Thetownend.com

Rape conviction quashed, faces a retrial after new evidence came to light.

Good luck finding a jury without pre-conceived judgements for the retrial...!

Sign him up.

Joking aside - So, if he's found innocent at his retrial, which one can assume is likely, how would people react if he rocked up here? In theory he would have been wrongly convicted and should be sympathised with. In practice, he's reportedly lamentable and would bring unwanted stress?

Well, he'd be a bit of a cunt, but legally innocent so therefore accepted.

But..given we've just suspended three players for being twats I'm not sure he'd be entertained anyway.

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.

I wonder if opinions were to change if he scored 20+ goals and gained us promotion...

Tough one - one of our current squad was charged - albeit with a lesser charge - following an incident that appears to have some parallels, but was found not guilty and it barely warrants a mention in this parish. or any where else for that matter.

I'm not sure being a lamentable knob five years ago is a good enough reason to employ someone who is capable at their job, hypothetically speaking.

For me, if he is found innocent in the retrial, I would have zero issues with him playing for us if it stacks up on a financial and footballing level.

Yet evidence has been presented that we haven't seen that puts the original conviction in doubt, as noted earlier the chances of getting a fair trial (to either side) seems very remote....

I'm not disagreeing that he's a cunt but I don't think the story is quite that simple...

If we're willing to accept the verdict when found guilty, we should be willing to accept when he's not.

If they have decided that the original trial was unsafe, doe this mean that Donaldson will also be retried?

 :nod:

I'm saying he's a cunt for all the bits he admitted to as well as lying to get a key for the hotel room,for cheating on his girlfriend and then sitting back while his girlfriends father sets about discrediting the girl involved and trying to get dirt on her.I made no reference to the rape conviction. The question was whether we'd have him playing for us. Also, his mate was Clayton Mcdonald, not Donaldson

Professional footballer in being a cunt shocker......

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?

By that statement alone, yes.

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.

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.

New evidence....

Wonder what that is?

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.

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.

Signed for Chesterfield on a 1 year deal.

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!

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

That is indeed the reason, new evidence not previously available - it would need to be around the question of consent I would guess.

Agreed

Also agreed. 

It is not a crime to have a sense of morality that others (me for one) find repugnant.

Been found not guilty.

Guilty or not guilty, you certainly wouldn't want him near anyone you cared about after reading a few of the facts of the case, as they can now be disclosed.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial

no, vile person, but not a rapist

Going by today's ruling, he is an innocent man that has spent 5(?) years in prison for a crime that he didn't commit. You wont catch any of the press reporting from that angle though, papers sell better when there's somebody to hate.

He's "not guilty."

He is far from innocent.

We don't actually know if she gave consent or not, granted. Yes, he is technically 'not guilty' as opposed to 'innocent', but that wont stop people branding him as 'guilty'. It works both ways, or at least it should.

I read about the case as it was going on years ago and found it all very sleazy, to say the least. Certainly not the kind of characters that I'd want around my daughter. She could still have given consent though, he could very well be innocent.

I don't think she even knows if she gave consent or not...

I don't think that's in doubt. She didn't even know she'd had sex was her testimony (the footballers admitted it under caution when questioned by Police).

I wonder if the two new witnesses that claimed she'd not remembered consensual sex with them previously will claim the £50k reward now that was offered for information leading to Evan's acquittal.

Some people say he would never have been prosecuted if he hadn't been rich and "famous" but equally I doubt there would also have been a retrial without those things either.

If she didn't know she was giving it, then it's not consent is it? Unless you're a sex offender.

Apparently she was totally out of it. Did she know where she was.

These two obviously took advantage of that. Think it's disgusting.

If she was 'totally out of it' to the point where she doesn't know what's happening then it's rape, plain and simple. But how do we know that's the case?

No-one knows.

For me something doesn't add up, but for the jury to conclude in 30 mins there must have been some good evidence.

Sufficient evidence for them to conclude the offence hadn't been committed beyond all reasonable doubt, yes. The only new evidence was the two former sexual partners who said she blacked out before despite the sex being consensual at the time

The original conviction rested entirely on the question of consent and it was deemed at that time that she was not in a position to provide consent - as such, it was deemed he had Raped her.
The new evidence, which we don't have full transcripts on, would have needed to bring into doubt that assertion - so, the previous "encounters" were used by the defence team to show that there was a pattern of behavior that suggest she could have been in a position to provide consent before reaching the point of losing complete control of her faculties.

This will probably be one of those oddities in law - he probably did commit the offence, but with the element of doubt on the wording of the law, they decided no option but to acquit.  As it happens, having read some of the previous trial transcripts, I think he really did believe he was innocent of the offence as well - it does bring into light the blurred edge of the law here.  I bet plenty of people have technically committed such an offence after a night out without it ever having been reported.  Probably should be much better education to kids on this grey area - make sure people know the law, it's not just getting someone to agree, it's about them having the capacity to do so knowingly.  Horrific stories about the girl still getting abuse as well.

For a balanced legal view, this is well worth a read.

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

Most people don't want a balanced view. Most people are opinionated cunts.

It seems so obvious to me that the two new "witnesses" were fed information and paid.

It stinks.

The outcome certainly seems to have turned on the basis of new evidence regarding the previous sexual activity of the complainant.  No mention, though, as far as I can see, as to whether the night in question was the only time that Evans and his pals acted in the way they did.  :hmmm: