow over when he is performing on the pitch? Trip to Scotland or somewhere would be best initially I reckon but I guess he has been cleared fully so why can't a club offer him a deal
And they may well do so.

His behaviour doesn't fit well with me on a personal level, though I dare say we may well have players in our very own squad with a similar way of thinking and thought process system. :(
 
Last edited:

Grendel

Well-Known Member
And they may well do so.

His behaviour doesn't fit well with me in a personal level, though I dare say we well have players in our very own squad with a similar way of thinking and thought process system. :(

People who fuck drunk girls like they are worthless pieces of meat? Who in our squad thinks like that?
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Might not be too many nowdays but there will have been loads over the years that have done so and been treated as hero's on the pitch for us.
Yep. It's been a trend in football. Hopefully it is cleanup it's act these days, but young men with loads of money and lots of time on their hands can prove a recipe for disaster.

For what it's worth, Evans has been found not guilty and I now believe in his innocence, but do find him a distasteful human being.
 

Samo

Well-Known Member
Innocent in the eyes of the law, but people can still have an opinion on whether the verdict is correct or not.

Yes they can of course... as long as they respect the innocent verdict as much as they did the guilty.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Innocent in the eyes of the law, but people can still have an opinion on whether the verdict is correct or not.
Yes they can, but that didn't seem to be the case when he was first being tried. He was guilty and that was that for some.

Anyone who had any opinion that differed and/or wasn't entirely sure of his guilt was vilified on here.

If people still believe him to be guilty then that is their prerogative. By the same token though, those who had doubts of his guilt should too have been free to air their thoughts without being shot down way back when.

There has always been a cloud and doubts over this case, hence the retrial.
 
Last edited:

vow

Well-Known Member
I agree with every word of that, but... will those who indulged in some very black and white thinking on this subject not so long ago now accept that he is ''innocent'' no matter what their opinion may be of him as a person?
Well, I can accept it, but he's still a scumbag in my eyes.
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
Worth a read and clears up a lot of the misinformation from both 'sides'

A barrister blogger writes @ https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/: -

Footballer Ched Evans was today acquitted after a retrial of one count of rape. The jury at Cardiff Crown Court returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty, Mr Evans’ solicitor read out a statement on his client’s behalf to the gawping media on the court steps in the time-honoured fashion and, within seconds, social media duly exploded with more speculation, myths, distortions and unjustified fury than one might suppose 140 characters could contain.

The facts, as reported, can be briefly summarised: Ched Evans was originally tried with a co-defendant, and fellow footballer, Clayton McDonald, in April 2012. On 29 May 2011, Evans and McDonald had sex with the complainant, X, in a hotel room. McDonald had met X on a night out, taken her back to the hotel room, and had alerted Evans that he had “got a girl”. Evans duly arrived, made his way to the room and, seeing McDonald and X having intercourse, joined in. X woke up the following morning, professing to have no memory at what had taken place. Both men admitted that they had had sex with X, and were charged with rape, on the basis that X was too drunk to consent, and that neither man reasonably believed that she was consenting. Both men asserted that they reasonably believed that the complainant was an enthusiastic and consenting party. At the first trial, McDonald was acquitted. Evans was convicted and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, of which he served the standard half before being released on licence.

That much, most people know. The further details, very few have bothered to acquire before forming judgment, firing off angry electronic missives and, in the cases of certain activists who should know better, offering vacuous quotes to the media.

So, in an effort to extinguish at least some of the stupid, herewith 10 myths we can squash at the outset:

1. So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right?

Wrong. You’d be forgiven for thinking this, given that it was in the prepared statement read out by his solicitor, but Ched Evans has not “demonstrated his innocence”. That is not how our criminal justice system operates. It is not a means by which the truth of a situation or event is conclusively and fully determined. Rather the jury are asked one simply question – are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (or, as juries are commonly instructed, so that you are sure)? “Not guilty” means just that. The jury were not sure that he was guilty. They may have decided that he was totally, utterly innocent, but we don’t know. All we know is that they considered the evidence, and were less than sure of his guilt. As I tell juries in every closing speech – if you think the defendant probably did it, he’s still not guilty.

2. Well at the very least, the verdict means that the complainant has lied, surely?

No. Absolutely not. A not guilty verdict in most cases is insufficient to safely infer that the jury have concluded that a complainant lied (as opposed to the jury not being sure one way or the other), but in this case the facts suggest the opposite. As the Court of Appeal made clear in its judgment allowing the appeal, X has never asserted that she was raped. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. It was the prosecution case – the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service – that she was raped. The defence case was based not on the “usual” he said/ she said dispute over consent, but rather he said/ she can’t remember. There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied, or, to quell the more hysterical calls, that she should be prosecuted on the basis of Evans’ acquittal.

3. Regardless, she has trashed his reputation and must be named and shamed.


That is extremely silly. And illegal. As a complainant in a sex case, she has anonymity for life. If you publicly identify her – including on Twitter – you will be prosecuted. It has happened before to friends of Mr Evans. It will happen to you.

