Lancet Fluke
Well-Known Member
Strange isn't it. On the huge thread on this in Off Topic a year or two ago when people pointed out that they thought the evidence against Evans seemed flimsy and that the conviction may be unsafe the general argument against that seemed to be along the lines of "well a jury found him guilty having heard all the evidence, he's a convicted rapist and that's good enough for me". Now that has been quashed and a jury has heard all the evidence and he is no longer a convicted rapist, apparently a different set of rules apply.It seems that, even in light of a jury unanimously acquitting him in next to no time at all, some people want Evans to be guilty which I find utterly bizarre. Surely it's best to hope that he definitely is innocent and therefore no rape took place?