Ched Evan - Not Guilty!

Adam Johnson's sentence was far too long and would be good to see him out soon. Not sure if an appeal is ongoing?

mememe

She woke up after wetting the bed, could not remember a thing apparently.
Evans and McDonald were interviewed by the police and admitted having sex with her ( neither ejaculated )

As she scold not remember giving consent the CPS pressed on, perhaps more eagerly because of Evans big headed attitude.

So the lass only pursued it initially to see if she had been date raped, she lost her hand bag as well which annoyed her.

she testified on the 5th in his retrial, (may well have carried over to 6th)

thanks Zen

I worry about our justice system.

Evans just seems a moron from the bit I've read - but rapist???

she testified on the 5th in his retrial, (may well have carried over to 6th)


Cheers donny, Sky news are incorrect then.

Hopefully this will help all the other men currently in prison for 'date rape'


There was no date rape drug in her system.

I don't think that there has to be a date rape drug in their system for it to be classified as a 'date rape', ZenMaster.

There has been numerous men convicted of 'date rape' because women invite men into their homes or go to there homes willingly and then shout rape.

Yes of course annie.

However, these men would require ( the accusers )character witnesses for the retrial.

Annie, for a woman, you come across as a vile creature imho.

No proof that annie is a woman.

Stop it crags, you know that betfair posted that I am a woman

He should be compensated for 4 years loss of earnings

Have the Jess Ennis stand re-named Cheds End

Hopefully he keeps scoring ( goals ) and he gets his career back on track the justice system and PC brigade have gave this man hell and now he needs to be left alone to do his job.

Oct 14, 2016 -- 3:05PM, Racingqueen wrote:

I await Jessica Ennis Hills apology

+1

Jess Ennis retires the day before Ched Evans is found not guilty?

Was she expecting it?

Oct 14, 2016 -- 4:22PM, annie. wrote:

Stop it crags, you know that betfair posted that I am a woman

No I don't.

Anyway, the account could have been opened by a woman, but she could let anyone post in her name if she chose.

ZenMaster
ZenMaster 14 Oct 16 16:28 Joined: 24 Mar 16 | Topic/replies: 2,083 | Blogger: ZenMaster's blog
Jess Ennis retires the day before Ched Evans is found not guilty?

Was she expecting it?

Her lawyers would have let her know for sure

who can he sue ?

he was tried and convicted

new evidence was found


He can sue the police for being incompetent (or worse) for not getting that evidence.

CLYDEBANK29
He can sue the police for being incompetent (or worse) for not getting that evidence.

Do they only stop gathering evidence when they have enough to get a conviction?

You can't sue the police for failing to find evidence which exonerates you. It's an adversarial justice system and that's why you have a solcitor/defence team to carry out any investigations and present evidence on your behalf.

He will likely get compensation for wrongful conviction though.

nothing to do with the police.

it's the CPS who bring the case and it's certainly not their job to go and find witnesses for the defense.

and again, these new witnesses brought very little. the first jury got it very very wrong. that's all that happened.

As I read it,the girl only reported her handbag missing,but a policewoman urged her to say she was raped.

I know small cases get sent to PF and they take it from there the police are pen pushers and iv'e heard that direct from a Coppers mouth.They just move on to the next job but for Rape and such i don't know.

I'm bracketing the police in with the CPS.  Of course you can sue the police for negligence if they have been negligent.

I take that back .. can only sue for misconduct

I still think you can sue in this case.  Time will tell

You can so anyone for being negligent but that's a very different thing from what you were talking about.

Ched Evans could get £500,000 for two and a half years in prison

He was on 20k a week

I'd want twice as much money if I'd been sent to prison.

My maths is a bit out there!

Justice certainly, although he's still guilty of being a scumbag.

Still not sure what the new evidence was but at least we finally got the verdict that should've been returned first time around. Worse was when he was released and people still wanted to cut his balls off. Shame on all those clubs who bowed down to a few thousand ****s on Twitter. Well done to my hometown club for giving the skunk the second chance I'd like to think we would all deserve after we've done our time.

And shame on annie. Not once have I called annie a trucker, or Dave, or any of the other stick the poster using that username has received. Deserves all the flak coming for the poss on page 1 of this thread.

Shrewd Dude actually you can' sue the police for negligence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31025413

I doubt Evans receives much in the way of compensation btw, though I didn't believe he'd ever get a retrial either.

Mikael D'Haguenet • October 14, 2016 5:56 PM BST
Justice certainly, although he's still guilty of being a scumbag.Why is he a scumbag? Don't girls enjoy sex?

To sue for wrongful conviction you have to able to turn the "beyond reasonable doubt" premis on it' head.  I.e you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are innocent.

yep almost impossible to get compo for a wrongful conviction these days. you can't prove your innocent short of cast iron evidence they've got the wrong person

barry george didn't get any even though it was clear he's just not capable of gunning down anyone but no alibi no money

Roquebrune    14 Oct 16 17:59 
Why is he a scumbag? Don't girls enjoy sex?

If you want to give him a fist bump, go ahead. His actions were those of a scumbag.

The last man as moral as you got crucified.

Well if you think that turning up at 2 in the morning, shagging a girl you've never met who happens to be so drunk she pissed the bed, then leaving via a fire escape is commendable behaviour, like I say, high fives all around.

So his mate who took her to the hotel and went first had to carry her upstairs on his shoulder,did he?

Clydebank that article is somewhat misleading. Negligence is when a person or organisations breaches it's duty of care towards someone. That article is basically explaining that the police owe no duty of care to any individuals in relation to their investigations like in the examples it mentions.

It fails to mention that there are some situations where the police do have a duty of care towards a person e.g when they are in police custody. The police can be sued for negligence in such cases where it has failed in its duty of care. There are cases s ess where the police have been sued for death in custody etc.

His mate, who at least had spent more than  minute in her company, didn't have to serve a couple of years nor need a retrial to establish his innocence, did he?

it's about probabilities.

what price she was too drunk to consent?

it was never 1.05 or shorter, but would you be laying anything bigger than 3s.

Neither of them should have been charged in the first place.

Mika was it you who said he would never get a retrial to me a few year back or was that pandorica




Dr Crippen • April 15, 2016 11:11 AM BST
I'd like to meet Mikael D'Haguenet and give him a damn good hiding.

Crippen wants his goes

DStyle

You further debase a sordid event by discussing odds.
Very classy.

Roquebrune    14 Oct 16 18:37 
Neither of them should have been charged in the first place.

I've never said otherwise.

TheChaser    14 Oct 16 18:38 
Mika was it you who said he would never get a retrial to me a few year back or was that pandorica

Well, as you can tell from the thread you started about him, me and Pandy aren't exactly golfing buddies. I don't recall having the onversation with you specifically but I already conceded that I didn't think the'd get a retrial, so won't insist it wasn't me either.

As for Dr Cretin, in his fkn dreams!

i am fed up with these women who said when ched evan got found guilty how good the justice system is now after being found not guilty they come out and say we are going back to the dark ages with the law of the land

Facts 14 Oct 16 18:45 
DStyle

You further debase a sordid event by discussing odds.
Very classy.


stop being an idiot.

I'm saying that not only the verdict, but also your opinion of Evans, rests exclusively on an assessment of the probability that the girl was too drunk to consent.

To sue for wrongful conviction you have to able to turn the "beyond reasonable doubt"

should be a piece of **** then.

the jury should never have convicted in the first place on what they were told.

must have been brexit voters.

Is it 'beyond reasonable doubt'?

Judiciary need to have a better understanding of probability and odds than that expression.

For the armchair lawyers.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

I am not sure about the not allowing the complainants previous history, is something I would agree with?

But that is the law at the moment.

I am glad Ched has been cleared of Rape, I never thought it was.

But he certainly took advantage, but I saw no evidence which said she did consent.

How is anyone to judge whether or not any one is capable of giving consent,

I think this woman and all women should also take some responsibility for the state they are in.

sb But he certainly took advantage, but I saw no evidence which said she NOT did consent.

did NOT consent

the mirror pulls no punches

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12144963/Commuter-who-walked-past-actress-at-Waterloo-station-cleared-of-bizarre-sex-assault-claim.html

a failed justice system

Should never have been taken to court.
Some of those most scathing in their comments on CE and those supporting him have went very quiet.

* gone

* crazy man

Seedy and disgraceful behaviour but this should never have gone to court.The lady in question would have been better off too as she has also suffered from the media exposure.A sad case all round.

She's no lady.

Must be very hard on -no pun intended- footballers to resist these sad bints who throw themselves at them.

My daughter got drunk when she was out on the town but if anyone had taken advantage like this I would have kicked them from one end of the road to another,seedy and disgraceful but not criminal for me.

treetop, I'd hope that your daughter wouldn't go willingly to a Hotel with a stranger just because he was a footballer, and not mind if his friend joined in!

Or be filmed !

Utter slapper who was only worried that she'd lost her handbag.

A response I happen to agree with .......

