Ched Evans - serious injury

[cibaman]

Any sympathy I may have had has disappeared since I've read the utterly disgusting lack of any remorse displayed by this twat in his self serving self pitying whines.
Furthermore I was always under the impression that you could only get parole from a sentence if you accepted the guilt of your crime. Thus twat still claims he did nothing wrong. How has he got out?

I think you may be getting confused with life sentence prisoners been released on license. They will have had to convince a succession of personal lifer officers and the probation service that they are fully remorseful before they are even considered for release. It's why I questioned in the Harry Roberts thread, where people have got the impression that he's never shown any remorse from.

Fixed term sentences are different. They are always changing the criteria, so I'm not certain of the exact state of play at the moment, regarding which sentences qualify for automatic release at the half way point. But I'm assuming Evans sentence fell into this category.

And he served an extra 10 months by pleading not guilty

 

[blueincy]

Reading this he could be..

http://chedevans.com/frequently-asked-questions

 

[tidyman]

Reading this he could be..

http://chedevans.com/frequently-asked-questions

I can't think of any reason why that website would not give a fair and balanced account of proceedings.

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

Reading this he could be..

http://chedevans.com/frequently-asked-questions

I can't think of any reason why that website would not give a fair and balanced account of proceedings.

Good point I suppose they would have more chance of winning his appeal by posting utter shite on there rather than the facts.

 

[mcmanus]

Was this girl actually fit?

 

[tidyman]

Reading this he could be..

http://chedevans.com/frequently-asked-questions

I can't think of any reason why that website would not give a fair and balanced account of proceedings.

Good point I suppose they would have more chance of winning his appeal by posting utter shite on there rather than the facts.

If everything on that website was a fact, the case wouldn't have got to court, never mind a jury of 12 people all deciding they think he's a rapist.

 

[scotty123]

Being allowed to train again with Sheff Utd starting Tomorrow the 12th

 

[Tom_mcfc]

Reading this he could be..

http://chedevans.com/frequently-asked-questions

I can't think of any reason why that website would not give a fair and balanced account of proceedings.

Good point I suppose they would have more chance of winning his appeal by posting utter shite on there rather than the facts.

How do you know the facts?

 

[DelToro]

I can't think of any reason why that website would not give a fair and balanced account of proceedings.

Good point I suppose they would have more chance of winning his appeal by posting utter shite on there rather than the facts.

How do you know the facts?

Nobody other than the jury know most of the facts.

 

[Tom_mcfc]

Exactly yet people post on here claiming they know the facts etc. My opinion is he wasn’t guilty in all honesty. If she claimed they both raped her then it is mind boggling how one gets away with it and one doesn’t. For me it was another girl like hundreds others who sleep with footballers and cry rape. It’s not like she said only Ched raped, she claimed they both did. Madness and would be interesting to hear for what reason they would consider that outcome.

Who knows what went on but whilst only Ched and the girl knows I find it harsh that with the possibility that he didn’t rape her that people would say he shouldn’t play again. Why would he still contest it now after serving his time? Even if he done it surely you would think I’m out now move on forget it. If murderers like Lee Hughes can play again, tossers like Michael Johnson who continually got pissed up and drove about endangering people’s lives then why not Ched?

 

[MCFC-alan88]

Whether he's guilty or not is irrelevant in this debate. Whether it's a professional footballer, scientist or any other job. It is incomprehensible to remove someones right to work in their respective field for something done outside of that scope. You don't have to agree with the decision to employ him, you don't even have to like it, but if someone is willing to employ him, that is their risk to take.

 

[M18CTID]

Exactly yet people post on here claiming they know the facts etc. My opinion is he wasn’t guilty in all honesty. If she claimed they both raped her then it is mind boggling how one gets away with it and one doesn’t. For me it was another girl like hundreds others who sleep with footballers and cry rape. It’s not like she said only Ched raped, she claimed they both did. Madness and would be interesting to hear for what reason they would consider that outcome.

Who knows what went on but whilst only Ched and the girl knows I find it harsh that with the possibility that he didn’t rape her that people would say he shouldn’t play again. Why would he still contest it now after serving his time? Even if he done it surely you would think I’m out now move on forget it. If murderers like Lee Hughes can play again, tossers like Michael Johnson who continually got pissed up and drove about endangering people’s lives then why not Ched?

As much as I've expressed doubts about the safety of the conviction, to my knowledge she didn't accuse either of them of raping her. As far as I know it was the police that escalated this to a rape charge after Evans and McDonald admitted having sex with her.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Exactly yet people post on here claiming they know the facts etc. My opinion is he wasn’t guilty in all honesty. If she claimed they both raped her then it is mind boggling how one gets away with it and one doesn’t. For me it was another girl like hundreds others who sleep with footballers and cry rape. It’s not like she said only Ched raped, she claimed they both did. Madness and would be interesting to hear for what reason they would consider that outcome.

I might be mistaken, but I don't think she accused anyone of rape, let alone both of them. She has no recollection of that night, it was the police who pieced it together through cctv, hotel records and interviews with evans and his mate.

 

[Matty]

Exactly yet people post on here claiming they know the facts etc. My opinion is he wasn’t guilty in all honesty. If she claimed they both raped her then it is mind boggling how one gets away with it and one doesn’t. For me it was another girl like hundreds others who sleep with footballers and cry rape. It’s not like she said only Ched raped, she claimed they both did. Madness and would be interesting to hear for what reason they would consider that outcome.

I might be mistaken, but I don't think she accused anyone of rape, let alone both of them. She has no recollection of that night, it was the police who pieced it together through cctv, hotel records and interviews with evans and his mate.

So why did she contact the police?

There must have been a reason for her to feel the need to contact the police. If she had no recollection of the nights events, because she was drunk, then what crime did she actually report?

 

[Dubai Blue]

Exactly yet people post on here claiming they know the facts etc. My opinion is he wasn’t guilty in all honesty. If she claimed they both raped her then it is mind boggling how one gets away with it and one doesn’t. For me it was another girl like hundreds others who sleep with footballers and cry rape. It’s not like she said only Ched raped, she claimed they both did. Madness and would be interesting to hear for what reason they would consider that outcome.

I might be mistaken, but I don't think she accused anyone of rape, let alone both of them. She has no recollection of that night, it was the police who pieced it together through cctv, hotel records and interviews with evans and his mate.

So why did she contact the police?

There must have been a reason for her to feel the need to contact the police. If she had no recollection of the nights events, because she was drunk, then what crime did she actually report?

She reported that she had woken up in a hotel she had no recollection of going to. That's my understanding anyway. I think she suspected she'd been drugged/spiked

 

[Tom_mcfc]

I might be mistaken, but I don't think she accused anyone of rape, let alone both of them. She has no recollection of that night, it was the police who pieced it together through cctv, hotel records and interviews with evans and his mate.

So why did she contact the police?

There must have been a reason for her to feel the need to contact the police. If she had no recollection of the nights events, because she was drunk, then what crime did she actually report?

She reported that she had woken up in a hotel she had no recollection of going to. That's my understanding anyway. I think she suspected she'd been drugged/spiked

I read that she claimed she had been spiked and reported it then asked them both did they have sex with her and they said yes. Again for me why would they admit it with no forensic evidence if they say no that’s the case over surely? Just a weird one for me and weirder how one can get off and not the other. All my opinon of course and if the poor girl really didn’t have a clue and was raped then I feel for her but as someone else has posted regardless of the profession you can’t be denied the right to earn a living?

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Being allowed to train again with Sheff Utd starting Tomorrow the 12th

Although he's an horrible **** & lower than a crocodiles belly he should still be able to go back to his line of work, he's done his time...

 

[Dubai Blue]

So why did she contact the police?

There must have been a reason for her to feel the need to contact the police. If she had no recollection of the nights events, because she was drunk, then what crime did she actually report?

She reported that she had woken up in a hotel she had no recollection of going to. That's my understanding anyway. I think she suspected she'd been drugged/spiked

I read that she claimed she had been spiked and reported it then asked them both did they have sex with her and they said yes. Again for me why would they admit it with no forensic evidence if they say no that’s the case over surely? Just a weird one for me and weirder how one can get off and not the other. All my opinon of course and if the poor girl really didn’t have a clue and was raped then I feel for her but as someone else has posted regardless of the profession you can’t be denied the right to earn a living?

I certainly agree he should be able to play football again.

 

[Matty]

I might be mistaken, but I don't think she accused anyone of rape, let alone both of them. She has no recollection of that night, it was the police who pieced it together through cctv, hotel records and interviews with evans and his mate.

So why did she contact the police?

There must have been a reason for her to feel the need to contact the police. If she had no recollection of the nights events, because she was drunk, then what crime did she actually report?

She reported that she had woken up in a hotel she had no recollection of going to. That's my understanding anyway. I think she suspected she'd been drugged/spiked

The whole case just never sat right with me. Are we supposed to believe that this was the first time she'd ever got so drunk she'd had memory lapses? Did she think she'd been drugged every time?

Ultimately it was all down to her word against his, and her word was "I have no clue what I said/did, I don't remember". Yes there was CCTV footage, and there was a mobile phone used, in the dark, from outside a window, but how much could these possibly prove/disprove? They'll show a very, very small snippet of the night's events. If you've got 2 men saying she was open to having sex, and 1 woman saying she hasn't any recollection of what she was/wasn't open to doing, then how can you possibly come to the conclusion that she was raped? Are the men supposed to know she's too drunk to give consent? How drunk is too drunk? The consent to have sex isn't always verbalised specifically in these situations. In the past I've (not often) met a girl on a night out, had a fair amount to drink, ended up going back to a flat/house, and slept together. As the night progresses it just becomes assumed that it will end up with you having sex, you don't ask " do you want to have sex" and expect a "yes" response, you go to the flat/house/hotel and it just happens naturally. If she's completely passed out and clearly not able to participate then obviously that's a different matter entirely, but if she's responsive and joining in then I'm not convinced you need to be asking the question so specifically. If the 2 men involved in this case stated she was, indeed, responsive, and joining in, then why would they think she was being raped rather than having sex? Just because, in the morning, she can't remember it, doesn't change the nature of what was happening at the time.

From what I remember the reasons behind 1 man being convicted, and 1 being found not guilty, were based around the timeline of the evening. The innocent man had met the girl in a bar, had been with her for a while that night, and had taken her back to his hotel room. The jury decided that she had participated in events up to that point freely and, as such, her "consent" to sleep with him was, essentially, given. There were reasonable grounds for him to claim she was ok with having sex, despite there being no, explicit yes/no question asked or answered (again, based upon his statement that she wasn't unconcious and was joining in). The guilty man (Ched) wasn't with her at any pont prior to the hotel room, and came along later, went into the room, and had sex. So there could be no timeline, or implied consent via earlier actions. This doesn't mean he raped her, it just means it's not as obvious to those not involved what her wishes were with respect to Ched.

Ultimately the jury decided her level of enibriation was such that she couldn't have consented to Ched by the time he arrived and, as such, any sexual activity was not with her consent. For me that's a very dangerous assumption to make, especially when the consequences are to jail a man, and potentially ruin his career, and more so, his life. Alcohol affects different people in different ways, to make a judgement on one individual's mental faculties at a given point based on a level of alcohol that was in their body is presumptuous. Ched is appealing the decision despite now being free, so he clearly feels she consented/participated actively, even if she can't remember doing so. Obviously I wasn't on the jury, and won't have all the indepth information they had, but I have to say I'd have found it hard to convict based on the information that has been made public. Unless there's a great deal we don;t know that makes it clear she wasn't capable of consent I'd not have been able to come to a guilty verdict myself.

 

[Tom_mcfc]

So why did she contact the police?

There must have been a reason for her to feel the need to contact the police. If she had no recollection of the nights events, because she was drunk, then what crime did she actually report?

She reported that she had woken up in a hotel she had no recollection of going to. That's my understanding anyway. I think she suspected she'd been drugged/spiked

The whole case just never sat right with me. Are we supposed to believe that this was the first time she'd ever got so drunk she'd had memory lapses? Did she think she'd been drugged every time?

Ultimately it was all down to her word against his, and her word was "I have no clue what I said/did, I don't remember". Yes there was CCTV footage, and there was a mobile phone used, in the dark, from outside a window, but how much could these possibly prove/disprove? They'll show a very, very small snippet of the night's events. If you've got 2 men saying she was open to having sex, and 1 woman saying she hasn't any recollection of what she was/wasn't open to doing, then how can you possibly come to the conclusion that she was raped? Are the men supposed to know she's too drunk to give consent? How drunk is too drunk? The consent to have sex isn't always verbalised specifically in these situations. In the past I've (not often) met a girl on a night out, had a fair amount to drink, ended up going back to a flat/house, and slept together. As the night progresses it just becomes assumed that it will end up with you having sex, you don't ask " do you want to have sex" and expect a "yes" response, you go to the flat/house/hotel and it just happens naturally. If she's completely passed out and clearly not able to participate then obviously that's a different matter entirely, but if she's responsive and joining in then I'm not convinced you need to be asking the question so specifically. If the 2 men involved in this case stated she was, indeed, responsive, and joining in, then why would they think she was being raped rather than having sex? Just because, in the morning, she can't remember it, doesn't change the nature of what was happening at the time.

From what I remember the reasons behind 1 man being convicted, and 1 being found not guilty, were based around the timeline of the evening. The innocent man had met the girl in a bar, had been with her for a while that night, and had taken her back to his hotel room. The jury decided that she had participated in events up to that point freely and, as such, her "consent" to sleep with him was, essentially, given. There were reasonable grounds for him to claim she was ok with having sex, despite there being no, explicit yes/no question asked or answered (again, based upon his statement that she wasn't unconcious and was joining in). The guilty man (Ched) wasn't with her at any pont prior to the hotel room, and came along later, went into the room, and had sex. So there could be no timeline, or implied consent via earlier actions. This doesn't mean he raped her, it just means it's not as obvious to those not involved what her wishes were with respect to Ched.

Ultimately the jury decided her level of enibriation was such that she couldn't have consented to Ched by the time he arrived and, as such, any sexual activity was not with her consent. For me that's a very dangerous assumption to make, especially when the consequences are to jail a man, and potentially ruin his career, and more so, his life. Alcohol affects different people in different ways, to make a judgement on one individual's mental faculties at a given point based on a level of alcohol that was in their body is presumptuous. Ched is appealing the decision despite now being free, so he clearly feels she consented/participated actively, even if she can't remember doing so. Obviously I wasn't on the jury, and won't have all the indepth information they had, but I have to say I'd have found it hard to convict based on the information that has been made public. Unless there's a great deal we don;t know that makes it clear she wasn't capable of consent I'd not have been able to come to a guilty verdict myself.

So basically you are saying what I did, just an awful lot better!