Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Orang Utan]

Don't be silly. Read his position again.

i've been reading the thread. i'm not sure why you're continuing to argue unless you're playing games and this is not the thread for such shenanigans.

 

[Poot]

Unless she was underage; it was her room and they had no reason to be in it, or there was evidence she had not entered the room willingly, the investigation should have stopped there.

Still waiting for an explanation for this, but every time I look at this thread it makes me want to hit my head against a door, so I'm not sure I have the will to ask again.

 

[Spymaster]

i've been reading the thread. i'm not sure why you're continuing to argue unless you're playing games and this is not the thread for such shenanigans.

The arguing is finished. His point is nonsense and he's now just throwing insults and harping on about the same thing. I'm just defending myself against his lies and smears.

 

[Joe Reilly]

3620 hardly touches on the second trial so 'see my post 3620' in no way answers the question "do you think the 2 trials were conducted in the same way?"

As you know full well, the reason the appeal was allowed was the 'new evidence', the woman's sexual history. The introduction of that material, in court - procured with offers of £50000 - was the difference between the 2 trials. Do you agree that was the case?

The reason the new trial was allowed was to explore the possibility a miscarriage of justice had taken place to begin with.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Still waiting for an explanation for this, but every time I look at this thread it makes me want to hit my head against a door, so I'm not sure I have the will to ask again.

That comment pertains to a situation where an allegation of sexual misconduct or rape is entirely absent. Hope that clears it up.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

But I've come to realise that you're so firmly wedded to your rape apologist mindset that there's little point in further discussion.

Out of order.

 

[Orang Utan]

That comment pertains to a situation where an allegation of sexual misconduct or rape is entirely absent. Hope that clears it up.

So it can't be rape if no allegation is made?
How could you allege something if you have no memory if it? It was the police who noticed what was untoward, so they pursued it.

 

[Pickman's model]

i was thinking of a forced ignore

if you pm editor i am sure he will treat any application for elevation to mod status with the attention it deserves.

 

[Joe Reilly]

So it can't be rape if no allegation is made?
How could you allege something if you have no memory if it? It was the police who noticed what was untoward, so they pursued it.

There might be but impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt. As the case showed.

 

[Pickman's model]

So it can't be rape if no allegation is made?
How could you allege something if you have no memory if it? It was the police who noticed what was untoward, so they pursued it.

easily enough in the right situation

next

 

[Joe Reilly]

That post doesn't answer my question at all it merely rambles on in the direction you prefer to take the discussion. Dodge away.

The 'ramble' as you so kindly describe it goes to the heart of the matter. If you knew anything about the law and weren't so partisan you would be able to grasp this.

 

[Wilf]

The reason the new trial was allowed was to explore the possibility a miscarriage of justice had taken place to begin with.

Okay, given that you are not willing to admit why the appeal was allowed and the case taken to a retrial, here it is:

Following an in depth, ten-month long investigation, the Commission has decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. The referral is made on the basis of new information which was not raised at trial, and which in the view of the Commission, could have added support to Mr Evans’s defence at trial and therefore raises a real possibility (see note one) that the Court of Appeal may now quash the conviction. It will now be for the Court to hear a fresh appeal to decide the case.

The reasons for the referral are set out in detail in a 49-page document prepared by the Commission and called a Statement of Reasons. That Statement of Reasons has today been sent by email to the Mr Evans’ legal team. It has also gone the Court of Appeal and to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Commission is not at liberty to make the Statement of Reasons public (see note 2).

Richard Foster, Chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, said:

“The decision of the Commission is not a judgment on guilt or innocence in relation to Ched Evans, nor is it a judgment about the honesty or integrity of the victim or any other person involved in the case.

“Our role is to consider applications to see if, in our judgment, there is any basis on which to ask the court to hear a fresh appeal – that is our statutory responsibility.

“In this case we have identified new material which was not considered by the jury at trial and which in our view might have assisted the defence. In those circumstances, it is right and proper for the matter to be before the Court so that they can decide whether or not the new information should affect the verdict in this case.”

Do you know what that new information was?

 

[Joe Reilly]

Okay, given that you are not willing to admit why the appeal was allowed and the case taken to a retrial, here it is:

Do you know what that new information was?

I think I do. But I'm also sure your determined to tell me.

 

[Thimble Queen]

I think I do. But I'm also sure your determined to tell me.

Please tell us

 

[Wilf]

I think I do. But I'm also sure your determined to tell me.

