Ched Evans Jailed...

[225]

I think you're right on this and that anything he said would have been twisted.

But I'm not quite sure why he's said anything at all to be honest. He's still going through an appeal process (well...not an appeal but the investigation into the case) so why not just keep your head down?

Again it's his own fault because he has his stupid website up stating how innocent he is, which further antagonises people, which has then forced him into this statement which was never going to be received well by anyone.

Almost everything that has been coming to Evans since his release is his own doing and the only thing he can have any sympathy on is the people actually issuing threats to him or to the clubs who have been looking to sign him.

But without that website, he'd have no chance as he'd be at the mercy of the media and the mouth-frothers.

These are the same people who have deplored him for his silence and, then, when he makes a statement to try and prove that he's not being silent through arrogance, the mouth-frothers find some problem with that, and then attack anyone for supporting his statement.

The Hillsborough/Taylor thing is just stupid - it's like "how dare you used our word in relation to him" rather than him actually saying anything bad, imo.

 

[talkshowhost86]

But without that website, he'd have no chance as he'd be at the mercy of the media and the mouth-frothers.

These are the same people who have deplored him for his silence and, then, when he makes a statement to try and prove that he's not being silent through arrogance, the mouth-frothers find some problem with that, and then attack anyone for supporting his statement.

The Hillsborough/Taylor thing is just stupid - it's like "how dare you used our word in relation to him" rather than him actually saying anything bad, imo.

The point is that his 'apology' looks completely hollow and pointless when put alongside his stupid innocence website.

He can't have it both ways, so I can see why people are completely non-plussed by his latest comments, particularly as they seem to have been completely forced out of him.

On the Taylor point, it was just a very very stupid thing to say. Hillsbrough was a massive cover-up from beginning to end orchestrated by people god knows how high up in the UK. Evans has been convicted fairly in a court of law with two further attempts to appeal rejected because of the weakness in his case.

Is Taylor saying that all criminals should be given an easier ride because maybe in the future they might be found to be innocent? It's just stupidity of the highest order.

 

[Coyboy]

I just think that, whatever he'd say, there's people looking for the evil in his words and could twist anything he says or doesn't say - I'm not sure there's a right answer, with a world full of ignorance and bigotry where people just love to hate or have something to rage about.

I can only speak for myself. If he took that position, given it’s a grey area legally, then he’d have some credit. I’d still have compunctions about him going back into professional football but at least he’d be atoning in some way for what he’s done.

But at the end of the day, he’s a convicted rapist. No one is twisting or disingenuously misinterpreting his actions or words. He raped a woman and is now getting all high and mighty about ‘mob rule’ as if there are hundreds of people with pitch forks outside his home. No one has provided proper proof of the threats he or Oldham officials have received nor from whom they have come, but I’d hazard a guess that it’s likely to be twitter trolls.

 

[225]

Is Taylor saying that all criminals should be given an easier ride because maybe in the future they might be found to be innocent? It's just stupidity of the highest order.

Not at all, he's talking about how people have the right to fight for what they believe in, in terms of what they perceive as justice. It is an individual's right to fight to prove their innocence.

I don't think for a moment he was saying they were comparable in terms of how they were dealt with, but the message is not to condemn a person for trying to prove their innocence where reasonable doubt exists.

After all, Heysel isn't given anywhere near the same level of respect as it should be, which is a double standard in some ways.

 

[h2005]

What are the chances of the decision getting over turned on appeal?

 

[SpursOldBoy]

I get all that but how drunk was she? Both defendants say she was fine and gave consent. From the accounts I've read there was no alcohol in her system on!y drugs cocaine and dope. No spiking agents in her system. Did she drink more at the hotel. By her own admission to the police the amount she drunk that evening was not enough to make her any more than tipsy.

They made an estimation of what her blood alcohol limit would have been at the time of the rape -

"The expert called by the defence calculated that the complainant's likely blood-alcohol level at about 4 am would have approximated to something like 2½ times the legal driving limit. He gave evidence that she would have suffered from slurred speech and unsteadiness of gait, but he would not have expected any memory loss. It was an essential part of his expert evidence that there were significant doubts about the claim made by the complainant that she had suffered a memory loss. In effect, it was suggested that her assertion was false."

