Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Evans Conviction overturned (ed. signs for Chesterfield)

1…89111314…19

Comments

  • SuedeAdidas
    SuedeAdidas Posts: 7,744
    cafc4life said:

    ForeverAddickted said:

    cafc4life said:

    cafcdave123 said:

    i would just like to point out that he is still a scummy cunt!

    why?
    I guess the fact still remains that he cheated on his Girlfriend
    indeed he did, but that happens regularly throughout the country daily and both ways.It doesnt make it right but i wouldnt call him a scummy cunt for just doing that
    You should
  • cafcdave123
    cafcdave123 Posts: 11,491
    cafc4life said:

    cafcdave123 said:

    i would just like to point out that he is still a scummy cunt!

    why?
    man with girlfriend turns up uninvited to a hotel room to stir his mates porridge and opens the curtains for his mates to film it.
  • CharltonByBlood
    CharltonByBlood Posts: 1,900
    edited October 2016
    cafcdave123 said:

    i would just like to point out that he is still a scummy cunt!

    woah lets slow down!...

    no need to use the word scummy mate
  • SuedeAdidas
    SuedeAdidas Posts: 7,744
    Luckily for him the football fan 'family' will accept this and it will never be mentioned on the terraces again.
  • CharltonByBlood
    CharltonByBlood Posts: 1,900
    SDAddick said:

    cafcnick1992 said:

    Top striker at this level. Jessica Ennis whinging not wanting her club to employ a convicted rapist because it sends a disgusting message about what footballers can get away with, especially when it comes to violence against women has cost United a good striker convicted rapist

    Fixed that for you
    Might wanna unfix this one
  • SantaClaus
    SantaClaus Posts: 7,658
    So will he be able to sue Sheffield United for cancelling his contract?
  • cafcdave123
    cafcdave123 Posts: 11,491
    SantaClaus said:

    So will he be able to sue Sheffield United for cancelling his contract?

    i doubt it, they stood by him until he was convicted and he was convicted. SU had no way of knowing that he would pay a family friend £50k to come forward at the retrial.
  • eaststandmike
    eaststandmike Posts: 14,956
    SantaClaus said:

    So will he be able to sue Sheffield United for cancelling his contract?

    Whoh there, lets not get carried away.....................they are coming good. :wink:
  • hoof_it_up_to_benty
    hoof_it_up_to_benty Posts: 22,452
    Unless you sat through the case it's hard to comment - rape cases are notoriously difficult to prove.
    Unsavoury case for all concerned.
  • JaShea99
    JaShea99 Posts: 5,461
    Genuinely pleased with this as I always thought he had been wrongly convicted anyway.

    Would love to know what all the people on here who claimed he was guilty just because a court of law said so (regardless of evidence to the contrary) think now. Do they stick by their guns and admit that a jury's decision is not always the correct one? Or change their opinion becaude a different 12 jurors returned a different verdict?

  • Sponsored links:



  • PaddyP17
    PaddyP17 Posts: 13,037
    Well, I'd like to take this opportunity to retract (most of) my opinions towards Ched Evans. He's still a bit of a poo (cheated on his gf with a drunk yet still able to consent woman), but the courts have found he is not a rapist and fair enough.

    It's a shame that this will undoubtedly continue to haunt his career, too.
  • RugbyAddick
    RugbyAddick Posts: 2,079
    He's an innocent man.
  • newyorkaddick
    newyorkaddick Posts: 3,052
    RugbyAddick said:

    He's an innocent man.

    A court hasn't been able to prove his guilt - doesn't make him innocent
  • hoof_it_up_to_benty
    hoof_it_up_to_benty Posts: 22,452
    newyorkaddick said:

    RugbyAddick said:

    He's an innocent man.

    A court hasn't been able to prove his guilt - doesn't make him innocent
    Agreed.
  • Gravesend_Addick
    Gravesend_Addick Posts: 7,299
    JaShea99 said:

    Genuinely pleased with this as I always thought he had been wrongly convicted anyway.

    Would love to know what all the people on here who claimed he was guilty just because a court of law said so (regardless of evidence to the contrary) think now. Do they stick by their guns and admit that a jury's decision is not always the correct one? Or change their opinion becaude a different 12 jurors returned a different verdict?

    Charlton Life doesn't work like that
    newyorkaddick said:

    RugbyAddick said:

    He's an innocent man.

    A court hasn't been able to prove his guilt - doesn't make him innocent
    See
  • redlanered
    redlanered Posts: 2,196
    JaShea99 said:

    Genuinely pleased with this as I always thought he had been wrongly convicted anyway.

    Would love to know what all the people on here who claimed he was guilty just because a court of law said so (regardless of evidence to the contrary) think now. Do they stick by their guns and admit that a jury's decision is not always the correct one? Or change their opinion becaude a different 12 jurors returned a different verdict?

    Fresh evidence I think - and we can debate for ever how/why it only came to light 2nd time round. And yes, it's valid to change your opinion when the facts change. I was surprised he was convicted 1st time round but without being there in court why shouldn't you 'accept' the (original) jury's verdict. (that didn't mean HE had to of course)
  • newyorkaddick
    newyorkaddick Posts: 3,052
    There is something incredibly distasteful about offering financial incentives to witnesses to come forward after the original trial, who thus have the benefit of knowing what the defence of the accused was based upon and can thus tailor their statements accordingly.
  • A-R-T-H-U-R
    A-R-T-H-U-R Posts: 7,678
    newyorkaddick said:

    RugbyAddick said:

    He's an innocent man.

