Should Ched Evans be allowed back into football

Originally Posted by Russ

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

Yes that would be the correct course (incidentally there is no 'inquiry' just a review into this case by the Criminal Cases Review Commission that he has requested). What isn't correct is a website and internet detectives making accusations about the victim and her motivations. He had a fair trial in which he could mount a defence. She is getting a internet mob.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes that would be the correct course (incidentally there is no 'inquiry' just a review into this case by the Criminal Cases Review Commission that he has requested). What isn't correct is a website and internet detectives making accusations about the victim and her motivations. He had a fair trial in which he could mount a defence. She is getting a internet mob.

Inquiry/review - if the information about the tweets is correct then he wouldn't have had a fair trial as NWP denied the tweets existed. If they were correct about that and the tweets are faked in some way and the footage of her walking to the hotel had no relevance to how drunk/sober she was then yes the trial was fair.

[Kursk]

Well argued Damien. Unfortunately, it's possible to persuade the gullible of anything and that website seems to have found its target.

Just to be clear, and because there are those who get all namby-pamby if they feel they are being personally slighted, my comment is not aimed at anyone in particular.

Originally Posted by Russ

Inquiry/review - if the information about the tweets is correct then he wouldn't have had a fair trial as NWP denied the tweets existed. If they were correct about that and the tweets are faked in some way and the footage of her walking to the hotel had no relevance to how drunk/sober she was then yes the trial was fair.

How do you know if the Tweets would even be admissible as evidence?

It doesn't matter what the review says because the site will just publish something else and we'll be back on here dealing with it all again. The most complete and fair airing on this case was conducted in a court room and he was found guilty. He appealed and the appeal failed. Now the victim is having her credibility questioned by the internet and the only involvement she has is when her identity is published and she has to move for the 5th time.

If the defence has new evidence then the correct place to present it is in court, not a internet website.

Consider for a moment that the court was right and the internet is wrong. Then all this is the hounding of a rape victim.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

How do you know if the Tweets would even be admissible as evidence?

Well again, we'll find out however as I mentioned earlier I'd be surprised if someone with his backing took his legal advice from the CAB.

Originally Posted by Damien

It doesn't matter what the review says because the site will just publish something else and we'll be back on here dealing with it all again. The most complete and fair airing on this case was conducted in a court room and he was found guilty. He appealed and the appeal failed. Now the victim is having her credibility questioned by the internet and the only involvement she has is when her identity is published and she has to move for the 5th time.

This is why I said earlier that if the inquiry turns up nothing then he remains a rapist.

Originally Posted by Damien

Consider for a moment that the court was right and the internet is wrong. Then all this is the hounding of a rape victim.

Without wanting to sound churlish, consider it vice versa? What if evidence not available at the time casts serious doubt on the woman's intentions? A man's life and career could have been permanently damaged.

Hounding of her is wrong regardless of what happened, I'm not in favour of that.

[Kursk]

<removed>

Originally Posted by Russ

Well again, we'll find out however as I mentioned earlier I'd be surprised if someone with his backing took his legal advice from the CAB.

Well this is a website. This is not a legal document or case.

This is why I said earlier that if the inquiry turns up nothing then he remains a rapist.

But if you're willing to take out of context Tweets from a advocacy website for him which they themselves sourced from a third party and consider that 'new evidence' then that's a pretty low bar to clear. What happens when they publish something else? A previously unknown witness sending a anonymous letter? A Facebook post etc etc.

Without wanting to sound churlish, consider it vice versa? What if evidence not available at the time casts serious doubt on the woman's intentions? A man's life and career could have been permanently damaged.

Then the correct place to air this new evidence is in a court room and not an internet website. In a court room the evidence can be properly examined, the crown can mount a challenge to the appeal, they can make an argument as to the relevance of the evidence on the verdict of the case.

I would prefer a court makes these decisions and not people on Twitter.

The victim here was no real ability to respond to these allegations and nor should she have too.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well this is a website. This is not a legal document or case.

Whereas that's obviously true I'm not sure how that makes much difference? All I can assume is they're putting the information out there in an attempt to defend his character. Successful or not isn't what I'm commenting on.

Originally Posted by Damien

But if you're willing to take out of context Tweets from a advocacy website for him which they themselves sourced from a third party and consider that 'new evidence' then that's a pretty low bar to clear. What happens when they publish something else? A previously unknown witness sending a anonymous letter? A Facebook post etc etc.

Aren't you jumping the gun a bit by saying I'm taking them out of context? Who knows what the context is? They appear to be suggesting one thing but that could be anything - it's for the inquiry to decide.

Originally Posted by Damien

Then the correct place to air this new evidence is in a court room and not an internet website. In a court room the evidence can be properly examined, the crown can mount a challenge to the appeal, they can make an argument as to the relevance of the evidence on the verdict of the case.

I would prefer a court makes these decisions and not people on Twitter.

Again, damage limitation is all I can assume it is.

Originally Posted by Damien

The victim here was no real ability to respond to these allegations and nor should she have too.

I don't think that's in doubt?

I wonder why, if the alleged tweets are real, she hasn't carried out those actions she is accused of? (selling her story to the media).

The whole premise is that she is only in it for the money/fame - haven't seen any evidence to back that up (her getting money/air-time)....

[Russ]

That's true and is something CE's side don't seem to have addressed yet although it's notable that they invite you to form your own conclusion.

Originally Posted by Russ

Whereas that's obviously true I'm not sure how that makes much difference? All I can assume is they're putting the information out there in an attempt to defend his character. Successful or not isn't what I'm commenting on.

Because it's one thing to put it up for public consumption and another thing is test them in court.

Aren't you jumping the gun a bit by saying I'm taking them out of context? Who knows what the context is? They appear to be suggesting one thing but that could be anything - it's for the inquiry to decide.

No the Tweets are out of context. Nothing to suggest she was talking about the case. The previous Tweet could have been about what people would do had they won the lottery for all we know.

Again, damage limitation is all I can assume it is.

Which also makes insinuations about the character of the victim?

Well we seem to have wandered along way from whether Evans should be employed as a footballer all the way to retrying him and his victim all over again..

And as it seems his last chance was ruled out days ago..Has he had any further offers?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

Because it's one thing to put it up for public consumption and another thing is test them in court.



No the Tweets are out of context. Nothing to suggest she was talking about the case. The previous Tweet could have been about what people would do had they won the lottery for all we know.




Which also makes insinuations about the character of the victim?

(Sigh)

OK I'm wrong. We'll see.

[Kursk]

Whatever happened, the aftermath of this case has the potential of creating an horrendous tragedy. It might be best if we all let it go.

[greyposter]

So right. Time to move on, nothing more can be acheived