I'm not sure what that means in terms of being tipsy or not but from personal experience if you smoke a bit of puff, snort some charlie and then knock back a lot of booze you are going have some reaction. Different body types, different effects. I was renowned among my group for being able to carry on regardless of consumption, while mates of mine were face down on the floor.

In the trial, she was shown to have had previous episodes of drinking heavily and then forgetting what had happened the night before. Evans' expert argued that while she may have suffered long term memory loss her short term memory and ability would not have been effected and she should may have been able to give consent and yet forget this later on. It was left to the Jury to decide if they believed this or not.

Evans's appealed the original verdict -

"The court were asked to consider this as fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in a trial where the issue of loss of memory in the form of expert evidence was addressed. In effect, it was proposed that a new expert should be called to disprove the evidence given by the former defence expert and to assert no more than that the claimed loss of memory does not of itself lead to any implication that the complainant was not consenting to sexual activity at the time when it took place.

In refusing leave on this ground the single judge observed:

'I have perused the 29 page report but have found difficulty in identifying those 'specific areas' on which reliance is placed. In any event, the applicant called expert evidence at trial and it appears that the applicant now wishes to adduce some further and better expert evidence. I am not persuaded, especially where the specific aspects of a long report on which reliance is placed have not been identified with clarity, that the fresh evidence, even if admissible on appeal, is such as to render the verdict of the jury unsafe.' "

The fact that his friend was found not guilty actually harmed his appeal as this was shown to prove that the jury were not unfairly influenced. He has now asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission to review the case and grounds for throwing out his appeal.

As to whether he should play again or not - I am torn. Offenders have the right to have some form of rehabilitation, but I am uncomfortable with him playing professional football but I have started to ask myself why this is. On Question Time last night they focused on this case and there was some interesting debate on why people are thinking it is OK for a rapist to work in a low paid job, but not a well paid one.

This has me worried that I may be focusing too much on him as a footballer and that I maybe prejudiced against him because of this.

But then, in other professions such as the law, health etc. he would be struck off and not allowed to practice in those professions so why is football different.

I think on balance, as there are no guidelines in place he should be allowed to play but I also have the right to not support him or the team he plays for, and the sponsors have the right to withdraw they financial support too. Anything else - the alleged threats made to the Oldham Board etc. - is extremist in nature and should be investigated and dealt with by the Police.

The big question is should the FA now introduce a code of conduct for players, so that in future where something like this does happen the players are struck off a players register or something like that?

 

[tototoner]

What are the chances of the decision getting over turned on appeal?

Not much if it goes to a Public vote

 

[SpursOldBoy]

He's already asked for leave to appeal and was denied this. What is happening now is a review of the trial to see if there has been a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Styopa]

Ched Evans has not been banned from playing professional football - it's just that as things stand no club are willing to employ him. The sickening abuse directed at Oldham and others is not acceptable but football is, after all, an entertainment industry and if the public do not want to be entertained by a convicted rapist then they have every right to make their opinion known through petitions, social media, protests etc. It is then up to the prospective clubs to decide whether or not to offer him a contract. Evans is not unique in this regard and I wonder, for example, how many TV presenters would be reemployed on television immediately after release from prison for rape.

 

[Coyboy]

They made an estimation of what her blood alcohol limit would have been at the time of the rape -

"The expert called by the defence calculated that the complainant's likely blood-alcohol level at about 4 am would have approximated to something like 2½ times the legal driving limit. He gave evidence that she would have suffered from slurred speech and unsteadiness of gait, but he would not have expected any memory loss. It was an essential part of his expert evidence that there were significant doubts about the claim made by the complainant that she had suffered a memory loss. In effect, it was suggested that her assertion was false."

I'm not sure what that means in terms of being tipsy or not but from personal experience if you smoke a bit of puff, snort some charlie and then knock back a lot of booze you are going have some reaction. Different body types, different effects. I was renowned among my group for being able to carry on regardless of consumption, while mates of mine were face down on the floor.

In the trial, she was shown to have had previous episodes of drinking heavily and then forgetting what had happened the night before. Evans' expert argued that while she may have suffered long term memory loss her short term memory and ability would not have been effected and she should may have been able to give consent and yet forget this later on. It was left to the Jury to decide if they believed this or not.

Evans's appealed the original verdict -

"The court were asked to consider this as fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in a trial where the issue of loss of memory in the form of expert evidence was addressed. In effect, it was proposed that a new expert should be called to disprove the evidence given by the former defence expert and to assert no more than that the claimed loss of memory does not of itself lead to any implication that the complainant was not consenting to sexual activity at the time when it took place.

In refusing leave on this ground the single judge observed:

'I have perused the 29 page report but have found difficulty in identifying those 'specific areas' on which reliance is placed. In any event, the applicant called expert evidence at trial and it appears that the applicant now wishes to adduce some further and better expert evidence. I am not persuaded, especially where the specific aspects of a long report on which reliance is placed have not been identified with clarity, that the fresh evidence, even if admissible on appeal, is such as to render the verdict of the jury unsafe.' "

The fact that his friend was found not guilty actually harmed his appeal as this was shown to prove that the jury were not unfairly influenced. He has now asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission to review the case and grounds for throwing out his appeal.

As to whether he should play again or not - I am torn. Offenders have the right to have some form of rehabilitation, but I am uncomfortable with him playing professional football but I have started to ask myself why this is. On Question Time last night they focused on this case and there was some interesting debate on why people are thinking it is OK for a rapist to work in a low paid job, but not a well paid one.

This has me worried that I may be focusing too much on him as a footballer and that I maybe prejudiced against him because of this.

But then, in other professions such as the law, health etc. he would be struck off and not allowed to practice in those professions so why is football different.

I think on balance, as there are no guidelines in place he should be allowed to play but I also have the right to not support him or the team he plays for, and the sponsors have the right to withdraw they financial support too. Anything else - the alleged threats made to the Oldham Board etc. - is extremist in nature and should be investigated and dealt with by the Police.

The big question is should the FA now introduce a code of conduct for players, so that in future where something like this does happen the players are struck off a players register or something like that?

Football, or any sport or entertainment, is different because the public does not place the same level of trust in footballers to uphold and observe the law or look after their health or welfare. At least with the law, you can be convicted of a number of offences and be readmitted by the Law Society but if you have ever been dishonest then it is very unlikely you will be readmitted. Needless to say if you have been convicted for a violent or sexually violent crime it would be very difficult.

With footballers, or other sportsmen, there isn’t the level of trust which is why there is less importance to codify certain standards of conduct. But after this case, perhaps there should be. Like it or not, they are role models you young people, they do often take part in training sessions, autograph signings, hospital visits or sponsored events where they are representing their clubs who are often big parts of the community. It wouldn’t be in the public interest, I don’t believe, to have a convicted rapist on the books of such a club, or any club.

 

[SpursOldBoy]

I think I've been quite clear on this section of the discussion, that you ARE capable of making a consenting decision whilst drunk IMO, even if you can't remember it in the morning. If you really believe that you're not capable of doing so then you shouldn't go out and drink, and if the law really believes that alcohol has such an impact, then it should be outlawed too.

You may be able to make consenting decisions but equally you may be so shitfaced that you really do not understand the consequences of said consent. That is way the law has that particular clause in it.

The effects of alcohol on the brain are well known - this is from the 'drinkaware' site:

"Soon after drinking alcohol, your brain processes slow down and your memory can be impaired. After large quantities of alcohol, the brain can stop recording into the ‘memory store’. That’s why you can wake up the next day with a ‘blank’ about what you said or did and even where you were. This short-term memory failure or ‘black out’ doesn’t mean that brain cells have been damaged, but frequent heavy sessions can damage the brain because of alcohol’s effect on brain chemistry and processes.

Drinking heavily over a long period of time can also have long-term effects on memory. Even on days when you don't drink any alcohol, recalling what you did yesterday, or even where you have been earlier that day, become difficult."

This is a medical fact. Let me use a different scenario to demonstrate why what you are saying is wrong.

I take you out, I get you so drunk and high on drugs that you do not know where you are. I then pull out a contract that if you sign gives me control of your bank account and I then convince you to sign it. Are you in the wrong for or am I?

Evan's own defence actually accepted that while she might have forgotten what had happened (i.e. that her long term memory was effected) she was able to consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the rape. This was not accepted by the jury.

What is it about this case that makes it difficult for you to accept that she might be telling the truth?

 

[Mustard]

Not much if it goes to a Public vote

The public have already spoken.

Deal with it.

 

[Shanks]

You may be able to make consenting decisions but equally you may be so shitfaced that you really do not understand the consequences of said consent. That is way the law has that particular clause in it.

The effects of alcohol on the brain are well known - this is from the 'drinkaware' site:

"Soon after drinking alcohol, your brain processes slow down and your memory can be impaired. After large quantities of alcohol, the brain can stop recording into the ‘memory store’. That’s why you can wake up the next day with a ‘blank’ about what you said or did and even where you were. This short-term memory failure or ‘black out’ doesn’t mean that brain cells have been damaged, but frequent heavy sessions can damage the brain because of alcohol’s effect on brain chemistry and processes.

Drinking heavily over a long period of time can also have long-term effects on memory. Even on days when you don't drink any alcohol, recalling what you did yesterday, or even where you have been earlier that day, become difficult."

This is a medical fact. Let me use a different scenario to demonstrate why what you are saying is wrong.

I take you out, I get you so drunk and high on drugs that you do not know where you are. I then pull out a contract that if you sign gives me control of your bank account and I then convince you to sign it. Are you in the wrong for or am I?

Evan's own defence actually accepted that while she might have forgotten what had happened (i.e. that her long term memory was effected) she was able to consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the rape. This was not accepted by the jury.

What is it about this case that makes it difficult for you to accept that she might be telling the truth?

Tend to agree, the amount of times I've woken up, wondering what the fuck I did the night before - walking around pubs with my cock out, streaking naked through trains, birds I've woken up with, money I've drawn out to continue said partying - that feeling of regret, or what the fuck was I doing....

Horrible feeling like that!

 

[talkshowhost86]

Not at all, he's talking about how people have the right to fight for what they believe in, in terms of what they perceive as justice. It is an individual's right to fight to prove their innocence.

I don't think for a moment he was saying they were comparable in terms of how they were dealt with, but the message is not to condemn a person for trying to prove their innocence where reasonable doubt exists.

After all, Heysel isn't given anywhere near the same level of respect as it should be, which is a double standard in some ways.

He said: "he would not be the first person or persons to have been found guilty and maintained their innocence and then been proved right. If we are talking about things in football, we know what happened, what was alleged to have happened at Hillsborough. It's now unravelling and we are finding it was very different to how it was portrayed at the time, indeed by the police at the time."

How is that not comparing them? He's comparing Evans' case to an event where the police and others effectively lied about what happened. He must know that the natural inference from that is to think about people lying in Evans' case.

And as for 'reasonable doubt'? Legally there simply isn't any.

 

[tototoner]

The public have already spoken.

Deal with it.

And if the conviction is quashed?

Will he then be welcomed back into football like Van Persie after his rape case was thrown out, a case that was a lot stronger IMHO than this one

How would you deal with that

 

[SugarRay]

If Evans' conviction is quashed then he deserves to play football again and is due the correct amount of compensation that would come his way for being wrongly imprisoned.

I highly doubt his conviction will be overturned though. These cases are notoriously hard to prove and rarely make the courts. Evans' case not only made the court but he was found guilty too. I think he and his strange team of in-laws ( how weird is that? ) are pissing in the wind.

I do expect his mrs to be on next years celebrity big brother though.

 

[Mustard]

And if the conviction is quashed?

Will he then be welcomed back into football like Van Persie after his rape case was thrown out, a case that was a lot stronger IMHO than this one

How would you deal with that

If I had my way van Rapey wouldn't be allowed on English soil. She said no.

 

[tototoner]

Steve Bruce questions Evans conviction and says he should be allowed to return to football, I guess every manager this weekend will be asked for a view on it, media circus

 

[tototoner]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947

 

[nidge]

I'm so glad to have gotten Bruce's expert legal opinion on the case.

Also if Bruce was so well read on the case he would know that Evans has already had leave to appeal refused once and this is actually being looked at by the CCRC about potential miscarriages of justice and they only have power to refer cases back to the appeals court.

"It has divided opinion of course. When you look at the case in detail and, I don't think most people have really, because they have just seen Ched Evans as a convicted rapist, but when you look at the case and the evidence then certainly Ched has got a case."