.' I am disgusted and appalled about people's vile reactions and spewing of abuse towards that girl. I would like to ask them one question: your highly intoxicated 19 yr old daughter ends up in a pre-booked hotel room with two footballers, one of which texts his mate beforehand that he "found a b*#%". They both have sex with her, the second admits later to not have spoken with her before, during or after the encounter, yet he claims for it to have been consensual. He then leaves via the fire escape after his brother and another mate attempt to video the incident on their phones. He is found out to have lied in court and gets convicted but eventually cleared after he paid a £50,000 reward to "new witnesses" who turn out to be previous sexual partners of the girl in question (your daughter) dragging her through the mud. What do you think? I know what I think: The guy is a swine, a cold blooded predator, a scum bag, liar and a cheat. I don't care whether or not they could prove rape! He took advantage, and he bloody knew it, that's why he left through the back door! Whatever she has or hasn't done, any decent guy gets the girl a taxi home! I hope he never kicks a ball again. Shame on his girlfriend too! I wouldn't have touched him again with a barge pole.......'

I have to agree with you facts,seedy and disgusting behaviour but not 2 years in jail when we have seen far worse get off with a censure.

These guys have been foolish, no doubt about that, same as Adam Johnson was.. and what did he get? A bit of a grope with a young groupie and years in Jail

A bit of a grope with a young groupie and years in Jail

That's one hell of a euphemism that.

Crags Johnson was hiding in car parks with bags of candy and signed shirts for the groupie

I agree with most of that statement too Facts.

And as I implied below, there is a pretty sizeable chance that the girl was too drunk to consent, and that what Evans did was rape.

But based on the evidence, neither can be I so certain that it's beyond reasonable doubt that she was that drunk.

That's the point.

One also has to wonder about how the whole trial has affected this girl. She been outed 5 times on social media and had to change identity. I imagine she's received some horrific abuse. Now given she doesn't even remember the night in question, and was in no rush to report that she'd been raped, might we assume that the events after the night in question have been more traumatic than the night itself.

Perhaps the CPS viewed the chance of a high profile prosecution with weak evidence as being more important than this girl's welfare.....

It wasn't really weak evidence though was it D style. It passed the burden of proof twice and in one case resulted in a conviction based on the evidence, withstood several appeals and it was only when new evidence came out after the initial trial which wasn't available when the initial decision to prosecute was made that the conviction was quashed and a retrial with the new evidence found him not guilty.

If anything the trauma she received because of this episode is down to the justice system being unable to cope with the dark side of social media and modern technology.

it was weak evidence for beyond reasonable doubt. the first jury was just wrong.

the new evidence brought very little that was new. again, a reasonable and rational conclusion from the evidence presented in the first trial was:

0.85 > p(too drunk to consent) > 0.35

the new evidence maybe dropped that top limit to 0.8.

there's a very good line in the post leazes67 links to:

"As I tell juries in every closing speech – if you think the defendant probably did it, he’s still not guilty."

If anything the trauma she received because of this episode is down to the justice system being unable to cope with the dark side of social media and modern technology.

yet entirely predictable.

The first jury was wrong is merely your opinion. On the basis of the evidence available when the Crown prosecuted they got a conviction. This conviction was never quashed on the basis that the jury was wrong. It was quashed on the basis that there was compelling new evidence and therefore the conviction may be unsafe.

This new evidence when led at trial may or may not have resulted in the new jury finding him not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

It is utterly bizarre to suggest that the Crown should only prosecute in cases that it is certain before a trial even begins and evidence has been heard that it will be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

there's a very good line in the post leazes67 links to:

"As I tell juries in every closing speech – if you think the defendant probably did it, he’s still not guilty."

That is a very good line as it properly identifies whose remit it is to consider reasonable doubt and at what stage i.e the jury after having heard all the evidence. That is the Juries remit after having heard the evidence though it is not the Crown's role. You seem to be getting mixed up with the two.

yet entirely predictable.

Yes it was but I doubt the Crown would be doing it's job if it didn't prosecute accused persons because of the threat of people committing other criminal offences against the victim.

it was weak evidence for beyond reasonable doubt. the first jury was just wrong.

the new evidence brought very little that was new. again, a reasonable and rational conclusion from the evidence presented in the first trial was:

0.85 > p(too drunk to consent) > 0.35

the new evidence maybe dropped that top limit to 0.8.


dstyle the big change for me, is that he now had reasonable grounds to think she had consented, as his
story now rings true(r) and the actual consent
is not such a factor.......that is of course if you believe the new evidence.

No. They were wrong. Not in my opinion, but in any reasonable person's opinion.

