Should Ched Evans be allowed back into football

Originally Posted by Russ

I said "part".

Apologies, I did not have a go at you, I had a go at Evans's supporters.

Now this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...re-father.html

DM, the real trolls, at its best, pretending to support the "victim". They know the truth but they cannot publish it.

The girl has done nothing wrong. Leave her alone.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Ched Evans's rape victim is forced to move for FIFTH time to flee trolls as Attorney General comes under fire from her father

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3NBNYfdod
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So the victim continues to have to run and hide whilst her 'trial by website' (to use her father's expression) is conducted in full public view.

It would be nice if the Attorney General's serious consideration of the issues could get a move on and get that site taken down.

[Russ]

So you support censoring someone's right to question their trial? Wow, very 1984.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Kursk

So the victim continues to have to run and hide whilst her 'trial by website' (to use her father's expression) is conducted in full public view.

It would be nice if the Attorney General's serious consideration of the issues could get a move on and get that site taken down.

indeed

[Russ]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

indeed

So if you believed you were the victim of a miscarriage of justice you wouldn't speak out about it?

Have IQ levels dropped sharply around here over the festive period or something?

Originally Posted by Russ

So if you believed you were the victim of a miscarriage of justice you wouldn't speak out about it?

Have IQ levels dropped sharply around here over the festive period or something?

You have a right to continue to fight it but casting doubt upon the victim as the website could be seen to be doing is not really on. Remember that a jury and a an appeal judge has found that the judgement had merit.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

You have a right to continue to fight it but casting doubt upon the victim as the website could be seen to be doing is not really on.

Casting doubt on a victim given the evidence they appear to have certainly seems to have merit if what they're saying is true.

Originally Posted by Damien

Remember that a jury and a an appeal judge has found that the judgement had merit.

Were the jury allowed to see all the evidence? Again if the site is correct (and its authenticity is what should be questioned and not that Evans and his family are commenting on it) it seems that they were not.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Russ

So if you believed you were the victim of a miscarriage of justice you wouldn't speak out about it?

Have IQ levels dropped sharply around here over the festive period or something?

1 i would appeal

2 i can't answer that without your present location

Originally Posted by Russ

Casting doubt on a victim given the evidence they appear to have certainly seems to have merit if what they're saying is true.



Were the jury allowed to see all the evidence? Again if the site is correct (and its authenticity is what should be questioned and not that Evans and his family are commenting on it) it seems that they were not.

Who knows, his girlfriends multi millionaire family are doing everything money can buy to get the decision overturned. Bit bizarre when it's a fact he did have sloppy seconds with someone.

If the decision gets overturned he should be able to continue his career but at this moment in time he is a convicted rapist Russ,

Originally Posted by Russ

Casting doubt on a victim given the evidence they appear to have certainly seems to have merit if what they're saying is true.

Were the jury allowed to see all the evidence? Again if the site is correct (and its authenticity is what should be questioned and not that Evans and his family are commenting on it) it seems that they were not.

I have no idea about the credibility of the website. It's get up in his defence so it's really only going to show his side in the best possible light.

What we do know is that this case was tried in full inside a court and in front of a jury. They decided he was guilty and then so did an appeals judge. It is not the job of the internet to rejudge the case on the basis of a advocacy website set up in his defence or to decide what is admissible in court. If there has been a miscarriage of justice then that can be taken up with the judicial system and I believe that what is happening at the moment. We can wait and see what becomes of that.

Until then I think it's pretty reprehensible to have internet campaigns against the victim when there was clearly enough about the case to warrant a guilty verdict. Hell, even if there was no guilty verdict it would be still be wrong for a bunch of internet detectives to take it upon themselves to undermine this woman's credibility.

She has apparently been forced to move 5 times. This is disgusting.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

She has apparently been forced to move 5 times. This is disgusting.

That is without question.

However the basis of his conviction seems to be the fact that she was "too drunk" to give consent. I'm not disputing that as the reason for a rape conviction however the footage of her going in to the hotel seems to show she was capable of walking easily enough.

Then there's the question of what she meant by "winning big", and treating her friend to a holiday and a Mini Cooper. Those messages were not available at the time of the trial, in fact NWP denied they existed.

I'd say questioning her credibility would be sensible in this instance.

Originally Posted by Kursk

So the victim continues to have to run and hide whilst her 'trial by website' (to use her father's expression) is conducted in full public view.

It would be nice if the Attorney General's serious consideration of the issues could get a move on and get that site taken down.

Hide? Not so sure about that...

He has the right to protest his innocence ...as he has the right to work....

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ

That is without question.

However the basis of his conviction seems to be the fact that she was "too drunk" to give consent. I'm not disputing that as the reason for a rape conviction however the footage of her going in to the hotel seems to show she was capable of walking easily enough.

Then there's the question of what she meant by "winning big", and treating her friend to a holiday and a Mini Cooper. Those messages were not available at the time of the trial, in fact NWP denied they existed.

I'd say questioning her credibility would be sensible in this instance.

It's all irrelevant.

The place to question her credibility is in court.

If he is a victim of circumstance or something other, he shouldn't have got himself into the situation he found himself in.

If there is good evidence that he has been wrongly convicted, then that evidence, if admissible, can be brought to court otherwise his status doesn't change.

Originally Posted by Russ

That is without question.

However the basis of his conviction seems to be the fact that she was "too drunk" to give consent. I'm not disputing that as the reason for a rape conviction however the footage of her going in to the hotel seems to show she was capable of walking easily enough.

Then there's the question of what she meant by "winning big", and treating her friend to a holiday and a Mini Cooper. Those messages were not available at the time of the trial, in fact NWP denied they existed.

I'd say questioning her credibility would be sensible in this instance.

You're basing this off a internet website set up to protest the guy's innocence. The internet is not a good place to test these claims and it's a very dangerous road to go down to be second guessing a fair trail because of what you've read on the internet.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's all irrelevant.

I'm glad you're unlikely to be on his jury.

Originally Posted by Pierre

The place to question her credibility is in court.

And he will do.

Originally Posted by Pierre

If he is a victim of circumstance or something other, he shouldn't have got himself into the situation he found himself in.

If you want to judge him fine, I'm not interested in that.

Originally Posted by Pierre

If there is good evidence that he has been wrongly convicted, then that evidence, if admissible, can be brought to court otherwise his status doesn't change.

I'm sorry did anyone suggest his status has changed?

---------- Post added at 21:30 ---------- Previous post was at 21:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

You're basing this off a internet website set up to protest the guy's innocence. The internet is not a good place to test these claims and it's a very dangerous road to go down to be second guessing a fair trail because of what you've read on the internet.

Rather than being something that's just "read from a website" it's offered what appears to be evidence, something I'd expect her or her side to deny if it wasn't true.

When this appeal gets to court I'll respect the decision. If they find the conviction was safe then he'll forever be rightly convicted as a rapist.