Ched Evans

Moses said:
Yet somehow there was enough evidence to convince a jury to decide he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...
Click to expand...

Most human beings will submit to peer pressure, if all they've been hearing about in the media is how evil Ched Evans is it takes a strong person to go against it.
 
Moses said:
The prosecution's meant to convince them he's guilty, the defence is meant to convince them he's not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You're actually crying about the prosecution doing their job? What should the prosecution have done? The defence's job? Sat in a circle holding hands and singing Kumbaya?
Click to expand...

Who said I was crying? I don't believe he was guilty and I read all the information I could find at the time, I saw her deleted tweets about how she was going to spend her money and it just didn't sit right with me.

Still not crying.
 
Moses said:
One, or more, of the jurors was in contempt of court? What are you saying happened?
Click to expand...

Isnt this entire case based on her word vs his word. Not sure what actual hard evidence was presented. So basically at the time the jurors believed her and not him.
 
Surfer said:
Isnt this entire case based on her word vs his word. Not sure what actual hard evidence was presented. So basically at the time the jurors believed her and not him.
Click to expand...

I do not want to be drawn back in to this 'debate', my opinion is clearly stated.

Regardless; there was evidence.
 
Tummy said:
Not a law student. Know a few.

That question looks like it was answered in the first couple of pages no?
Click to expand...

I agree the answer is somewhere in that thread but what is the answer?
The last poster summed it up

d_brennen said:
GD: Home of the circular discussion
Click to expand...

And Moses, shut up trying to be clever (I'm not saying you aren't but there is no motive behind my post/questions).
 
Last edited:
Moses said:
The thing to do, as with all threads in GD, is to filter out the incorrect rambling opinions of ***** who chat rubbish, and focus on the posters who are usually right. It's quite easy to do that.
Click to expand...

So the answer is sort it out for yourself?
The thing is when I read threads I don't normally look over to the left and the only poster who I know talks rubbish is Magnolia.
 
Surfer said:
Isnt this entire case based on her word vs his word. Not sure what actual hard evidence was presented. So basically at the time the jurors believed her and not him.
Click to expand...

Nope she has no recollection of the events at all, the whole case is based on her being to drunk to haven consented.
 
Moses said:
The thing to do, as with all threads in GD, is to filter out the incorrect rambling opinions of ***** who chat rubbish, and focus on the posters who are usually right. It's quite easy to do that.
Click to expand...

And then have a complementary poop through their letterbox, as is the GD way :rolleyes:
 
a1ex2001 said:
Nope she has no recollection of the events at all, the whole case is based on her being to drunk to haven consented.
Click to expand...

yes and no, legally yes, realistically it's based entirely upon a few things, that people don't like to accept they will act differently while black out drunk, that it's near impossible to know how drunk someone is in most cases and that morally speaking it's easier to believe she didn't want to have sex with a second guy because most of the people on the jury either wouldn't or won't accept that many people will.


Get black out drunk and drive a car into three people, deal with the consequences, get black out drunk and bang someone... if you're a man you accept the responsibility of your actions when you choose to get drunk, if you're a woman, you're absolved of all responsibility now.

Case was a joke from start to finish, punishing a guy because it's not morally acceptable to suggest a woman would choose to sleep with a second guy, put someone in jail and label him a rapist and her a victim because he did something kind of scummy that they wouldn't do?

The word for women who sleep around a lot (and is apparently banned) is a bad word because it has so many negative connotations. There is precisely nothing wrong with a woman sleeping around, but because woman who do are treated badly no one wants to A admit they behave like that and B no one wants to accuse someone of behaving like that in such a situation no one was willing to suggest there was at least as much of a possibility she wanted to have sex with Evans as him raping her.

She's a frequent black out drunk, frequent drug taker who was absolutely willing to go back and shag a guy who iirc she met while buying food after a night out getting blotto.

He goes to jail because it's impolite to suggest she may have been up for it... utterly ridiculous. He may have raped her, she may have been begging for it. She chose to get in a position to not be able to remember(if she's telling the truth about being unable to remember) and is not willing to accept she may have consented to sex.
 
drunkenmaster said:
yes and no, legally yes, realistically it's based entirely upon a few things, that people don't like to accept they will act differently while black out drunk, that it's near impossible to know how drunk someone is in most cases and that morally speaking it's easier to believe she didn't want to have sex with a second guy because most of the people on the jury either wouldn't or won't accept that many people will.


Get black out drunk and drive a car into three people, deal with the consequences, get black out drunk and bang someone... if you're a man you accept the responsibility of your actions when you choose to get drunk, if you're a woman, you're absolved of all responsibility now.

Case was a joke from start to finish, punishing a guy because it's not morally acceptable to suggest a woman would choose to sleep with a second guy, put someone in jail and label him a rapist and her a victim because he did something kind of scummy that they wouldn't do?

The word for women who sleep around a lot (and is apparently banned) is a bad word because it has so many negative connotations. There is precisely nothing wrong with a woman sleeping around, but because woman who do are treated badly no one wants to A admit they behave like that and B no one wants to accuse someone of behaving like that in such a situation no one was willing to suggest there was at least as much of a possibility she wanted to have sex with Evans as him raping her.

She's a frequent black out drunk, frequent drug taker who was absolutely willing to go back and shag a guy who iirc she met while buying food after a night out getting blotto.

He goes to jail because it's impolite to suggest she may have been up for it... utterly ridiculous. He may have raped her, she may have been begging for it. She chose to get in a position to not be able to remember(if she's telling the truth about being unable to remember) and is not willing to accept she may have consented to sex.
Click to expand...

...
 
I take it you have no point then? did I say he may have raped her WHILE she may have been begging for it? Or is it clearly framed as two possibilities at opposite ends of the scale, we don't know which it is, SHE doesn't know which it is because she chose to get black out drunk and is unwilling to accept the possibility she asked for sex and can't remember.
 
GIBURROWS said:
How can someone be a rapist because the victim can't remember?
Click to expand...

because he is a footballer and they are all evil rapists.............. so they are guilty and then the alleged victims can get rich for pretending to not know what happened when likely they have full recollection but just wanted to get paid.

If he really is innocent then I hope this harlot gets sent to jail for wasting police time, the courts time and public money......................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom