Ells
Offline
Posts: 3449
I am 32 now
|
|
« Reply #15 on: Thursday, April 21, 2016, 18:46:04 » |
|
He got a text from his mate to say (he'd got a girl) who was paralytic ,then joined him at the hotel and had sex with her while some other friends watched on from outside taking photos. He's a cunt of the highest order and I wouldn't want him anywhere near our club.
If that was true then he is a rapist. Clearly there is information that we aren't privy to.
|
|
|
Logged
|
If Don Rogers were alive today, he'd be turning in his grave
|
|
|
tans
You spin me right round baby right round
Offline
Posts: 25112
|
|
« Reply #16 on: Thursday, April 21, 2016, 19:00:31 » |
|
If that was true then he is a rapist. Clearly there is information that we aren't privy to.
Wouldnt that make his mate a rapist as well then?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ells
Offline
Posts: 3449
I am 32 now
|
|
« Reply #17 on: Thursday, April 21, 2016, 19:05:53 » |
|
Wouldnt that make his mate a rapist as well then?
By that statement alone, yes.
|
|
|
Logged
|
If Don Rogers were alive today, he'd be turning in his grave
|
|
|
RobertT
Offline
Posts: 11735
|
|
« Reply #18 on: Thursday, April 21, 2016, 22:14:23 » |
|
If that was true then he is a rapist. Clearly there is information that we aren't privy to.
Based on the way they met the jury believed there was sufficient doubt over the issue of consent to not convict. At the original case Evans was found guilty as no consent was "possible" nor should he have been in any doubt because she was unable to provide it. To find that judgement unsafe would suggest new evidence not available at the original trial that could at least provide doubt on that conclusion. A retrial would suggest it is not clear cut though.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
brocklesby red
Offline
Posts: 661
|
|
« Reply #19 on: Thursday, April 21, 2016, 23:16:11 » |
|
If that was true then he is a rapist. Clearly there is information that we aren't privy to.
It would make him a rapist if there was no consent, that's the contentious point. The original jury decided there was none given to Evans. New evidence has now cast doubt on that verdict resulting in a retrial.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
THE FLASH
Offline
Posts: 9421
Quick as a Flash!
|
|
« Reply #20 on: Friday, April 22, 2016, 07:44:17 » |
|
New evidence....
Wonder what that is?
|
|
|
Logged
|
Clems Army!
|
|
|
RobertT
Offline
Posts: 11735
|
|
« Reply #21 on: Friday, April 22, 2016, 10:07:04 » |
|
We can but speculate, so I will! Given the heart of this in the original trial was her level of intoxication leading to a view that she was unable to provide consent (even providing some kind of indication she was willing in that state would be insufficient - not in a fit state to provide knowing consent). New evidence has to really bring that into question to change the way a jury would go, so potentially we are talking about new research into the delayed impacts of alcohol? At the trial I seem to remember it was relied upon that she had got more intoxicated as the evening progressed due to the ongoing absorption of alcohol that had been consumed earlier. Or previously unavailable messages exchanged by the victim with people about the evening have been somehow sourced, shedding new light on the events of the evening. To need a retrial would probably suggest that the prosecution still believes a case exists even with this new evidence.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChalkyWhiteIsGod
TOLD YOU SO
Offline
Posts: 6450
|
|
« Reply #22 on: Friday, April 22, 2016, 12:25:09 » |
|
If he's found innocent then he should be free to sign for whoever he wants without any uproar. The man would have been wrongly convicted for a terrible crime. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't really believe in justice surely?
Him potentially being a cunt is not a reason not to sign him. I'd wager half our squad at the moment are cunts, most footballers are.
|
|
« Last Edit: Friday, April 22, 2016, 16:25:55 by ChalkyWhiteIsGod »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sippo
Living in the 80s
Offline
Posts: 15587
I ain't gettin on no plane fool
|
|
« Reply #23 on: Monday, June 20, 2016, 13:42:30 » |
|
Signed for Chesterfield on a 1 year deal.
|
|
|
Logged
|
If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit...
|
|
|
Nemo
Shit Bacon
Offline
Posts: 21398
|
|
« Reply #24 on: Monday, June 20, 2016, 13:44:02 » |
|
Managed by Danny Wilson, of course. I'm sure this will bring out the absolute best in everyone.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
horlock07
Offline
Posts: 18726
Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost
|
|
« Reply #25 on: Monday, June 20, 2016, 13:48:02 » |
|
Managed by Danny Wilson, of course. I'm sure this will bring out the absolute best in everyone.
Third highest headline on the BBC website!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
horlock07
Offline
Posts: 18726
Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost
|
|
« Reply #26 on: Wednesday, October 5, 2016, 13:48:09 » |
|
The trial as being reported by the BBC seems to be following the same lines and evidence as previously presented, I assume the defence will be planning to pull the rabbit out of the hat at some stage as it stands he still sounds guilty as hell?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Posh Red
Posh by name, Posh by nature
Offline
Posts: 7325
|
|
« Reply #27 on: Wednesday, October 5, 2016, 19:32:35 » |
|
The trial as being reported by the BBC seems to be following the same lines and evidence as previously presented, I assume the defence will be planning to pull the rabbit out of the hat at some stage as it stands he still sounds guilty as hell?
Presumably to get the retrial they would have to persuade the courts they have new evidence
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Offline
Posts: 11735
|
|
« Reply #28 on: Wednesday, October 5, 2016, 20:07:43 » |
|
That is indeed the reason, new evidence not previously available - it would need to be around the question of consent I would guess.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pax Romana
Offline
Posts: 697
|
|
« Reply #29 on: Wednesday, October 5, 2016, 20:24:38 » |
|
If we're willing to accept the verdict when found guilty, we should be willing to accept when he's not.
Agreed
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|