Ched Evans Rape Trial

[andy-hughes]

It's not going well.

Anyone think he will be found not guilty? Media URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37616871
Description:

[jackthehat]

Ahhh, yes.
A bloke says something detrimental about the girl therefore it follows that Ched Evans is innocent.....

[andy-hughes]

I was away during that thread - hence the absence of my input.

It's interesting that some of the Evans 'supporters' have since been kicked off this site - must be a message there.

[agchristie]

Andy > I think he may be found not guilty, because there may not be sufficient evidence to convict him of the charge, and unfortunately, having sex with a stranger without the courtesy of an introduction is not a criminal offence.

I still wouldn't like to predict the outcome of this trial. Sometimes when I listen to people talk about the ordering of a second trial they automatically assume that there must be sufficient doubt to convict. This is, of course, erroneous.

Whilst the Defence may feel that new evidence presents more hope, so will the Prosecution who may also have found new information and then there is the cross-examination. So, new evidence, new jurors and potentially new witnesses.

Andy, having sex without an introduction is not a criminal offence. I think you meant having sex without the consent element perhaps, which is much different.

[Barmaid]

I love how the commentators on here go through the "evidence". What we read is what the press determine we should read, with their inevitable spin. Unless you have sat in the court gallery for the entire proceedings, it is impossible to get a real view on anything. The slightest nuance can persuade the jury either way - and even then, juries are sometimes known to go on a frolick of their own. I know of one jury where a group of women refused to convict the Def of rape because he looked like the son of one of them!!!!

Who knows?! However, on a point of order, it must be on the defence case seeing as Evans is giving evidence.

[andy-hughes]

AG - //Andy, having sex without an introduction is not a criminal offence. I think you meant having sex without the consent element perhaps, which is much different. //

If you re-read my post, you will see that I said that sex without an introduction is not a criminal offence.

[agchristie]

Barmaid, very true of course. Evidence can be reported by the media but what you don't get a feel for is the body language and expression of witness evidence and all the court ambience!

We can never second guess how the jury will interpret the facts that only they have the benefit of.

[agchristie]

Andy, my apologies.

[Peter Pedant]

thanks Barmaid - the press coverage of inquests is similarly 'interesting' . But they are in the business of selling newspapers. There is a scene in Dickens where a character goes into a pub where a newspaper court report is being read out to the punters ( as they did in those days) - and the stranger gives the reader hell over the details of the case.

//I know of one jury where a group of women refused to convict the Def of rape because he looked like the son of one of them!!!!//
hmm you werent in M a few weeks ago were you?
It...almost .... happened there.

altho' I think juries are quite sensible really
I would be tried by a jury than that fella in red

and anyway
Ched E has had all the questions before
so he has time to work out better answers than before

[jackthehat]

Perhaps had he had a conversation with the girl Evans would be able to convince the jury that he had established consent...?

[ToraToraTora]

I made a couple of comments on that thread. What comment indicated that I had any idea who he was? JTT? yes ummm, bamm indeed lol.

[ummmm]

Oh perlease....

[RandyMarsh]

Come on TTT, you are banged to rights, stitched up like a cockney kipper, apples and pears, luv a duck.

[jackthehat]

Did you not notice who posted that particular thread, TGT?

[Peter Pedant]

3T: the question setter on THAT thread asks

"Will This Bloke Ever Work Again?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30678251
It

the bloke we see is ched evans and it has references to sport and footie

o! o! the question setter (OP) is one toratoratora
and now we see him insisting later he didnt know who Ched E was !

Bam umm... yes Bam Bam....

[I thought 3T only treated me to gormless comments of 'who he den. who he?' but clearly he does it to others]

this is quite good - for er people who know who Ched E is...
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ched-evans-rape-trial-witness-12006426

[ToraToraTora]

cobblers randy, nothing I said on that thread or this gives any indication that i had a clue who he was. it's JTT that's bang to rights, he's been following me round like a cheap hack and getting nothing. Still waiting fo JTT to tell me what I said to give any indication that I knew who he was.

[ummmm]

You posted the thread!!!

[RandyMarsh]

I don't think it is just that thread but whatever.

No one is grinding axes here.

[jackthehat]

I didn't realise that you were the sort of 'geezer' who put up threads containing links to newspaper articles without reading them first, or possibly you did you just didn't understand them....

I'll bear in mind, in future, that you like to make posts without having the first idea of anything you are talking about.