But, you cannot get a re-trial just because a jury was wrong.

But they were. Horribly so. Highlighted entirely by the non-guilty verdict for McDonald which can only be explained by an entirely impossible level of confidence in both the precision of the girl's state of inebriation as well as her character.

It may seem like I'm overly concerned about this trial; I'm not. I'm concerned about the inadequacies of most people when it comes to making decent probabilistic estimates of events based on the evidence presented to them (And that's even before we start worrying about groupthink). It's the strongest argument there is against the death penalty.

Many defence barristers would be better off trained in psychology and statistics, than in the law.

donny - that was for shrewd dude

donny osmond 15 Oct 16 11:44 
it was weak evidence for beyond reasonable doubt. the first jury was just wrong.

the new evidence brought very little that was new. again, a reasonable and rational conclusion from the evidence presented in the first trial was:

0.85 > p(too drunk to consent) > 0.35

the new evidence maybe dropped that top limit to 0.8.


dstyle the big change for me, is that he now had reasonable grounds to think she had consented, as his
story now rings true(r) and the actual consent
is not such a factor.......that is of course if you believe the new evidence.

my problem with the new evidence is that all it does is paint the picture that the girl liked sex and a certain type of sex.

so that was an idea that was ruled out in the first trial? none of the jury entertained a small probabilistic estimate that she might be like that?

despite the fact that they all agreed that she was prepared to go and have sex with someone she'd just met on the street?

i have been against death penalty for years for lack of trust in jury verdicts

No it is your opinion D style. You seem to want to pick and choose the facts which fit your opinion. The first jury was wrong, the judges were wrong in the appeal, the Crown was wrong but the 2nd jury was right because they agree with you but the new evidence which was compelling enough for the original conviction to be quashed wasn't compelling and didn't influence the new juries decision. 

Highlighted entirely by the non-guilty verdict for McDonald which can only be explained by an entirely impossible level of confidence in both the precision of the girl's state of inebriation as well as her character.

This has been done to the death before.

I'm concerned about the inadequacies of most people when it comes to making decent probabilistic estimates of events based on the evidence presented to them (And that's even before we start worrying about groupthink). It's the strongest argument there is against the death penalty.

Many defence barristers would be better off trained in psychology and statistics, than in the law.

This is nonsense and just you simply trying to be a Monday morning quarterback. You are basing your fanciful probability statistics based on the evidence led after the trial to say that based on these probabilities the Crown should have before any evidence had even been led at trial and probably about a year before hand come to the same conclusion as you and decided that because they couldn't be certain that they would be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt they should have never prosecuted (ignoring the the fact that the concept of the idea that they should only prosecute in such cases is bonkers).

the o j trial was a masterclass of an advocate well versed in psychology

my problem with the new evidence is that all it does is paint the picture that the girl liked sex and a certain type of sex.

My understanding is that is not the case. That is not allowed. This evidence wasn't relevant or allowed as new evidence because it proved she was a bit of a goer as the sexual history of the complainer is not allowed to be led. It was relevant and compelling because it was two examples of her having sex with men where in the circumstances she was consenting i.e was choosing positions and telling them what to do (similar to what Evans and McDonald said happened) but could not remember the following day (similar to this matter). Therefore it added to the credibility of Evans defence that whilst she may have been drunk and not remember if she was acting in the same manner he had reasonable grounds to think she was consenting even if she may have been drunk enough to have memory black out.

Again, it's not my opinion. I'm cherry picking anything. Their conclusion was irrational.

That McDonald bit hasn't been done to death before. It's not about the narrative, it's about the level of confidence in the narrative. Don't conflate the two.

My point about the cps is twofold: i. when they considered the strength of their case were they unduly influenced by the high profile of the defendant and ii. that they should have anticipated the possible backlash against this girl, given the profile of the defendant.

my problem with the new evidence is that all it does is paint the picture that the girl liked sex and a certain type of sex.

My understanding is that is not the case. That is not allowed. This evidence wasn't relevant or allowed as new evidence because it proved she was a bit of a goer as the sexual history of the complainer is not allowed to be led. It was relevant and compelling because it was two examples of her having sex with men where in the circumstances she was consenting i.e was choosing positions and telling them what to do (similar to what Evans and McDonald said happened) but could not remember the following day (similar to this matter). Therefore it added to the credibility of Evans defence that whilst she may have been drunk and not remember if she was acting in the same manner he had reasonable grounds to think she was consenting even if she may have been drunk enough to have memory black out.

ok, i stand corrected.

but again, that's still not something that the first jury could not have ruled out with such extreme confidence.

