Grateful that we are not a League One club

GreenSam wrote:

I know for a fact that many people on here haven't read the case files and have only read Ched Evans's PR site.

Because if you'd gone into it with a truly balanced approach and actually read the case notes, rather than being determined to see one side of the argument, you would know exactly why Donaldson was aqquited and Evans was convicted.

It's all there. It's a public document. Look it up.

Well I know for a fact you can't have read the transcript because if you had you would know it was Clayton McDonald not Donaldson. You weren't on the Jury were you?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It would appear that the death threats directed at Oldham have been somewhat exaggerated.

Quote :

Ched Evans and Oldham: GM Police statement: No death or sexual threats to anyone associated with Oldham Athletic been reported to police.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

i hardly think they were because they werent reported to the flith

Well I certainly walked into that one.

Fair play.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

I know for a fact that many people on here haven't read the case files and have only read Ched Evans's PR site.

Because if you'd gone into it with a truly balanced approach and actually read the case notes, rather than being determined to see one side of the argument, you would know exactly why Donaldson was aqquited and Evans was convicted.

It's all there. It's a public document. Look it up.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

rolf harris's one is more shocking

Lord Tisdale wrote:

MannameadGreen wrote:

He's already had one appeal thrown out.

You can't even get a little thing like that right can you?

There was no leave to appeal.

This place is very much the home of the clueless dumb ass.

feck off somewhere else then you won't be missed....

Hugh Watt wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

MannameadGreen wrote:

He's already had one appeal thrown out.

You can't even get a little thing like that right can you?

There was no leave to appeal.

This place is very much the home of the clueless dumb ass.

feck off somewhere else then you won't be missed....

how pasoti

AstiSpumante wrote:

You're tying yourself in knots, if she was too drunk to remember anything, 1) How does she know he raped her ?  2) How does she know she didn't give her consent ?

If she was too drunk to remember anything, she was too drunk to consent. That's the law on rape.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

MannameadGreen wrote:

He's already had one appeal thrown out.

You can't even get a little thing like that right can you?

There was no leave to appeal.

This place is very much the home of the clueless dumb ass.

He was refused leave to appeal by a judge, ie. had his appeal thrown out, in common parlance.

Clueless dumb ass.

MannameadGreen wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

MannameadGreen wrote:

He's already had one appeal thrown out.

You can't even get a little thing like that right can you?

There was no leave to appeal.

This place is very much the home of the clueless dumb ass.

He was refused leave to appeal by a judge, ie. had his appeal thrown out, in common parlance.

Clueless dumb ass.

Again dont take up law.

If the CPS granted a review into his conviction even after an upheld appeal then there must have been new evidence come to light that questions the verdict and warranted a review. They dont hand out case reviews like sweets you know.

MannameadGreen wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

You're tying yourself in knots, if she was too drunk to remember anything, 1) How does she know he raped her ?  2) How does she know she didn't give her consent ?

If she was too drunk to remember anything, she was too drunk to consent. That's the law on rape.

Yeah that makes perfect sense ...........so every woman in history who has partaken of the pork while too drunk too remember anything was raped

AstiSpumante wrote:

MannameadGreen wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

You're tying yourself in knots, if she was too drunk to remember anything, 1) How does she know he raped her ?  2) How does she know she didn't give her consent ?

If she was too drunk to remember anything, she was too drunk to consent. That's the law on rape.

Yeah that makes perfect sense ...........so every woman in history who has partaken of the pork while too drunk too remember anything was raped

Muff would be the rape capital of the world if that was the case.

Hitch wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

MannameadGreen wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

You're tying yourself in knots, if she was too drunk to remember anything, 1) How does she know he raped her ?  2) How does she know she didn't give her consent ?

If she was too drunk to remember anything, she was too drunk to consent. That's the law on rape.

Yeah that makes perfect sense ...........so every woman in history who has partaken of the pork while too drunk too remember anything was raped

Muff would be the rape capital of the world if that was the case.

jesters would be out of buisness

MannameadGreen wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

You're tying yourself in knots, if she was too drunk to remember anything, 1) How does she know he raped her ?  2) How does she know she didn't give her consent ?

If she was too drunk to remember anything, she was too drunk to consent. That's the law on rape.

She couldn't remember Clayton McDonald bonking her at all either and he was accused of rape - but the Jury didn't believe he did rape her,
10 minutes before Evans had a go - which she also couldn't remember - apparently. Weird eh?

But if you watch the CCTV when she arrived at the building she looks far from incapable of walking unaided.

Iggy wrote:

But if you watch the CCTV when she arrived at the building she looks far from incapable of walking unaided.

There are so many anomalies in the prosecution evidence, the Jury verdicts, the girl's previous and now additional evidence previously unheard that to say that the original guilty verdict is unsafe is a massive understatement.

I think that Ched Evans should keep a low profile do the appeal and take it from there.

