All of that is appalling and sad but it does not mean there cannot be an unsafe conviction for that crime.
Guilty as proven a few times but innocent as soon as there is a bit of doubt?
If this 'new evidence ' is so important why has it not been used by his defence team the previous 3 times?
Guilty as proven a few times but innocent as soon as there is a bit of doubt?
If this 'new evidence ' is so important why has it not been used by his defence team the previous 3 times?
You seem adamant that Evans is innocent. He's been found guilty had two rejected appeals and until he can prove otherwise the conviction is not unsafe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Not in the slightest! Where have I even hinted at that? I just think there is a unbalanced view on here.
NW; In the cold light of day, do you stand by this remark?
Samoi yes, and if you're not grasping the nuances behind it (because it's either written poorly or you're poor at understanding it, I mind not which), then it's pointless discussing it any further really.
Tasteless in the extreme to compare it ot the Birmingham pub bombings in my mind, tasteless to not grasp the context but them's the breaks, we'll have to agree to disagree for both our sakes.
Just to be clear... you think it's wrong for the free press to speculate as to the safety of a criminal conviction? Is that correct?
If you're not grasping the nuances behind it (because it's either written poorly or you're poor at understanding it, I mind not which), then it's pointless discussing it any further really.
We'll have to agree to disagree for both our sakes.
What an arrogant and pitiful cop-out.
Not really, because my own personal opinion is you're a bit dense just at the moment, and deciding to read absolute bollocks into things.
I'm tryin g to be nice, rather than to call you a true moron but, if you're going to start throwing mud then...
You going to explain this one or...?So you are an apologist for rape? Nice!
Not in the slightest! Where have I even hinted at that? I just think there is an unbalanced view on here.
So anyone expressing any other view than that of the prosecution is showing a 'savage disregard for a victim of crime'? It's a good thing those that fought for the rights of the Birmingham Six were not of the same mind. Disgusting post from someone who should know better.
Well if they were innocent the charming Mr Adams could have revealed who was accountable couldn't he?
He didn't and so no one knows who was guilty
There are far more valid causes to get worked up about than that.
Rape is on par with murder and sentences should be a lot tougher
That's a no then?
I agree BTW Ive seen close up the damage sexual abuse does to a person. I'm also in a profession where false accusations have ruined not just careers but cost lives. Let's not play the "my thing is worse than your thing" game.
It has to be said that the SBT intelligentsia has not emerged well from this debate. I fully agree that CE has been found guilty and is guilty but it seems that the majority are of the opinion, (either directly expressed or implied) that:
1. If he were to be found innocent after a further appeal he would still be guilty.
2. That he should not be allowed a further appeal.
3. That the conviction should be trusted along with denied appeals but that any further appeal should not be.
4. Anybody, including the press, should not be allowed to express concern over the safety of the conviction as this might upsetting for the victim. (including forum posters)
1, He wasn't planning to be in the hotel room until he found out that an intoxicated woman was in there. Not the actions of what you would expect. Nothing to do with my point
2, How many appeals should he be allowed? As many as it fucking takes if there is new evidence
3, Should further prosecutions be allowed if he manages to be found not guilty? No. So why should he be allowed unlimited appeals? Yes of course
4, Why shouldn't anyone be able to say that they see him as guilty if they are allowed to express concern? Say what you want it's a free country, you've missed my point.
It has all been about your point Samo. And it seems the only point you are interested in.
Can I submit an appeal that this thread is closed/moved an reopened if Ched signs for CCFC?
1, He wasn't planning to be in the hotel room until he found out that an intoxicated woman was in there. Not the actions of what you would expect.
2, How many appeals should he be allowed?
3, Should further prosecutions be allowed if he manages to be found not guilty? No. So why should he be allowed unlimited appeals?
4, Why shouldn't anyone be able to say that they see him as guilty if they are allowed to express concern?
Oh dear... a rather limp white flag.
You are not interested in why he went to the hotel room. Yet if he never went to it nothing would have happened. Or is it that him going to the hotel room is undefendable?
It has to be said that the SBT intelligentsia has not emerged well from this debate. I fully agree that CE has been found guilty and is guilty but it seems that the majority are of the opinion, (either directly expressed or implied) that:
1. If he were to be found innocent after a further appeal he would still be guilty.
2. That he should not be allowed a further appeal.
3. That the conviction should be trusted along with denied appeals but that any further appeal should not be.
4. Anybody, including the press, should not be allowed to express concern over the safety of the conviction as this might upsetting for the victim. (including forum posters)
1, He wasn't planning to be in the hotel room until he found out that an intoxicated woman was in there. Not the actions of what you would expect.
2, How many appeals should he be allowed?
3, Should further prosecutions be allowed if he manages to be found not guilty? No. So why should he be allowed unlimited appeals?
4, Why shouldn't anyone be able to say that they see him as guilty if they are allowed to express concern?
Yet if he never went to it nothing would have happened. Or is it that him going to the hotel room is undefendable?
Wouldn't she have accused Clayton McDonald?
What a crock of shit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
She did but he got acquitted as it appeared she went under her own free (albeit drunk) will.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
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?