4. How come she gets anonymity when he doesn’t?

Because that is the law. If you want to read my views on it, for what it’s worth, they are here. You may not like the law, but you should obey it. There’s some free advice.

5.This is a victory for rape apologists. She was blind drunk, he admitted not speaking to her before, during or after, and this shows that consent does not mean consent.

No it doesn’t. It shows simply that the jury were not sure of both of the following limbs to the prosecution case, that need to be established to prove rape:

(i) That X was not consenting (because she was incapable through intoxication);

(ii) That Evans did not reasonably believe X was consenting.

Now based on the evidence, including the fresh evidence (see below), it might be that the jury thought X was consenting. And if they did, having heard all of the evidence, they are in a far better position to make that assessment than anyone not in the courtroom. Drunk consent, as juries are reminded by judges, is still consent. But it is equally plausible that they were sure that X could not consent, but were not sure, given her described behaviour, that Evans did not reasonably believe that she was not. Even if the jury thought that X was not capable of consenting, and that Evans probably didn’t reasonably believe that she was, he would still be not guilty – not because of a flaw in the law, or inherent misogyny, but because of Question 1 above, the burden and standard of proof.

6. X was grilled on her sexual history, in contravention of the law. We’re back in the dark ages.

This is the analysis offered to the Guardian by Women Against Rape, a charity which should really know better, and Sandra Laville, the Guardian’s outraged (but not, it seems, legally qualified) crime reporter. Questions about a complainant’s previous sexual history are not allowed in sex trials, unless a very strict set of criteria (set out in section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999) are met. As the Court of Appeal explained (at [44]), these provisions are designed to counter the myths that “unchaste women are more likely to consent and less worthy of belief”. Yet X was cross-examined by the defence barrister over other sexual incidents – so what happened?

Well, in short, the law was followed. This point hinges mainly on “fresh evidence” that was not available at the first trial. Leave to appeal against Evans’ conviction was refused by the Court of Appeal in 2012, and Evans thereafter approached the Criminal Cases Review Commission with “fresh evidence” which had since emerged and which he claimed undermined the safety of his conviction. We now know that the principal nature of this fresh evidence was as follows:

A man, O, gave evidence that, two weeks after 29 May 2011, he had been out drinking with X, and had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse, during which she instructed him to penetrate her vaginally from behind, shouting, “Fuck me harder”.
A second man, S, gave evidence that, on 28 May 2011, X had engaged him in a night of drunken sexual activity, in which she adopted the same sexual position and used words, “Go harder”.

Evans’ case at trial was that X had acted in the same way on the 29 May 2011, encouraging him to penetrate her “doggy style” and using the words “fuck me harder”. This, it was argued, demonstrated that she was consenting, and also supported the reasonableness of his belief that she was consenting.

One of the exceptions under section 41(3) allows for evidence of sexual history to be adduced, and questions asked of the complainant about it, where the evidence relates to the issue of consent, and is of sexual behaviour of the complainant which is “so similar to any sexual behaviour of the complainant which (according to evidence adduced or to be adduced by or on behalf of the accused) took place as part of the event which is the subject matter of the charge against the accused…that the similarity cannot reasonably be described as a coincidence”. In short, it is beyond coincidence, the defence argued in the Court of Appeal, that X would consensually engage in this specific type of sex act using these specific words on occasions around the time of 29 May, but that she was not consenting in the same circumstances on that date. This tends to show that, drunk though she was, she was sufficiently in control of her senses to give consent, and, furthermore, to give Evans the impression that she was consenting. This, the defence argued, is relevant to the jury’s assessment of whether she was consenting, and whether Evans reasonably believed that she was.

The Court of Appeal, having considered other case law, agreed that in these unusual circumstances the fresh evidence ought to be admitted, and that X should be questioned on what the new witnesses had to say. Now it may be (I haven’t had the time to properly apply my mind to it) that a forensic analysis of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning will reveal a flaw, or an inappropriate leap, or even a misinterpretation of previous binding authority. It may be that the Court’s application of the strict criteria for agreeing to admit fresh evidence was arguably not met. Such things are not unknown. The Court of Appeal sometimes fluffs up. But unless you’ve read the judgment, and have carried out the legal analysis and the research, you’re not able to say, are you? So, I urge you, stop spreading speculation which is not only misleading and removed from fact, but likely to deter victims from coming forward.
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
Part 2

UPDATE: A special mention goes to comments this evening from End Violence Against Women: “We are very concerned at the precedent which might have been set in this case for allowing sexual history of complainants to be admissible evidence.” Allow me to help: The precedent that has been set is none. The Court of Appeal decision sets down no new application of law or principle, and section 41 continues to operate exactly as it did before, excluding the vast, vast majority of questions about previous sexual behaviour. But good job on needlessly terrifying the women you claim to support.

