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
Top striker at this level. Jessica Ennis whingingnot 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 strikerconvicted rapist
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.
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?
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.
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?
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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/
Comments
no need to use the word scummy mate
Unsavoury case for all concerned.
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?
It's a shame that this will undoubtedly continue to haunt his career, too.
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.
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"
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.
How many cases are they, that if a different jury oversaw, would have a different result?
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/