Hitch wrote:

Iggy wrote:

But if you watch the CCTV when she arrived at the building she looks far from incapable of walking unaided.

There are so many anomalies in the prosecution evidence, the Jury verdicts, the girl's previous and now additional evidence previously unheard that to say that the original guilty verdict is unsafe is a massive understatement.

You've got it exactly Hitch, the burden is beyond reasonable doubt, the simple fact that she was fine for a rooting one minute then apparently not the next has Shirley got to be at least a smidge of wholly reasonable doubt?

None of the nay sayers seem to want to address the issue of her having previously made false claims that she had been raped, more very reasonable doubt.

Presumably the CCTV was shown in the original trial?

Was the previous false rape claim disclosed back then?

If both were then providing the judge summed up correctly and drew it to the attention of the jury, Evans hasn't got a leg to stand on.

If either were not he's got a case for a panel to take a look at it.

On another matter did anyone else catch last nights 'Last leg'. They were discussing this case and mentioned the precedent that Oldham had previously taken on a player convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Josh Widdicombe looked decidedly uncomfortable and passed the opportunity to mention Luke, probably for the best.

I don't see how the previous rape claim should have any bearing in this trial.

For starters, it wasn't a 'false rape claim' it was an unsubstantiated rape claim. Just because it was not proved, does not mean she was definitely lying. It simply means there was not enough evidence to know either way. If she had been previously convicted on a false rape claim charge, you can be sure Evans's supporters would be letting us know about it.

And anyway, previous records should not have any relevance to the matter at hand in any case. Even if she had made 20 false rape claims (as it stands, we must assume she made none) then that wouldn't mean that she could not be raped at any given time. 'The boy who cried wolf' is a nice childhood fable but it's not any kind of a legal framework.

GreenSam wrote:

I don't see how the previous rape claim should have any bearing in this trial.

For starters, it wasn't a 'false rape claim' it was an unsubstantiated rape claim. Just because it was not proved, does not mean she was definitely lying. It simply means there was not enough evidence to know either way. If she had been previously convicted on a false rape claim charge, you can be sure Evans's supporters would be letting us know about it.

And anyway, previous records should not have any relevance to the matter at hand in any case. Even if she had made 20 false rape claims (as it stands, we must assume she made none) then that wouldn't mean that she could not be raped at any given time. 'The boy who cried wolf' is a nice childhood fable but it's not any kind of a legal framework.

another who should never consider a legal career

Argyle cant score, Ched knows how to score, Geddon JB Sign him up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Angry wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

I don't see how the previous rape claim should have any bearing in this trial.

For starters, it wasn't a 'false rape claim' it was an unsubstantiated rape claim. Just because it was not proved, does not mean she was definitely lying. It simply means there was not enough evidence to know either way. If she had been previously convicted on a false rape claim charge, you can be sure Evans's supporters would be letting us know about it.

And anyway, previous records should not have any relevance to the matter at hand in any case. Even if she had made 20 false rape claims (as it stands, we must assume she made none) then that wouldn't mean that she could not be raped at any given time. 'The boy who cried wolf' is a nice childhood fable but it's not any kind of a legal framework.

another who should never consider a legal career

Looks about right to me, what has he got wrong?

X Isle wrote:

Angry wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

I don't see how the previous rape claim should have any bearing in this trial.

For starters, it wasn't a 'false rape claim' it was an unsubstantiated rape claim. Just because it was not proved, does not mean she was definitely lying. It simply means there was not enough evidence to know either way. If she had been previously convicted on a false rape claim charge, you can be sure Evans's supporters would be letting us know about it.

And anyway, previous records should not have any relevance to the matter at hand in any case. Even if she had made 20 false rape claims (as it stands, we must assume she made none) then that wouldn't mean that she could not be raped at any given time. 'The boy who cried wolf' is a nice childhood fable but it's not any kind of a legal framework.

another who should never consider a legal career

Looks about right to me, what has he got wrong?

Too much to write x-isles to be honest, but in a nutshell as i've already stated they dont grant case reviews to anyone unless there is solid enough grounds to question the original verdict after a failed appeal attempt. They are only ever granted in rare cases.
Her previous false claims if there are some (off the record the law needs to be changed to come down very hard on fake rape claims) would be taken into account and looked into when considering the other evidence that has come to surface that brought this case review should it lead to that conclusion.

Angry wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Looks about right to me, what has he got wrong?

Too much to write x-isles to be honest,

Tbf the X Isle is not wrong, which is a significant problem with the legal system, if the law is bull shit and the jury doesn't have the gumption to throw out a truly bogus cas then the accused is truly stuffed, as was Evans.

The jury system is a crock, the last time I was on jury duty we sat down with a 9-3 for guilty, fortunately the other two were in for the long game and it only took us four hours to get home 10-2 in what was a totally bogus and obvious police fit up, the judge in that case, as with this one, was as much use as chocolate fire guard.