7. But didn’t the prosecution suggest those “new witnesses” were paid to say what they said?

The prosecution did. They said that in the Court of Appeal, when they argued that the evidence shouldn’t be admitted, and they put it to the witnesses at trial. The jury heard the evidence, heard the questions and the witnesses’ answers, and made up their own minds.

8. So the acquittal shows that the CPS was wrong to bring the case at all, then. That’s what you’re saying.


No it isn’t. There was a case for Evans to answer. The fact that there was an initial conviction, and that in both trials the judge did not withdraw the case from the jury (which judges are bound to do if they feel that there is insufficient evidence for a jury safely to convict) shows that there was a case to answer. Whether, given that Evans had already served his sentence (and therefore would not have served any more time if re-convicted) it was wise to put the complainant through a retrial is arguable, but that’s a fight for another day.

9. Will the CPS appeal?

They can’t. There is no prosecution right of appeal. That is, or should be, the end of it.

10. What does this whole affair say about our society?


Christ knows. Nothing good.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
That's great stuff, Hill. Well spotted.

It just proves once again that this is a muddled and unclear case.

The conclusion jumping of some on here is clearly embarrassing.

No-one comes out of this case in a good light and as I have said before, it's one big sorry mess.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
For what it's worth, Evans has been found not guilty and I now believe in his innocence, but do find him a distasteful human being.

Why do you believe he is innocent?

I assume this was a second trial by jury was it?
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Why do you believe he is innocent?

I assume this was a second trial by jury was it?
What I mean is I accept the verdict.

He still obviously did wrong. There is just no proof the girl was raped. A jury of 7 women and 5 men came to that conclusion and there are inaccuracies throughout this sorry saga.

Also on the men being paid, the police are always paying for information and defence teams too. It doesn't therefore mean that every person paid tells their stories or changes them simply because they are paid.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'innocence' but he has clearly been found not guilty and I fully accept that verdict.

Unless the entire jury were a bit thick and had the wool pulled over their eyes of course.
 

higgs

Well-Known Member
One persons word against the other nobody know what really happened other than the two individuals involved. We can all have our opinions

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
 

Gosford Green

Well-Known Member
"Can my mate join in?" Words spoken not about a game of pool but the way 2 men treat a drunk teenage girl.
Another example of this macho locker room culture that Trump uses as a license to " grab em by the pussy".

Guilty or not, a vile c**t that had a big dose of karma.
 

SkyBlue_Bear83

Well-Known Member
One persons word against the other nobody know what really happened other than the two individuals involved. We can all have our opinions

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
It's not really one person's word against the other in this case. It's one person's word against can't remember
 

Gazolba

Well-Known Member
Then how did they prove it the first time ?
Lots of people have been 'proven' guilty and later found to be innocent. It happens a lot with people convicted before DNA evidence was possible, and later on they do a DNA test.
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
Morally reprehensible but without proof we should accept the verdict. Not happy with Grendells stance at all here.
 

skybluedan

Well-Known Member
Yeah I read she was bragging that she was going to be loaded and have a Mini Cooper and some prada?

Sorry love looks like primark and a lada
 

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
Yes that is the law.
What an odd thing for Evans' defence team to come out and say:

Evans’ defence team said: “Drunken consent is nevertheless consent. While disinhibited through drink, she did consent to sex. Lack of memory does not equal lack of consent.”
 

pastythegreat

Well-Known Member
Apparently Sheff Utd are trying to buy him now.
Shocking!!! Turned their back on him 18months ago! Didn't wanna know!
The whole female board member publicly threatening to leave, Jessica Ennis Hill malarkey!
Now he's cleared his name and got a seasons worth of natch fitness/sharpness it all 'ok maybe we were a little hasty! Why don't you come back? It'll be like it never happened'!

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
 

Gaz

Well-Known Member
Really surprised by this
As above, the club turned there back on him
But what really surprises me is just how many strikers the club seem to have.
 

steve82

Well-Known Member
Really? Didn't seem to me like he was able to find the levels he was at before this season while at Chesterfield especially to pay the reported £500,000.
Strange one given the amount of strikers already on there books.
End of the road for Leon Clarke again at another club possibly.
Not a bad deal for Chesterfield tho £500,000 to possibly go into there summer kitty.
I'll make a prediction here and now... Marcus Tudgay will sign for Chesterfield this summer.
 

Nick

Administrator
Really? Didn't seem to me like he was able to find the levels he was at before this season while at Chesterfield especially to pay the reported £500,000.
Strange one given the amount of strikers already on there books.
End of the road for Leon Clarke again at another club possibly.
Not a bad deal for Chesterfield tho £500,000 to possibly go into there summer kitty.
I'll make a prediction here and now... Marcus Tudgay will sign for Chesterfield this summer.

I was wondering Mansfield for Tudgay or Derby as a coach.
 

steve82

Well-Known Member
I was wondering Mansfield for Tudgay or Derby as a coach.

Had this feeling for a while, close to home for him I'm guessing and likely to be able to get his teeth into coaching daily at a club like Chesterfield or as you say Mansfield.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top