I don't think there's any issue with showing the video, it's a matter of public record and was shown on the news at the time of the conviction. The issue was whether the site named her, which I don't think it did, at least I don't remember seeing it there.
Ched Evans
- Thread starter Ricochet J
- Start date
You understand the site is being investigated and is in no way any form of reliable evidence.
What the hell...
Is the CCTV footage showing her: Yes.
Arriving at the location of the alleged offence: Yes.
Just before the alleged offence took place: Yes.
Acting quite sober (proving she was lying in court about being so drunk she doesn't even remember anything): Yes.
All witnessed by the guy on the desk (Who was not allowed to testify): Yes.
Is that reliable enough for you: No.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 3,053
- Location
- ireland
What the hell...
Is the CCTV footage showing her: Yes.
Arriving at the location of the alleged offence: Yes.
Just before the alleged offence took place: Yes.
Acting quite sober (proving she was lying in court about being so drunk she doesn't even remember anything): Yes.
All witnessed by the guy on the desk (Who was not allowed to testify): Yes.
Is that reliable enough for you: No.
This is why i hate rape cases, always takes the side of the girl.
It bothers me more that the accused is named before any verdict, resulting in said accused's name being dragged through the mud when they've not even been proved guilty.
All while, of course, the accuser is granted full anonymity even if they're found to be talking rubbish.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Just to point out that this isn't true. I wish people were less absolut (
) about alcohol and how people think people should or shouldn't or can or can't act when drunk. Acting quite sober doesn't prove in any way at all she wasn't completely drunk nor that she can't remember.I have more than once, way more than once, blacked out on an entire evening and people I speak to the next day can't believe it because I barely seemed drunk, likewise I've barely remembered anything when only drinking a little now and then. Individuals all react differently to alcohol, the brain isn't one thing which gets effected the same, nor the same every time. Some people throw up when drinking too much and never black out, others black out when drinking loads, some people lose total control of staying upright, others are quiet drunks who can almost appear sober.
But that is why I can't believe he was convicted, there is no known line where you can say she couldn't consent outside of being so obviously drunk it's very wrong to take advantage.... but one person can be so drunk they are barely able to stand but can talk okay while another person can be more drunk can walk quite well but could barely talk, however if that person barely spoke then they'd appear pretty sober. You just can't tell and you can't after the fact accuse someone of knowing someone was too drunk when you can't prove that.
The other thing is, blacking out is a memory thing, you can act relatively normally, make all the decisions you'd normally make, be effectively " in control" but simply not remember it, not remembering something doesn't make you not responsible for what you did while you can't remember.
The case is a farce for the very reason that every individual reacts differently to alcohol and even every individual can react differently to alcohol for loads of different reasons, tiredness, other substances taken/not taken, having eaten recently or not for a long time, stress, depression.
There are people you know are absolutely and totally drunk, usually because they can barely stand are are slurring incredibly badly or literally unconscious. From the video and every account I've seen, she was none of those things but he's been treated as if she was effectively unconscious simply because she can't remember.
It's important to note here, that the expert witness stated that the woman's alcohol consumption wasn't responsible for her black out.Just to point out that this isn't true. I wish people were less absolut (
I have more than once, way more than once, blacked out on an entire evening and people I speak to the next day can't believe it because I barely seemed drunk, likewise I've barely remembered anything when only drinking a little now and then. Individuals all react differently to alcohol, the brain isn't one thing which gets effected the same, nor the same every time. Some people throw up when drinking too much and never black out, others black out when drinking loads, some people lose total control of staying upright, others are quiet drunks who can almost appear sober.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 1,544
- Location
- Newbury, UK
What's the latest with this bloke then? As much as I condone what he has done, rape is by far a horrible, awful crime. He has served his time, well half of it and now is a free man. There is always talk of trying to get ex-cons jobs after they come out of jail, stop them recommitting moving on or whatever. But this guy can't get a break, I think the whole public is against him. Especially considering there is on-going debate whether he is actually innocent.
He has not served his time.
He had his appeal rejected, but he is taking another route (iirc the Guardian reported that he has a less than 2% chance of getting his conviction over turned).
Last thing i had read was he had submitted some new evidence to prove his innocence.
I can't for the life of me work out why this new "evidence" wasn't submitted during the original trial which might have saved 2 years of his life and his dignity.
I can't for the life of me work out why this new "evidence" wasn't submitted during the original trial which might have saved 2 years of his life and his dignity.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It's unclear from your post what you mean frankly when you say he hasn't served his time. Do you believe he got convicted but awaiting an appeal he wasn't in jail and he'll serve his time after his last appeal fails? Because that isn't what happened, or what generally happens with appeals. He got found guilty, went to jail, spent 2.5 years I believe it was in jail and was released early with I don't know, some kind of stipulation that any bad behaviour and he has to finish his jail term. But that isn't unusual, someone gets X years for a crime, good behaviour or other reasons might get someone out earlier, and in general it's a maximum jail term and people are often released early.
So he has in fact served his sentence, regardless of appeal or anything else most people in his place would have spent that time inside and gotten out before the maximum term. He has also appealed the case and after being out is also looking to have his conviction overturned. None of that detracts from the fact he DID serve the jail term he received. Being out early has nothing to do with appeals or attempts to get his conviction overturned.
Because not all evidence in cases is about the crime and the moment in time itself. If someone the woman in question to met since then was told by the woman she lied, maybe that person came forward, maybe someone recorded her saying she lied. Likewise time lets other pieces of information loose, maybe the front desk clerk who I've read wasn't allowed to testify or refused to, has been allowed to do so. There are lots of reasons and ways in which new evidence gets submitted in appeals and retrials.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 1,544
- Location
- Newbury, UK
Don't normally quote myself but for you I will make an exception. If you read my post fully instead of seeing one thing and replying then maybe your answer would have been different or wouldn't of replied at all.
He has served time, half of what he was suppose to but has served his time. I don't think I can make it anymore clear what I said. But never mind
Well this is kind of the issue isn't it. If you can appear pretty sober yet not remember any of the night before, most people would assume that they were battered even though they didn't appear so to anyone else.
That means you could quite easily have a situation where the "victim" says they were so drunk they couldn't remember anything let along consenting and the defendant claiming that the victim was complete fine.
Its quite scary how you can be convicted of a crime like this without serious evidence to prove guilt.
He has not 'served his time', he has been released on licence (which means he is still serving his sentence outside of prison) and will remain on the violent and sex offender register.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 1,544
- Location
- Newbury, UK
Following me around today aren't you. I'm honoured. Hardly serving time out of prison.
It is not a difficult notion to understand.
He is out on license. He has not served his time, he is currently still serving his sentence outside of prison.
He is also on the sex offenders register.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 1,544
- Location
- Newbury, UK
When did I say I was having difficulty. Definitely not having difficulty understanding your sarcastic attitude. I wouldn't really say being out of prison at home, going out as serving his sentence but oh well. Done on the subject.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,336
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
As I mentioned previously in the thread, in regards to his ability to work and specifically as a footballer, he's served his time. The fact that he's still on license is completely meaningless to this debate. He's legally allowed to play football again. Whether he should or not isn't a legal matter but a moral one.
I am not convinced... it is still possible for victims of non-terminal crimes to gain some sense of happiness from parts of their lives, whereas murder victims will never gain any further happiness and their family can only grieve rather than support their loved one. When I think about my family, given the choice between them being raped or murdered I'd probably choose the former as abhorent as it sounds.
Effectively what you are suggesting is that it is better to be dead than to suffer a traumatic incident, which may be true for some individuals, but certainly not everyone.
Last edited: