Should Ched Evans be allowed back into football - Page 10

**Hugh** · 28-12-2014, 21:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

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

On a site that doesn't seem to exist (fr.twitter.com), and on a link that also doesn't exist.....

But of course, if someone posts it on the internet, it must be true....

Pierre · 28-12-2014, 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

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

She's a very forgiving young lady, a victim in all of this. Clearly she affords him more respect than he to her.

What's "your" stake in this though? what's your opinion?

Are you saying your standpoint in this discussion is based purely on his girlfriends feelings?

---------- Post added at 22:00 ---------- Previous post was at 21:58 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

Well yeah.

28-12-2014, 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

She's a very forgiving young lady, a victim in all of this. Clearly she affords him more respect than he to her.

What's "your" stake in this though? what's your opinion?

Are you saying your standpoint in this discussion is based purely on his girlfriends feelings?

---------- Post added at 22:00 ---------- Previous post was at 21:58 ----------

That's putting it politely, personally I think she is a complete dick. If it was my daughter standing by a bloke who had sloppy seconds, I would struggle to contain my emotions.

Hope they enjoyed pulling crackers together over Xmas

Kursk · 28-12-2014, 23:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

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

Does that mean members can look forward to your support if they publicly call into question the decisions made by moderators on this website Russ? Or does that line of public scrutiny remain 1984 censored?

**Paul** · 29-12-2014, 01:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kursk

Does that mean members can look forward to your support if they publicly call into question the decisions made by moderators on this website Russ? Or does that line of public scrutiny remain 1984 censored?

I suggest that if you do not want to incur administrator wrath, you move away from irrelevant comments about CF Staff decisions.

nomadking · 29-12-2014, 02:56

Quote:

The complainant stated that she had no memory of any sexual activity with either of the two men.
...
She drank vodka and left at about 3am. She said that she could not recall leaving the bar.
...
The complainant had no recollection of anything which took place after 3am. That extended to the fact that she and McDonald entered the hotel at 4.15am. The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". That reinforced the Crown's case based on the evidence of witnesses and the CCTV footage before she had arrived at the hotel.

How on earth did McDonald get away with it?

If Evans hadn't turned up, would McDonald have faced a charge of rape and been acquitted? She had no recollection of either of them, therefore from her initial viewpoint later that morning she hadn't consented with anybody. She didn't know that 2 men were involved.

Russ · 29-12-2014, 05:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

She's a very forgiving young lady, a victim in all of this. Clearly she affords him more respect than he to her.

What's "your" stake in this though? what's your opinion?

As I've already stated I don't think all the evidence was presented in the court case.

---------- Post added at 06:05 ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

On a site that doesn't seem to exist (fr.twitter.com), and on a link that also doesn't exist.....

But of course, if someone posts it on the internet, it must be true....

Again, if they're placing so much publicity on those messages I wouldn't have thought it was just based on "someone claiming to find them on the internet". They are setting themselves up for a massive fall if that's the case.

29-12-2014, 06:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

....

Of course, I now see that I might have been wrong. "Her" subsequent web presence under the new identities & the old photos could have been done by trolls and not herself. Yes, it is possible.

Nevertheless, I echo what Russ says.

**Damien** · 29-12-2014, 08:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

Again, if they're placing so much publicity on those messages I wouldn't have thought it was just based on "someone claiming to find them on the internet". They are setting themselves up for a massive fall if that's the case.

I am not sure what you're expecting the level of credibility to be or from where they would fall. The legal team has already lost the court case and the appeal. This is a website and isn't subject to the rigours of a court examination, they can upload what they want (within reason).

In this case they're putting tweets obtained by someone else as is and are not personally swearing that they're authentic. As presented there is no way these tweets would be allowed in a court. Even if they were they would have to show that it's related to this case, they're currently not put in any context.

At the moment they're just tweets on a webpage which are presented out of context and with no way for us to know if it's true or not. Worse, they're being used to attack the character of the victim in this case when a court has already decided the case had merit enough to secure a conviction.

Russ · 29-12-2014, 09:09

When they lost the case the tweets were not available. It's possible they don't exist obviously but if they are genuine they could play a part in overturning the conviction surely?

When it gets to the appeal they'll be offered as evidence.

**Damien** · 29-12-2014, 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

When they lost the case the tweets were not available. It's possible they don't exist obviously but if they are genuine they could play a part in overturning the conviction surely?

When it gets to the appeal they'll be offered as evidence.

The fact it's possible it doesn't exist is a pretty big one. It's why we shouldn't really be second guessing the case on this page alone.

Also how do we know they'll help overturn the conviction if there are true? What does it prove? How do you know this is even related to the case? Even if these tweets are true and are related to the case what part of the case against him is undermined by them?

Again. These unverified tweets presented out of context in a place where they cannot be challenged by a site which is biased is a flimsy reason to relook at the case.

Russ · 29-12-2014, 09:37

I'd suggest the information they plan to use is likely to be pretty significant if they're using it as the basis of the appeal. IIRC for an appeal to accepted the new evidence needs to be considerable.

If I've read the case correctly the crux of the matter is whether or not she was too drunk to consent. It looks as if his side are saying she was sober enough to walk in to the hotel unaided, and that the texts (if genuine) indicate she's in it for financial gain.

If an appeal court rejects all that then he's a convicted rapist, end of.

29-12-2014, 09:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

On a site that doesn't seem to exist (fr.twitter.com),

True, but it existed in 2012, the time of the tweets see eg

https://www.facebook.com/maxence.bou...35459319816014

https://www.facebook.com/XaviersStud...46429635395406

https://www.zotero.org/drabina/items/itemKey/V67NJFTJ

http://weheartit.com/from/fr.twitter.com

**Damien** · 29-12-2014, 09:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

I'd suggest the information they plan to use is likely to be pretty significant if they're using it as the basis of the appeal. IIRC for an appeal to accepted the new evidence needs to be considerable.

If I've read the case correctly the crux of the matter is whether or not she was too drunk to consent. It looks as if his side are saying she was sober enough to walk in to the hotel unaided, and that the texts (if genuine) indicate she's in it for financial gain.

If an appeal court rejects all that then he's a convicted rapist, end of.

Well an appeal court already has decided that and it apparently isn't the end of it. If a website printing unverified, out of context, Tweets, is enough for everyone to suddenly decide the question is open again then it won't be.

Russ · 29-12-2014, 10:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Well an appeal court already has decided that and it apparently isn't the end of it. If a website printing unverified, out of context, Tweets, is enough for everyone to suddenly decide the question is open again then it won't be.

We'll just have to see what the inquiry has to say about it.