Again, it's not my opinion. I'm cherry picking anything. Their conclusion was irrational.

In your opinion. The appeal decisions say you are wrong. You can appeal on the basis of a jury reaching verdict which no reasonable jury would have reached.


That McDonald bit hasn't been done to death before. It's not about the narrative, it's about the level of confidence in the narrative. Don't conflate the two.

It has. If they felt she was too drunk to consent they could still have felt he had reasonable grounds to think she was consenting with him given the entirely different circumstances with their interactions with her.

My point about the cps is twofold: i. when they considered the strength of their case were they unduly influenced by the high profile of the defendant and ii. that they should have anticipated the possible backlash against this girl, given the profile of the defendant.

So they should create a charter for any new Jimmy Savilles not to be prosecuted?

There are 2 problems with your position in criticising the position of the Crown. First of all you are assuming that the Crown has all the evidence when they decided to prosecute a person and that reading the evidence is the same as that evidence being led and cross examined at a trial for it's credibility and reliability. If it was that easy we wouldn't even need trials the judge or jury would just need to be given a book of evidence.

Second you seem to be of the view the Crown should only prosecute when they are certain they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt if if the matter goes to trial which isn't their job. The problem with your statistics and probabilities is that you have completely excluded the fact that the majority of prosecutions don't actually go to trial in the first place and are resolved before hand. How was the Crown to know that they wouldn't tender a guilty plea.

You are basically pricing up a market after the horses have crossed the finish line.

Seems to me that in this day and age, you simply keep on going until you get the answer that you want. Retrial for Ched. Another enquiry regarding Deepcot. A recent case regarding Hillsborough. etc. etc.

Worryingly they all involve people with money, or are high profile.

How many people are locked up, with no hope at all of getting a retrial. No money. No high profile. etc. etc. But equally, possibly put away by some dodgy result from a jury. Not all, but must be some.

Last post.

I'm a member of the jury. I'm presented with the evidence. There exists uncertainty around certain important events.

Therefore the only rational approach is to synthesize numerous narratives based on each area of uncertainty and to assign a probability to each narrative.

The more precise my narrative becomes, based on the number of individual areas of uncertainty i resolve, the less confident i can be in it. This the whole problem with the McDonald acquital and the Evans guilty verdict. Not that the narrative is inherently unreasonable, it is not. But that it is irrational to be so confident in it because it resolves so many areas of uncertainty.

I don't believe anyone in the first jury did this. In fact I don't believe this is how most juries think.

I think they come up with a single narrative and then try convince each other that they are right beyond reasonable doubt, without even understanding what that means.

The moral of the story here is that you should always be very careful when speaking to the police and should always get legal advice if being accused of something and should not just think because your Billy Big Spuds if you tell the police how many birds you've shagged that will be the end of the matter. 

Certainly from previous threads there are people on the forum who think that you should do whatever a policeman asks you to do without even thinking about it but hopefully this serves as a warning to their naivety as well.

DStyle.

Understand all that but. You have a trial. A result is determined, with whatever facts are available, how those facts are interpreted, and also how good the barristers / lawyers are.

For the vast majority, that's where the buck stops.

However, for those with money, status or whatever. Then the buck doesn't necessarily stop there.

In such instances, the facts don't necessarily change, but the interpretation of them might. Or the lawyey might be better. Or or or....

Not making any big point. Just that it's not really a fair system. Certainly for those that don't have dosh.

that post was more for s_d (grrr, you got me posting again on a thread i said i'd leave)

but you're right. the quality (or inequality)of justice you receive often depends on how much money you have. The legal aid cuts of 2014 make this even worse.

without a time machine we are unlikely to find a better system

there are numerous agencies set up to find and over turn obvious miscarriages of justice
for folk that have no money

there must be innocent folk in jail and guilty walking the street

teaching probabilistic decision making in schools would be a start.

instead of Religious Education or Geography.

Dstyle.

Soz. Was the "Last Post" part. Thought your comment was aimed my way.

Oct 15, 2016 -- 9:20AM, TheChaser wrote:

Crags Johnson was hiding in car parks with bags of candy and signed shirts for the groupie

https://youtu.be/aMICD3aMZpw

I wouldn't want him near any of the females in my family he ain't no lover man she can't even remember what the pervy piece of you know what done to her with his pervy  brother and his mates watching a classless piece of lowlife as for his wife she must love money real bad.

tt for Spotty, wouldn't want him to miss this.

Has anyone heard from Jess Ennis?

Any sign of contrition?

Surely some comment would be appropriate.

she's left the stadium