Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Athos]

... and potentially perpetuated a miscarriage of justice!

There is no strawman.

The second jury unanimously returned a different verdict to the first. Why, we don't know. It's possible that they thought the new evidence compelling, but also that they took the prosecutions advice, treated it as tainted, and acquitted on something else; like the lack of evidence of rape.

In that case the first conviction was unsound. That isn't altered by the way the second trial came about.

That position is based on wild (and highly unlikely) speculation about what went on in the jury room (that the content of the new evidence had no impact), and fails to address the substantive arguments about the process which allowed a retrial.

That you are so keen to reach for that interpretation must go to your motivation.

And here we are again. Let's not keep going round and round

 

[Pickman's model]

Let's not keep going round and round

 

[Spymaster]

That position is based on wild (and highly unlikely) speculation about what went on in the jury room (that the content of the new evidence had no impact), and fails to address the substantive arguments about the process which allowed a retrial.

No. It's one of your own arguments in reverse.

That you are so keen to reach for that interpretation must go to your motivation.

And here we are again. Let's not keep going round and round

You keep on trying to sling this mud so let me make it clear for you:

For multiple reasons already stated, I do not believe the first trial should have been brought. For multiple reasons already stated, I do not believe that I could declare Evans guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am not a rape apologist.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

 

[Athos]

It does feel like that since his position seems to be that the original decision should have been quashed because of the significance of the new evidence, but that the new evidence is unlikely to have been significant to the verdict in the retrial. That's some cognitive dissonance!

 

[Pickman's model]

It does feel like that since his position seems to be that the original decision should have been quashed because of the significance of the new evidence, but that the new evidence is unlikely to have been significant to the verdict in the retrial. That's some cognitive dissonance!

sometime's pa's like that

 

[Joe Reilly]

No it doesn't. They decided to prosecute based upon the extant evidence. The acquittal was predicated on material that was created later. The decision to prosecute in the first trial was sound.

In that case the decision to acquit his partner was 'also sound'. Which surely posed a considerable question against the soundness. Not only that, but yesterday you re-stated your belief that both should have been found guilty.

 

[Spymaster]

It does feel like that since his position seems to be that the original decision should have been quashed because of the significance of the new evidence, but that the new evidence is unlikely to have been significant to the verdict in the retrial. That's some cognitive dissonance!

You're very good at doing this. You take one section of a disagreement (in this case conceded) and focus on it as if it's all that mattered! It's clever, but a bit dishonest.

There are half a dozen or more strands to the positions set against you by myself and others. You've merely managed to overturn two, but are declaring game set and match!

 

[Athos]

For multiple reasons already stated, I do not believe the first trial should have been brought.

And I've explained why you're wrong; why the original CPS decision was right.

For multiple reasons already stated, I do not believe that I could declare Evans guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

I know you wouldn't. Even though you've not heard the evidence, admitted misinterpreting some of it, and seem to attach weight to other material.

I am not a rape apologist.

I believe that you believe that.

 

[Athos]

You're very good at doing this. You take one section of a disagreement (in this case conceded) and focus on it as if it's all that mattered! It's clever, but a bit dishonest.

There are half a dozen or more strands to the positions set against you by myself and others. You've merely managed to overturn two, but are declaring game set and match!

You conceded the two principal strands yesterday. But want to cling to the conclusion you based upon them.

 

[Spymaster]

You are very, very, wrong. Both about me, and about this case.

 

[Spymaster]

You conceded the two principal strands yesterday. But want to cling to the conclusion you based upon them.

Wow, that's a straightforward lie!

Thought better of you than that.

 

[Joe Reilly]

50k

And the acquittal in the first trial?

 

[Sweet FA]

Well done lads, great thread to be waving your cocks around on. Pages and pages of it. Have a fucking look at yourselves.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

And the acquittal in the first trial?

Evans was convicted in the first trial.

 

[Athos]

Wow, that's a straightforward lie!

Thought better of you than that.

Err... no. You conceded you'd misunderstood the timing and content of the game-changing new evidence.

 

[Spymaster]

... and have based no argument on it since.

You were telling porkies about that.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Evans was convicted in the first trial.

His partner in crime was acquitted. Inconvenient isn't it? Which is why I keep having to bring it up.

 

[Treacle Toes]

His partner in crime was acquitted. Inconvenient isn't it? Which is why I keep having to bring it up.

Why do you think M was acquitted and CE convicted in the first trial?

 

[Pickman's model]

View attachment 94047

yes, this was mentioned 10 or 20 pages ago.

 

[Pickman's model]

View attachment 94047

see my post 2968

 

[Pickman's model]

Well done lads, great thread to be waving your cocks around on. Pages and pages of it. Have a fucking look at yourselves.

not quite the language i'd have used on a thread about rape, but it is urban after all.

 

[Athos]

In that case the decision to acquit his partner was 'also sound'. Which surely posed a considerable question against the soundness. Not only that, but yesterday you re-stated your belief that both should have been found guilty.

I didn't say the decision to acquit the co-accused was unsound, or that the jury should have found him guilty, though.

I said that I would have returned a guilty verdict had I been on the jury.

 

[Pickman's model]

His partner in crime was acquitted. Inconvenient isn't it? Which is why I keep having to bring it up.

both should have been guilty then i suppose

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

yes, this was mentioned 10 or 20 pages ago.

see my post 2968

I know. It was a timely reminder for your da.

 

[Athos]

... and have based no argument on it since.

You were telling porkies about that.

I don't know whether you're mistaken (again), or lying because you keep being shown to be wrong.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Why do you think M was acquitted and CE convicted in the first trial?

Why did the CPS think it proper for both of them to be charged with rape to begin with?

 

[Athos]

Why did the CPS think it proper for both of them to be charged with rape to begin with?

They applied the threshold test for charging, one limb of which requires them to believe there's a reasonable prospect of conviction. That he was acquitted died not mean that there had not been that reasonable prospect.

 

[Joe Reilly]

both should have been guilty then i suppose

Either that or acquitted together.

 

[Spymaster]

I don't know whether you're mistaken (again), or lying because you keep being shown to be wrong.

You're an awful cheat. I'm beginning to lose respect for you.

The only pertinent strands of our discussion that I abandoned yesterday were on the timing of the new evidence, and my previous belief that it established a pattern of behaviour. Neither of which I have relied on today.

The second part of this is demonstrably false:

You conceded the two principal strands yesterday. But want to cling to the conclusion you based upon them.

I prepared to accept that it was a genuine mistake, in which case I will accept a retraction.

On the broader issue, you seem to be floundering all over the place and resorting to ever more desperate tactics.