    A court hasn't been able to prove his guilt - doesn't make him innocent
    Actually that is the perfect description of why he is innocent.
  • JaShea99
    JaShea99 Posts: 5,461
    Chrissy\\\'s Army!! said:

    JaShea99 said:

    Genuinely pleased with this as I always thought he had been wrongly convicted anyway.

    Would love to know what all the people on here who claimed he was guilty just because a court of law said so (regardless of evidence to the contrary) think now. Do they stick by their guns and admit that a jury's decision is not always the correct one? Or change their opinion becaude a different 12 jurors returned a different verdict?

    Charlton Life doesn't work like that
    newyorkaddick said:

    RugbyAddick said:

    He's an innocent man.

    A court hasn't been able to prove his guilt - doesn't make him innocent
    See
    Haha. Unbelievable. Less than an hour after the 'not guilty' verdict was delivered.
  • newyorkaddick
    newyorkaddick Posts: 3,052
    A-R-T-H-U-R said:

    newyorkaddick said:

    RugbyAddick said:

    He's an innocent man.

    A court hasn't been able to prove his guilt - doesn't make him innocent
    Actually that is the perfect description of why he is innocent.
    No it isn't - not guilty does not mean innocent.


  • Sponsored links:



  • cafcdave123
    cafcdave123 Posts: 11,491
    newyorkaddick said:

    A-R-T-H-U-R said:

    newyorkaddick said:

    RugbyAddick said:

    He's an innocent man.

    A court hasn't been able to prove his guilt - doesn't make him innocent
    Actually that is the perfect description of why he is innocent.
    No it isn't - not guilty does not mean innocent.

    whilst i actually agree with you, in this country you ARE Innocent until proven guilty
  • JaShea99
    JaShea99 Posts: 5,461
    redlanered said:

    JaShea99 said:

    Genuinely pleased with this as I always thought he had been wrongly convicted anyway.

    Would love to know what all the people on here who claimed he was guilty just because a court of law said so (regardless of evidence to the contrary) think now. Do they stick by their guns and admit that a jury's decision is not always the correct one? Or change their opinion becaude a different 12 jurors returned a different verdict?

    Fresh evidence I think - and we can debate for ever how/why it only came to light 2nd time round. And yes, it's valid to change your opinion when the facts change. I was surprised he was convicted 1st time round but without being there in court why shouldn't you 'accept' the (original) jury's verdict. (that didn't mean HE had to of course)
    Because the case file was online for anyone to read. Not saying therefore that everyone should have read it and then agreed he was innocent, but that's one reason why you shouldn't.

    Another is that while it's nice to have a child like view of baddies going to jail and goodies not going to jail, we know full well that it doesn't necessarily work like that and innocent people get locked up all the time.
  • Gravesend_Addick
    Gravesend_Addick Posts: 7,299
    edited October 2016
    newyorkaddick said:

    A-R-T-H-U-R said:

    newyorkaddick said:

    RugbyAddick said:

    He's an innocent man.

    A court hasn't been able to prove his guilt - doesn't make him innocent
    Actually that is the perfect description of why he is innocent.
    No it isn't - not guilty does not mean innocent.

    Dear oh dear. Using that logic. Finding him guilty the 1st time doesn't make him guilty of the crime either!!

    I have to laugh at this forum sometimes. When he was originally found guilty, people said "he's guilty because a court of law said so".

    Now he's been found not guilty in a court of law, "well, it still doesn't mean he was innocent"

  • Bigbadbozman
    Bigbadbozman Posts: 1,775
    Just like OJ Simpson is not guilty
  • RugbyAddick
    RugbyAddick Posts: 2,079
    newyorkaddick said:

    RugbyAddick said:

    He's an innocent man.

    A court hasn't been able to prove his guilt - doesn't make him innocent
    Innocent until proven guilty my friend.
  • Curb_It
    Curb_It Posts: 21,230
    Why are (mainly) men screaming on twitter that she should be locked up for lying?

    I thought the re-trial was about whether she was sober enough to consent? Sorry if I got that wrong. I haven't been following it as stories like that make my stomach turn.
  • Rothko
    Rothko Posts: 18,811
    The judge allowed the defence to call two of her ex partners to go over her previous behaviour. No wonder women don't report
  • hoof_it_up_to_benty
    hoof_it_up_to_benty Posts: 22,452
    Curb_It said:

    Why are (mainly) men screaming on twitter that she should be locked up for lying?

    I thought the re-trial was about whether she was sober enough to consent? Sorry if I got that wrong. I haven't been following it as stories like that make my stomach turn.

    Presumably just 'locker room' banter.
  • guinnessaddick
    guinnessaddick Posts: 28,654
    edited October 2016
    So what was the evidence that this jury found him not guilty of?


    How many cases are they, that if a different jury oversaw, would have a different result?
  • Jints
    Jints Posts: 3,495
    cafcdave123 said:

    newyorkaddick said:

    A-R-T-H-U-R said:

    newyorkaddick said:

    RugbyAddick said:

    He's an innocent man.

    A court hasn't been able to prove his guilt - doesn't make him innocent
    Actually that is the perfect description of why he is innocent.
    No it isn't - not guilty does not mean innocent.

    whilst i actually agree with you, in this country you ARE Innocent until proven guilty
    Only in the eyes of the law. You cannot be punished by the state unless you are proved beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty. That does not mean you are innocent. Because the burden of proof is with the prosecution our system guarantees that a significant number of guilty people will be found not guilty.

    The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is not really accurate. It really means "not guilty until proven guilty" but regrettably for us legal pedants, that's not as catchy/



Categories

“Marketplace”