David O'Day
Well-Known Member
So you have to be a statistician to decide that it is more likely he is guilty and will remain so?
FFS Samo have a word wit yourself
So you have to be a statistician to decide that it is more likely he is guilty and will remain so?Ooooh a statistician as well as a lawyer! How so?
Evans team aren't gonna say "We got now chance but hey if you got to be in it to win it"Well, we will see won't we. Evans' team seem very confident of the conviction being quashed.
So you have to be a statistician to decide that it is more likely he is guilty and will remain so?
FFS Samo have a word wit yourself
Otis I've pointed out the facts behind the case. As it is unlikely to be a new witness and DNA is not a option it's either third party testimony or due process.
Who weren't in the room at the time. All they can testify is what we know i.e Evans turned up later than MacDonald and then triedto leave earlier through a fire escape.Think I read a while back It may relate to hotel member of staff to
Based on looking at the facts and making an educated decision based on those facts,Based on what? Gut instinct? Crystal ball? Or are you really a lawyer?
Which one again?Talking of which, you chose not to answer my question, care to do so?
I don't know the process for lodging appeals and the criteria for which they are granted so can't say, could be rather a bit of a formality with flimsy evidence or evidence that isn't directly relevant to the point at hand but they have to allow it to be heard to cover there own arses and avoid retribution down the line from Evans team. Or it could be significant.But it has to be significant enough to warrant an appeal doesn't it? The appeals board have said there is new evidence that aids the Evans defence.
If it wasn't significant, why would they grant an appeal?
Based on looking at the facts and making an educated decision based on those facts,
Which one again?
.
They are freely available Samo.
We know what the evidence in court was then we can look at what new evidence could be and decide if we thin it is correct or not.
I explained this already and you said "are you a lawyer"
Sorry fella
I am bowing out of this thread now.
We can either play ping with this debate back and forth on here until we lose the will to live, or we can wait to hear the evidence.
I think I will choose the latter.
In fact that figure is across all courts, in the criminal division 9 were granted leave to appeal and 10 were not.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?
That is weak response, so having looked at the facts and then used them to come to a a conclusion is a lack of social skills.Your thinking is very rigid isn't it? Do you ever get that? Social skills an issue? Problems with ambiguity?
In fact that figure is across all courts, in the criminal division 9 were granted leave to appeal and 10 were not.
These figures are available on the supreme court website
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?
So why then has the appeal been allowed? By the way... is 'pretty much' a legal term?
That is weak response, so having looked at the facts and then used them to come to a a conclusion is a lack of social skills.
Go to bed fella and the adults play.
And yours does?Come to all the conclusions you like pal, your opinion don't mean Jack.
It is so annoying though if it is true that many witnesses were seemingly not called at the orignal trial and that supposed key evidence was not submitted.
The whole thing appears to be a bit of a pig's ear, even if it is proved the conviction was safe. Seems like an awful lot of stuff may have been missed.
That's of course if this is all to be believed. It just needs to putting to bed once and for all.
Of course, on the other hand, if the conviction does prove to be safe, that's an awful lot more mud raking and despair for the girl to endure.
It should have been completely water-tight first time. Every single witness statement taken and every bit of available footage shown in court.
The thing that piques my interest from the article is... digging into her personal life.
Nope she never claimed rape, or claimed that she wasn't raped. She has always said she couldn't remember what happened, there would have been no case if Evans and Macdonald hadn't admitted to having sex.Agreed.
The article even says she didn't claim she was raped. I don't understand how he can be convicted of that if she says she wasn't?
Also, that McDonald didn't get charged as well? All very odd, and they need to do a fresh trial, with all the evidence to hand.
And frankly the reporting of such things is deeply irresponsible.
I thought evidence was supposed to be presented to a court, not leaked to a paper to blacken someone's character who isn't on trial?
Nope she never claimed rape, or claimed that she wasn't raped. She has always said she couldn't remember what happened, there would have been no case if Evans and Macdonald hadn't admitted to having sex.
Macdonald was charged but found not guilty at trial, its because it was decided he had reasonable belief of consent as he met the girl in a busy street and she willingly went back to the hotel room with him.
And frankly the reporting of such things is deeply irresponsible.
I thought evidence was supposed to be presented to a court, not leaked to a paper to blacken someone's character who isn't on trial?
Cant this be moved away from cov city sub forum????
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?