Discussion
smn159 said:
Who are you talking about? Jessica Ennis-Hill presumably, who said that she didn't want her name on a stand if Sheffield Utd re-signed then convicted rapist Ched Evans?
Given that he was actually a convicted rapist when she said that, what claim do you think that he has against her?
She and the sky reporter by their actions whipped up a mob that meant he was not allowed to play again at Sheffield, who were willing to take him and made it so clear that any club who did would be treated the same. I am no lawyer but when a sentence is served people are allowed to return to work, and unless it is something they need a CRB for there is no restrictions their actions prevented that happening.Given that he was actually a convicted rapist when she said that, what claim do you think that he has against her?
the comment below from Twigg, the verdict is guilty or not guilty of the crime they were charged with. If they are found not guilty they are innocent.
Now as I said, his morals and those of many footballers and sports men are lower than a rattlesnakes belly, but he is not on trial for his morals, he is on trial for allegedly raping a girl who had agreed, in the evidence given by the other two involved, to a threesome and had willingly gone to the hotel room. Both were charged one found not guilty, one guilty always felt inconsistent but I was not in court to hear everything.
Now 12 people will re hear the evidence and have to try to divorce their revulsion at the morals displayed by those involved, ignore all the salacious reporting since and decide on what is presented if he is still guilty. For the court to order a retrial something gave them enough reason to do that. Time will tell if that is enough to find him not guilty or guilty again. Either way he will never be seen as innocent buy many and will never be allowed to work again as he will still be hounded.
simoid said:
Can anyone give a rough indication/speculation of what the new evidence might be? Most likely to be a witness changing their mind or coming forward or what? (Reliability issues???)
Being a betting man, I would speculate that it is irrefutable evidence of a technical nature, as opposed to one person's word. PurpleTurtle said:
Being a betting man, I would speculate that it is irrefutable evidence of a technical nature, as opposed to one person's word.
Really? In a rape case? as he hasn't denied being with her and having sex with her then it's going to be pretty hard to have "irrefutable evidence of a technical nature".....I'd suggest she's said something contradictory.
spaximus said:
She and the sky reporter by their actions whipped up a mob that meant he was not allowed to play again at Sheffield,
She didn't whip up a mob, she said that she didn't want her name on the stand if the club were going to take him back which, under the circumstances, was fair comment I would have thought.TwigtheWonderkid said:
spaximus said:
if he is found innocent.
Being found innocent isn't one of the options. There's guilty or not guilty. Even if not guilty, the whole sordid tale isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of his high moral conduct.I don't like the fella, I think he's got morals lower than a snake's belly, he was cheating on his fiance (who has foolishly stood by him, but that's her call), but I don't think he is a 'rapist'.
He was convicted on the basis that he raped her because she was too drunk to consent but his fellow accused was acquitted. This aspect of the case has always frustrated me. If we take the view that she was not plied with booze back in the hotel room (it hasn't been reported, so I'm suggesting she wasn't) then how can she have been less drunk to consent to the first bloke but some time later and with no additional alcohol, then be too drunk to not give consent to Evans? Either both were guilty, or neither.
The argument that she drunkenly said OK to the first bloke doesn't stand up, if (as was allleged) she was too drunk to subsequently give consent to Evans. She must have been too drunk to consent to bloke 1. Why did he walk then?
As I said earlier in the thread, I suspect this young woman willingly went to bed with two footballers. What she didn't like was waking up with none. As you say, it is highly unsavoury, but only three people really know what went on in that hotel room and I suspect at retrial one of them will be exposed as having told a huge whopper.
All my internet advocate opinion, of course.
Edited by PurpleTurtle on Friday 22 April 10:30
Edited by PurpleTurtle on Friday 22 April 11:19
SilverSpur said:
PurpleTurtle said:
Being a betting man, I would speculate that it is irrefutable evidence of a technical nature, as opposed to one person's word.
Really? In a rape case? as he hasn't denied being with her and having sex with her then it's going to be pretty hard to have "irrefutable evidence of a technical nature".....I'd suggest she's said something contradictory.
spaximus said:
. I am no lawyer but when a sentence is served people are allowed to return to work, and unless it is something they need a CRB for there is no restrictions their actions prevented that happening.
There are no legal restrictions, correct. But in the case of those that are widely in the public eye there is always public opinion. There are plenty of footballers that have done crap things though and stayed in football.
I would imagine that it's further evidence casting doubt on the degree of the girl's intoxication.
The issue of one being found guilty and not the other is peculiar, but our system gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused, and this was clearly a finely balanced decision in each case.
