SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Which is exactly what happened in the trial isn't it?
So why is her honesty still being questioned by some without any evidence or reasonable suspicion to suspect dishonesty?
So you agree that all possibilities should be explored and both parties questioned re their version of events? As would be the case in any other area of law?
Apparently this only happens in just over 3% of appeal cases. 97% get turned down.
It was reported as being 3.5% I think, Nick.Really? It must have half decent evidence then to beat those odds.
Is her honesty being questioned?
People are just saying Evans has won the right of appeal. Apparently this only happens in just over 3% of appeal cases. 97% get turned down.
The appeals body has said new evidence has come to light that will aid the defences case.
I think we now all want to know what this new evidence is.
My own guess is that Evans has an evil twin and the pair were separated at birth and dear old Ched has only just discovered this fact.
Which is exactly what happened in the trial isn't it?
So why is her honesty still being questioned by some without any evidence or reasonable suspicion to suspect dishonesty?
How many that get the right to appeal get the conviction overturned?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Perhaps because there IS evidence and reasonable suspicion? Do you know there is not?
Do you know that there is? Its already been decided in court once before that Evans raped the woman. Its already been decided by a jury that her version of events were truthful, until evidence says otherwise to continue questioning her after the trial is unfair.
If there is evidence it will be brought up at appeal, Evans has already been convicted, its up to Evans and his legal team to either prove it wasn't rape or prove the victim is lying. In the appeal it isn't down for the victim to prove she is telling the truth. If there is any evidence that she has lied then it should be brought up in the appeal, until such evidence is known (if it exists) people should stop putting out the idea that she is a liar.
I don't know if such evidence exists or not. All I know is that to date, there isn't any known evidence that she has misled the investigation or jury in any way at all, so to keep consistently keep musing the idea that she hasn't been honest or truthful after he has been convicted is unfair.
Admittedly I've not studied the case closely but how does someone get found guilty of rape when the person he has allegedly raped didn't press charges and can't remember what happened. Not to mention no-one else seems to remember what happened.
What was the evidence used to convict him. I'm guessing it must have been pretty strong as you are supposed to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.
Blimey this is hard work.
The reason we are having this conversation and the reason this thread was bumped is because the appeals body has said that new evidence has come to light that will aid the defence case. So yes, we do know that there is.
We don't know what that evidence is though, could be something important and game changing or it could be grasping to straws from Evans.
Then even so there is the scenario that the evidence is enough to get the conviction overturned doesn't automatically make her a liar, depending on what the evidence is.
You're reminding me of RFC and his talk of the smoking gun SISU were going to use at the JR.
We don't know what that evidence is though, could be something important and game changing or it could be grasping to straws from Evans.
Then even so there is the scenario that the evidence is enough to get the conviction overturned doesn't automatically make her a liar, depending on what the evidence is.
You're reminding me of RFC and his talk of the smoking gun SISU were going to use at the JR.
Admittedly I've not studied the case closely but how does someone get found guilty of rape when the person he has allegedly raped didn't press charges and can't remember what happened. Not to mention no-one else seems to remember what happened.
What was the evidence used to convict him. I'm guessing it must have been pretty strong as you are supposed to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evans believed he wasn't committing a crime, so saw no reason to lie.
Think I prefer the interminable threads about grounds, Wasps, and SISU v CCC :slap:
Because imo he didn't understand the law. Is ignorance an acceptable excuse to a crime?So if he's the one who remembered what happened and didn't think any crime was committed how did he get found guilty?
To be clear not saying he didn't do it and obviously if he did he should get a severe punishment.
Because imo he didn't understand the law. Is ignorance an acceptable excuse to a crime?
So if he's the one who remembered what happened and didn't think any crime was committed how did he get found guilty?
To be clear not saying he didn't do it and obviously if he did he should get a severe punishment.
Not at all. I don't know how people can not understand the law, its like those adverts on TV. How can anyone not know what rape is?
Some people believe rape has to be a violent knife point attack down an alleyway.
If you want the long story short here is basically what happened.
Macdonald met a drunk girl on a busy street outside a takeaway and she willingly went back to his hotel room in a taxi, they went back to the hotel room and started going at it. When Evans found out Macdonald had a girl with him he turned up at the hotel room uninvited, lied to gain access to the room and then had sex with the victim. Macdonald and Evans both claim the victim said it was ok for him to join, Evans supposedly felt guilty about cheating on his partner so left through a fire exit and left the girl alone in the hotel room. The girl woke up, couldn't remember anything and contacted the police as she thought her drink may have been spiked, they tracked down Macdonald and Evans and they admitted all the above and were charged with rape.
Macdonald was found not guilty, he was on dodgy grounds, I think technically his sexual intercourse was non consensual as well but because of the events that took place before sex, like striking up a conversation and going back to the hotel room together it was decided Macdonald had acceptable reason to believe he did have consent. Because Evans just headed to the hotel room with the intention of having sex without knowing her or having spoken to her or any other reason which could signal consent it was decided this was rape.
Then she tweeted about winning big and buying a pink mini?
Then she tweeted about winning big and buying a pink mini?
I'm not the one who tweeted it.And has she won big?
What is it, 5 name changes in the last few years now? Yea she clearly done it for her own personal gain.
It's already been appealed once and failed and as the main evidence for conviction was Evans testimony unless there is a new witness there isn't really anything that can see an appeal succeed.As Otis mentioned earlier, only 3% of cases are granted right to appeal. This is so as not to waste time and money on 'grasping at straws'. So, the likelihood is this is something significant, would you not agree?
We know what happened that night as MacDonald and Evans testified. If they told the truth in court Evans raped the girl.I'm not the one who tweeted it.
I don't know what happened that night, but something has been a bit strange about it.
It's already been appealed once and failed and as the main evidence for conviction was Evans testimony unless there is a new witness there isn't really anything that can see an appeal succeed.
Evans pretty much confessed to rape.
I'm not the one who tweeted it.
I don't know what happened that night, but something has been a bit strange about it.
It's already been appealed once and failed and as the main evidence for conviction was Evans testimony unless there is a new witness there isn't really anything that can see an appeal succeed.
Evans pretty much confessed to rape.
Said that before and the court of appeals quickly said no.Well the appeals board have said there is evidence that aids the defence case.
From what has been said about it. I could well be wrong, just something doesn't seem right.So you don't know what happened but you know something has been a bit strange about it. How does that work then?
Said that before and the court of appeals quickly said no.
The new evidence could simply be a technicality that the court of appeal will decide played no part in influencing the decision.
There are a lot of people who want a convicted rapist who admitted he slept with a girl without consent to be set free,
So why then has the appeal been allowed? By the way... is 'pretty much' a legal term?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?