Should Ched Evans be allowed back into football

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.

So you have seen the stuff on the Ched Evans is innocent site, paid for by his silly girl friends millionaire father no doubt. How do you know what happened after the footage of her walking in the hotel. Did she carry on drinking?

[Russ]

From what I've seen in the case at no point did she claimed they carried on drinking. In fact it seems she suggested they just "got on with it".

Originally Posted by Russ

From what I've seen in the case at no point did she claimed they carried on drinking. In fact it seems she suggested they just "got on with it".

You clearly think he is innocent, what do you think of him as a roll model for young football fans. Forget the conviction for a moment, it's a fact that while he had a girlfriend, he turned up watched his mate having sex with a young girl and than had sloppy seconds, after that he snuck out the backdoor of the hotel.

Nice bloke, his girlfriends parents must be so proud of him

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Top banana

You clearly think he is innocent, what do you think of him as a roll model for young football fans. Forget the conviction for a moment, it's a fact that while he had a girlfriend, he turned up watched his mate having sex with a young girl and than had sloppy seconds, after that he snuck out the backdoor of the hotel.

Nice bloke, his girlfriends parents must be so proud of him

Oh I clearly do, do I?

Originally Posted by Russ

Oh I clearly do, do I?

Ok, you seem to think

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Top banana

Ok, you seem to think

A better climb-down.

No I do not think he's innocent - the court found him guilty therefore he's guilty.

Do I think he's a "rapist"? If the whole thing occurred as discussed in court then yes, of course.

My issue is that it appears not all relevant evidence was seen in court. If at his appeal it's all presented and they still find nothing wrong with the conviction then he will forever be a rapist.

Originally Posted by Russ

A better climb-down.

No I do not think he's innocent - the court found him guilty therefore he's guilty.

Do I think he's a "rapist"? If the whole thing occurred as discussed in court then yes, of course.

My issue is that it appears not all relevant evidence was seen in court. If at his appeal it's all presented and they still find nothing wrong with the conviction then he will forever be a rapist.

My view is this, currently he is a convicted rapist, if his next appeal is successful, he should be able to continue his career.

The bit I really struggle with is that his girlfriend and her family are doing everything they can to protest his innocence and fast track his appeal, when they all know what happened in that room wether it was rape or not.

Why the hell would you do that, or is part of his appeal that he didn't have sex with her at all?

[Russ]

Really?! If my partner was (in my opinion) wrongly convicted of something I'd move Heaven and Earth to get it overturned.

Originally Posted by Russ

Really?! If my partner was (in my opinion) wrongly convicted of something I'd move Heaven and Earth to get it overturned.

Even though you knew they had had it off with someone else, whatever the circumstances?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ

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

I'm glad you're glad, I'm sure he's glad you're glad. We're all glad you're glad.

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

As you point out, I am unlikely to judge him in any way that matters.

He has already been judged. If he gets the opportunity, he may be judged again.

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

Well you appear to be erring towards the point he may be wrongly convicted, but until he has another trial, if indeed he gets one, he's guilty, despite what some dodgy website says , including this one.

When this appeal gets to court I'll respect the decision

that's very big of you, the British criminal justice system will be relieved.

---------- Post added at 21:27 ---------- Previous post was at 21:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

Really?! If my partner was (in my opinion) wrongly convicted of something I'd move Heaven and Earth to get it overturned.

What makes you think he was wrongly convicted?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Top banana

Even though you knew they had had it off with someone else, whatever the circumstances?

If I believed she hadn't broken the law then I'd stand by her.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well you appear to be erring towards the point he may be wrongly convicted, but until he has another trial, if indeed he gets one, he's guilty, despite what some dodgy website says , including this one.

Rather than dealing with what appears to be the case, how about dealing with what I'm actually saying?

Originally Posted by Pierre

What makes you think he was wrongly convicted?

Avoiding the obvious attempt at putting words in my mouth, his partner clearly feels he was wrongly convicted.

Originally Posted by Russ

My issue is that it appears not all relevant evidence was seen in court. If at his appeal it's all presented and they still find nothing wrong with the conviction then he will forever be a rapist.

It's a judge who decides what is and is not admissible in court. There is oftentimes decent legal reasons as to why something isn't revealed in court and it appears to only be the Chad Evans campaign site that is suggesting it should be seen.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

It's a judge who decides what is and is not admissible in court. There is oftentimes decent legal reasons as to why something isn't revealed in court and it appears to only be the Chad Evans campaign site that is suggesting it should be seen.

Well yeah, they have a vested interest in this. But there's also the guy who discovered the messages too.

Originally Posted by Russ

Well yeah, they have a vested interest in this. But there's also the guy who discovered the messages too.

According to them. We have little idea of the authenticity, context, meaning or legal admissibility of the messages.

We're talking about people with no to little legal knowledge trying to interpret information from a biased source about a case we didn't sit in on. It's quite dangerous.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

According to them. We have little idea of the authenticity, context, meaning or legal admissibility of the messages.

Well that's what we'll find out at the next stage, although the fact his team are making such a fuss about the messages (which she apparently tried to delete) indicates they must believe in them strongly enough otherwise they're risking complete collapse in their credibility.

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

We're talking about people with no to little legal knowledge trying to interpret information from a biased source about a case we didn't sit in on. It's quite dangerous.

I'd find it hard to believe that someone with Evans' funds (plus those of his partner's father) would be going down this route without some pretty good legal advice and representation.