The issue of one being found guilty and not the other is peculiar, but our system gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused, and this was clearly a finely balanced decision in each case.
smn159 said:
She didn't whip up a mob, she said that she didn't want her name on the stand if the club were going to take him back which, under the circumstances, was fair comment I would have thought.
In this day and age, when a celebrity says something sheep follow. The Twitter Facebook generation do not think for themselves at all. Some fat arsed American says something and away you go. Someone posts a French flag "show support" and they are off. Do you think if he is tried and found not guilty or innocent in most peoples eyes she will say it is fine for Sheffield to take him back?
This case always made no sense, and now something so compelling has been found to make this happen. It was inevitable he would get a retrial as the public outcry if he did not would be loud.
I don't know the outcome, but guilty or innocent he will always be guilty in some peoples eyes.
spaximus said:
Do you think if he is tried and found not guilty or innocent in most peoples eyes she will say it is fine for Sheffield to take him back?
I don't know, but if she doesn't then perhaps she just doesn't want to be associated with someone who thinks that it's fine to travel to a hotel to participate in a threesome with a mate and a newly picked up 'drunken' teenager - regardless of whether it was technically rape or not.smn159 said:
She didn't whip up a mob, she said that she didn't want her name on the stand if the club were going to take him back which, under the circumstances, was fair comment I would have thought.
I think she went a bit further than that. She knows very well that she has (rightfully so) a lot of support and admiration in Sheffield and she would have known very well that her words carry a lot of weight so it was obvious that if United had a choice between her or Ched, they were always going to pick her and Ched would have ended up leaving.Personally, and obviously IMO, I would have thought it would have been far better to have simply stated that the club already had Ched there training so they are clearly happy to take him on and that she didn't want to be associated a club that would do that, and have her name removed anyway, regardless of whether he was offered a contract or not.
The fact that she was happy for her name to stay as long as Ched had his offer revoked etc was i thought pretty sad.
smn159 said:
I don't know, but if she doesn't then perhaps she just doesn't want to be associated with someone who thinks that it's fine to travel to a hotel to participate in a threesome with a mate and a newly picked up 'drunken' teenager - regardless of whether it was technically rape or not.
There is no technical or not. It was either consensual sex or rape. No ifs or but.spaximus said:
Now as I said, his morals and those of many footballers and sports men are lower than a rattlesnakes belly, but he is not on trial for his morals, he is on trial for allegedly raping a girl who had agreed, in the evidence given by the other two involved, to a threesome and had willingly gone to the hotel room. Both were charged one found not guilty, one guilty always felt inconsistent but I was not in court to hear everything.
My memory is hazy but didn't it turn on whether or not the girl could give consent in her state of inebriation, and/or whether or not that consent could be relied upon by the other parties?Durzel said:
spaximus said:
Now as I said, his morals and those of many footballers and sports men are lower than a rattlesnakes belly, but he is not on trial for his morals, he is on trial for allegedly raping a girl who had agreed, in the evidence given by the other two involved, to a threesome and had willingly gone to the hotel room. Both were charged one found not guilty, one guilty always felt inconsistent but I was not in court to hear everything.
My memory is hazy but didn't it turn on whether or not the girl could give consent in her state of inebriation, and/or whether or not that consent could be relied upon by the other parties?He still is morally corrupt but not what he was charged with.
spaximus said:
There is no technical or not. It was either consensual sex or rape. No ifs or but.
My understanding is that if you get consent from someone not in a position to give it, it can still be rape. Also, what is consent? Do you need to get a yes, or is the lack of a no good enough? I'm not sure it's as straightforward as you make out.TwigtheWonderkid said:
spaximus said:
There is no technical or not. It was either consensual sex or rape. No ifs or but.
My understanding is that if you get consent from someone not in a position to give it, it can still be rape. Also, what is consent? Do you need to get a yes, or is the lack of a no good enough? I'm not sure it's as straightforward as you make out.http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual...
cliff notes being very clear that you need a yes, and that this can only be giving when you are not intoxicated.
so saying nothing, or saying yes when intoxicated would be rape.
Evanivitch said:
spaximus said:
. I am no lawyer but when a sentence is served people are allowed to return to work, and unless it is something they need a CRB for there is no restrictions their actions prevented that happening.
There are no legal restrictions, correct. But in the case of those that are widely in the public eye there is always public opinion. There are plenty of footballers that have done crap things though and stayed in football.
It is very hard to feel sorry for Ched, but he has been wronged in this case imo.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff