[Closed] Ched Evans - Not Guilty

Heard the coverage on R4 and Ch4 news. Allowing prior sexual history is very rare but was permitted here to it's directly relevant nature

Same with (Fred and) Rosemary West - she had (before the most of the murders) had a young lesbian lover who she liked to strangle with blue rope whilst covering her head in a bag - which was very similar to 2 (3?) of the buried bodies found.

The young lover stopped the relationship because she thought it was going too far and that there were a few times where she was lucky to survive.

A pretty pyrrhic 'victory' in many ways. His mate texting him to say he'd "got hold of a bird". He just assumes that being a footballer means she'll be keen to let him have a bash as well. Then they both **** off and leave her to wake up naked and alone in hotel room. Not exactly Nelson Mandela being released from Victor Verster prison, is it?

I also think the CPS and police should take a long hard look at themselves

What for exactly?

Not listening to the retrospective opinions of internet big shots, obviously.

I hope Jess Ennis feels proud .

Indeed....

The first verdict was a disgrace. If you looked at all the facts in the first trial if McDonald was found not guilty then there was no way that Evans should have been found guilty.

I don't know anything about Evans' character but even though his behaviour was truly reprehensible - it wasn't rape.

Allison Pearson wrote a very well informed article in [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11226209/Ched-Evans-Sorry-but-all-rapes-are-not-the-same.html ]The Telegraph[/url] in 2014 which highlighted the failings in the Evans case. She received bucketloads of hate-mail as a result. A lot of do-gooders jumped on the bandwagon without knowing anything about the case.

Not listening to the retrospective opinions of internet big shots, obviously.

Ah yes, silly me!

He's been found not guilty, get off your high horses. That's NOT GUILTY as decided by a jury - you were happy to accept the charge/conviction when it went the other way

Most people on here seem to live in some idealistic kind of self righteous utopia.

Since when did a drunken 3-some make you an evil scumbag? It happens quite a lot outside your fluffy little worlds, believe it or not! Yes he cheated on his Mrs - that's for them to deal with between themselves.

Personally, I don't really give a shit what goes off in a footballers life, or the life of some bird with a questionable sexual history. I'm more pissed off with the fact that our star striker has been driven away from our club by our retired Olympian golden girl. Chesterfield had the balls to sign an 'innocent' man and he's now banging them in for fun - oh, the ironing 😡 😉

I'm more pissed off with the fact that our star striker has been driven away from our club

Phew. I was afraid you were going to come up with something trivial there.

Ramsey Neil - Member
I hope Jess Ennis feels proud .

IIRC her standpoint was that the club should not sign an (at the time) convicted rapist, seems like a pretty fair p.o.v, so yes she should feel proud

David Walsh wrote a superb article on this case a while ago and subsequently - rightly or wrongly - I believed Evans to be innocent of rape. It remains a fascinating case, though, and certainly one of many nuances worthy of discussion. Being innocent doesn't automatically make you a decent chap.

I was going to link the Court of Appeal judgement that allowed the retrial but this is shorter and more accessible:-
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/
I understand where we got to with the judgement and the jury's verdict but this is not an easy case that leads to clear answers

Most people on here seem to live in some idealistic kind of self righteous utopia.

Since when did a drunken 3-some make you an evil scumbag?

“We could have had any girl we wanted. When we go out it’s not uncommon to pick up girls. We’re footballers. Footballers are rich and they have money. That is what girls like.”

The first verdict was a disgrace. If you looked at all the facts in the first trial if McDonald was found not guilty then there was no way that Evans should have been found guilty.

The reason why McDonald was found not guilty seemed to be quite clear: because the woman had willingly accompanied McDonald to the hotel, the jury considered that she had given consent and/or that McDonald had reasonably believed that consent had been given. The circumstances involving Evans were quite different. With regard to looking at all the facts, that's what the jury did.

Allison Pearson wrote a very well informed article in The Telegraph in 2014 which highlighted the failings in the Evans case.

Is that genuinely your idea of a very well informed article? It seems Alison Pearson also struggles with the idea that 12 jurors who listen to all the evidence presented in court are best placed to come to a verdict, so instead she seeks her verdict from an alternative source:

My informal jury at the beauty salon concluded that, if you go to a hotel room with a footballer, “you’re not going to end up playing Scrabble, are you?” Unlike the law of the land, the twentysomething therapists believe that young women like them have to take responsibility for their own behaviour and not rely on the bloke “to know whether you want it or not”.

My informal jury at the beauty salon concluded that, if you go to a hotel room with a footballer, “you’re not going to end up playing Scrabble, are you?”

rubbish

[img] https://flic.kr/p/N2F7Y9 ][img] https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5618/30211360632_dc130808b4_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://flic.kr/p/N2F7Y9 ][img] https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5618/30211360632_dc130808b4_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/N2F7Y9 ]2942062400000578-3106230-image-a-4_1433181308932[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/134487805@N07/ ]mike.mcdermid[/url], on Flickr[/img]

shes a proper dog though

Not guilty of rape. Wow, that's a ringing endorsement, then. The next time I see a CV should I expect to see "non-rapist" in the personal statement as some kind of guarantee of good character?

Brilliant, so is that the model, then?

"Don't worry, mate. So long as she's so pissed you can't really tell whether the murmur is a 'yes' or a 'no', then you can do what you like". This strange looking glass world, eh?

I'll pass on the whole "being exonerated of a serious crime by a hair's breadth means you are a saint" line of reasoning.

Not dissimilar to Wayne Rooney next in line as official national treasure after good old Babs Windsor. Anyone remember 'Auld Slapper'?

Still, lads will be lads, won't they?

Until they get caught out, then they'll need to pay a clever lawyer an awful lot of cash to wheedle them off. That's egalitarian. A real working class tale to warm the cockles.

Falsely accused of rape, then cleared sounds a bit different to your opening gambit though dannyh?

The rest of your made up opinionated post is your made up opinion.

I wish we had a like button on this forum.
What i really would like is a clear explanation as to how the fresh evidence that lead to his aquital came about and developed over time , it appears from a scan reading of the CRT of appeal report that crucial chunks were not in the first draft of witness ev and only developed after the families investigators re interviewed . The court of appeal accepted the good faith of this process but their question was limited to is their fresh evidence that may cast doubt on the conviction (gloss for internet debate ) the jury heard it and believed it may be credible. It is one of those cases where at the end of the day you can never be sure which under our system means not guilty, not proven innocent.

Falsely accused of rape, then cleared sounds a bit different to your opening gambit though dannyh?

The rest of your made up opinionated post is your made up opinion.

Ah, the people's game. Wonderful, isn't it?

I have an opinion. Whoa, shit, really? I really must stop stuff like that.

Did Rooney cheat on his missus and shag an elderly prostitute or not? Pretty sure that's not my opinion. And yet he's still held up as someone who is a role model. Errrr, if it's all the same, you can take your role model and, well, you know the rest.

Luckily, you're just trolling, though. So I don't have to take anything you type seriously.

[quote=TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR ]Falsely accused of rape, then cleared sounds a bit different to your opening gambit though dannyh?
The rest of your made up opinionated post is your made up opinion.

Accused of rape then found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt sounds a bit different to your first line

Trolling.......but not very well.

[img] [/img]

I hope Jess Ennis feels proud .

She damn well should feel proud. It would have been much easier for her to have said nothing, and she had little to gain (and probably more to lose) by taking a stand (no pun intended) on the issue.

The club presumably wanted to benefit from the association with Ennis' success and wholesome image when it named the stand after her, and I imagine that it was part of marketing a positive image for the club.

'Unfortunately' for the club Ennis' wholesome image wasn't just an image - she genuinely is wholesome and quite reasonably and justifiably she decided to make it clear that she did not want her name associated with a club that employed Evans. Given Evans' admitted behaviour, I would not be surprised if Ennis did not change her view.

Whether the club did or did not decide to employ Evans was the club's choice, and the situation they found themselves in was a problem entirely of their own making. To blame Ennis for that decision is pathetic.

Ah, the people's game. Wonderful, isn't it?

I have an opinion. Whoa, shit, really? I really must stop stuff like that.

Did Rooney cheat on his missus and shag an elderly prostitute or not? Pretty sure that's not my opinion. And yet he's still held up as someone who is a role model. Errrr, if it's all the same, you can take your role model and, well, you know the rest.

Luckily, you're just trolling, though. So I don't have to take anything you type seriously.

So you don't have a response to my post, apart from blathering that you have an opinion?

You then go completely off tangent.

And then accuse me of trolling?

Get back under your bridge, or give some weight to your 'guilty as NOT charged' verdict...

Funny how jury's decisions are questionable when it doesn't suit someone's prejudiced opinions

Personally, I don't really give a shit what goes off in a footballers life, or the life of some bird with a questionable sexual history.

You start your post by saying what happened is nothing unusual then you focus on the girls "questionable sexual history". That either makes you very very stupid or a bit of a misogenistic bell end.

crankboy - Member
I was going to link the Court of Appeal judgement that allowed the retrial but this is shorter and more accessible:-
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/
I understand where we got to with the judgement and the jury's verdict but this is not an easy case that leads to clear answers

Thanks crankboy, I've bookmarked him.

This is a very good link and well worth a read for anyone with an interest in the actual legal issues in this case. For those that prefer to align their opinion to an uninformed quote or headline, it's not really for them.

Thesecretbarrister.com is quite informative, I recommend some people read it.

Thanks to deadlydarcy

Sorry crankboy didn't see you hab already linked to it.

Crankboys link is excellent and everyone should read it before commenting.

Especially Point 10. 😥

+1 to thesecretbarrister link.

There's a dichotomy here, as there is with all criminal legal cases, in that it's seldom a binary situation yet the decision is. 90% probability.... still not guilty. So is he completely innocent - probably not - and he wasn't found innocent, just not guilty. And certainly not innocent of being a bit of a scumbag that thinks it's OK to join his mate and a girl, have sex with her and then walk off again.

And in that respect I think it's fine for Jess Ennis-Hill to ask not to be associated with him in any way irrespective of whether what he did was rape or not. Clubs and companies have the right to dismiss people if they commit acts that bring their organisations into disrepute, which i don't think many would argue this has not done, so i see no reason why an individual can't effectively do the same.

The fact these acts are not uncommon within professional football isn't a defence; I'm a lifelong football fan and deeply ashamed by this aspect of the culture, but it's gone on for far longer than the last few years, let's not kid ourselves. It just hasn't been as media exposed, with the change that a proportion of the 'victims' are willing participants seeing it as a route to making some money. George Best? Robin Friday? Still revered but if they were players today they'd be paying lawsuits and injunctions week after week.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not apologising or excusing Evans (or Best or Friday). Picking up a girl and taking her back to a hotel with your rich footballer mates so you can video her participating in group sex is abhorrent, but it's not necessarily a crime.

The guy has been found not guilty, thats all that matters. His personallity is irrelavent, I don't give a monkey if he's an a-hole or not as he has no impact on my life. He should be left alone to get on with his life. He isn't the first or the last footballer to be a ****.

That either makes you very very stupid or a bit of a misogenistic bell end.

They're not mutually exclusive.

I don't think any Male should be celebrating his Not Guilty verdict.

bikebouy - Member

I don't think any Male should be celebrating his Not Guilty verdict.

really, why would that be? so anyone thats found not guilty is an unproven criminal? what a world we live in that you think that way.

They're not mutually exclusive.

I was trying to be generous 😆

bikebouy - Member
I don't think any Male should be celebrating his Not Guilty verdict.
really, why would that be? so anyone thats found not guilty is an unproven criminal? what a world we live in that you think that way.

Because it demonstrates that people in this country still have some very backward views about women. Evans comes out of this looking like someone with a prehistoric attitude towards women. It sits right along side Trumps attitude towards women as beacon of misogyny (even if the allegations of his behaviour are false). I would hope my son grows up to be someone who respects women rather than the abhorrent, manipulative, predatory role models these two represent.

[quote=poah ]really, why would that be? so anyone thats found not guilty is an unproven criminal? what a world we live in that you think that way.

I'm fairly sure he didn't suggest that. However in this particular case given all the evidence available it seems quite reasonable to question whether not guilty means innocent (the background to that has been mentioned a few times, and is covered very well in the Secret Barrister link), and whether there might have been a different verdict in a Scottish court...

I'm not even going into the question of whether the new verdict shows Mr Evans to be a better person.

he is just the same as a lot of people that maybe speak shite but don't act on it. men and woman are just as guilty of speaking poorly of the opposite sex. Do I say things that are mysogynisc and sexist, yes but only when its in the sport of the converstion and I certainly don't act like that towards woman. You should hear some of the things I hear about men in my work.

This is a good quote which sums up how I feel about it. There are of course exceptions.

Richard Garside, director of the centre for crime and justice studies said: "Clearly there is some kind of notion that footballers are role models and there is some kind of notion that individuals should not continue to have a public role if they have been convicted of an offence.

"My concern is that those people who feel strongly that he should not be a footballer are confusing the question of practice with the appropriate provisions of a criminal sanction. The court does not impose unemployment as a punishment.

"My view on life after the crime remains the same regardless of whether the original verdict is held or he is acquitted. His return to work should be on the basis of footballing judgement.

"Part of a law-based society is that you respect the decision of the law rather than fall back on informal justice imposed and handed out by members of the community who feel strongly about certain matters."

Crankboy - there's an interesting element here in that it seems that the evidence that cleared him only came about as a result of the victim being (unlawfully) named. It provides an interesting twist to the unsettled argument about anonymity for the accused in rape cases.

and whether there might have been a different verdict in a Scottish court...

not proven is a stupid way of ending a trial, its still an acquittal and carries the same legal standpoint as not guilty. The only thing with the not proven result is that it has a moral attachement to it which shouldn't be part of a law based result.

Ninfan makes an interesting point above, without the girl being illegally named the evidence clearing Evans may not have come forward

As for Jess E-H yes she had a right not to want to be associated with a football club at which Evans may have signed for as she would be now he's been cleared - however that's much more complicated now as he is legally innocent

Crank Boy great read thanks.

I agree with his final point

10. What does this whole affair say about our society?
Christ knows. Nothing good.

My two pence worth is the Bloke is a tool, kicks a ball around is paid lots so has no moral stop light. Having had the joy of walking in on my mate getting it on with a girl my first thought was "eh guess I'll go back out" rather than "ah sure I'll join in.." ( you should never stir another mans porrage). He's clearly not alone in thinking this behaviour is ok.

I can't believe his fiancée stayed with him regardless of the criminal charges he was actively out sha*ging other women. Mrs Wookster wouldn't be seen for dust or I think would most women, and actually why would you want a doormat for a partner.

But marring a footballer / rich person and allowing them to behave how they like as they are a meal ticket is a bit of a cottage industry and so suppose has been for ever.

The most I see of celebrity, and modern society, sexting, social media expectations based on some persons televised life the happier I am far away on the bike the out with the Dog, and delighted that I'm married to a person who's switched on and has enough about them not to be treated like shite regardless that they are in love or married. .

[quote=jambalaya ]now as he is legally [s]innocent[/s] not guilty

His personallity is irrelavent,

I agree 100% (although not with the spelling). It's his [u]actions[/u] that mark him down as a bit of a scumbag.

aracer - Member

jambalaya » now as he is legally [s]innocent [/s]not guilty

But you are innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty so therefore is innocent.

He's not necessarily innocent. They just weren't able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

As for Jess E-H yes she had a right not to want to be associated with a football club at which Evans may have signed for as she would be now he's been cleared - however that's much more complicated now as he is legally innocent

Not really, she is still able to take a view on associations with him regardless of his guilt or otherwise. He is not someone I would want to be associated with.

Why is this national news?