Okay, we both know full well, but here goes: the new evidence was the woman's sexual history. Do you agree?

 

[Joe Reilly]

Okay, we both know full well, but here goes: the new evidence was the woman's sexual history. Do you agree?

Yup

 

[Spymaster]

Okay, we both know full well, but here goes: the new evidence was the woman's sexual history. Do you agree?

If the allowance of that evidence leads to the eventual overturning of a wrongful conviction, do you agree that it would have been justified?

 

[Wilf]

In case there's any dispute:
Chedwyn Evans v R

Statement in court by Lady Justice Hallett.

On 20 April 2012, a jury at the Carnarvon Crown Court convicted the appellant of an offence of rape. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment and he has since been released on licence.

He appealed to this court against conviction on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (the “CCRC”) under s.9 Criminal Appeal Act 1995 on the basis that relevant and admissible evidence has come to light, that was not available at trial, and that undermines the safety of his conviction.

Okay, so you agree that it was the introduction of the woman's sexual history that lead to the retrial. Are you okay with that? Was the woman's sexual history the thing that persuaded you the prosecution was a 'crock of shit'?

 

[Treacle Toes]

The 'ramble' as you so kindly describe it goes to the heart of the matter. If you knew anything about the law and weren't so partisan you would be able to grasp this.

Bullshit. You are refusing to answer the question because you don't like it. You don't like it because it encourages you to be clear/honest about the distinctions made in the first trial and why M and CE received different judgements. If you weren't so partisan yourself you wouldn't have a problem answering.

 

[Spymaster]

Was the woman's sexual history the thing that persuaded you the prosecution was a 'crock of shit'?

Joe has argued that he doesn't believe the case should have been brought in the first place. So what do you think?

 

[Orang Utan]

Joe has argued that he doesn't believe the case should have been brought in the first place. So what do you think?

he thinks that because he believes that a woman willing entering a hotel room means that she can't have been raped. Classic rape apologist material

 

[Treacle Toes]

Joe has argued that he doesn't believe the case should have been brought in the first place. So what do you think?

Who cares what Joe has argued. He is rubbish at answering questions and is trying to control the discussion by prattling on and boring us all to tears.

Wilf asked you a direct question, why not answer it?

 

[bimble]

Some people here, had they been on the jury, would have found both the accused guilty at the first trial.
Some would have acquitted them both because they wouldn't have felt sure beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's not all about logic this, or about the evidence, the new bits or the original, that much is clear. That's why there seems little point in continuing to thrash it out like this, as if it were.

 

[Spymaster]

Wilf asked you a direct question, why not answer it?

Me?

Where?

 

[Pickman's model]

Some people here, had they been on the jury, would have found both the accused guilty at the first trial.
Some would have acquitted them both because they wouldn't have felt sure beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's not all about logic this, or about the evidence, the new bits or the original, that much is clear. That's why there seems little point in continuing to thrash it out like this, as if it were.

you forget, this is urban. we thrash things like this out. it's certainly not about logic.

 

[Spymaster]

he thinks that because he believes that a woman willing entering a hotel room means that she can't have been raped.

Where did he say that? Quote it.

 

[Wilf]

If the allowance of that evidence leads to the eventual overturning of a wrongful conviction, do you agree that it would have been justified?

Well, I've been asking for straight answers, so it's only fair I try and answer that:

I obviously don't accept that the original trial had a wrongful conviction, but still, I'll try and answer. At a philosophical level, poor means may justify good ends, at least for the person who benefits from them. However that can't be used to justify poor means more generally. More specifically, I thought we'd moved way beyond having to have debates about women's sexual histories when it comes to rape trials. I'll admit - because I'm trying to be honest - in some kind of thought experiment there could be some kind of extreme situation where a persons sexual history was in some way relevant. However that would have to be something genuinely extreme. The 'new evidence' in this case appeared to be nothing of the sort - and becomes even more problematic after the dangling of the £50,000.

 

[Wilf]

Joe has argued that he doesn't believe the case should have been brought in the first place. So what do you think?

From what I've seen of the case, I think it should have been brought.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Me?

Where?

Was the woman's sexual history the thing that persuaded you the prosecution was a 'crock of shit'?

To which you responded:

Joe has argued that he doesn't believe the case should have been brought in the first place. So what do you think?

 

[equationgirl]

The reason the new trial was allowed was to explore the possibility a miscarriage of justice had taken place to begin with.

Really? I thought the whole point of the new trial was to look at the charge again in light of all the evidence including the new evidence.