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?
- During the appeal case that led to the retrial, lawyers for the crown suggested the two new witnesses may have been “fed” information by those close to Evans. This claim was rejected by Evans’s side. - Evans’s fiancee, Massey, was accused in legal argument during the second trial of offering an “inducement” to a key witness. The prosecution said this had “the flavour of a bribe”. The trial judge disagreed with this description. -The appeal court judges, whose decision can be reported for the first time, expressed “a considerable degree of hesitation” before allowing in the new evidence of the former partners because it resulted in the complainant’s sexual behaviour being subject to forensic scrutiny – which is almost always banned. - The complainant continues to be named and abused on social media though the law gives her lifelong anonymity. The police are investigating one blog that identified her during the trial.
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!!
To quote supreme court judge Baroness Hale in 2011 (speaking about proposed plans to change the rights to claim for miscarriages of justice):
‘Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system.
'We distinguish between the guilty and the not guilty.
‘A person is only guilty if the state can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt… if it can be conclusively shown that the state was not entitled to punish a person, it seems to me that he should be entitled to compensation for having been punished.
‘He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now.’
It would be interesting to see what happens in relation to the girl who he was accused of raping. Could she now face perjury charges?
At this this stage nothing can be proved in this case. But talking in general a woman who falsely accuses a man of rape should face the same time in prison for someone who is convicted of rape. Obviously this would have to be proved at a seperate trial but if proved they need the same sentence as a rapist because they are trying to ruin a person.
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?
It would be interesting to see what happens in relation to the girl who he was accused of raping. Could she now face perjury charges?
At this this stage nothing can be proved in this case. But talking in general a woman who falsely accuses a man of rape should face the same time in prison for someone who is convicted of rape. Obviously this would have to be proved at a seperate trial but if proved they need the same sentence as a rapist because they are trying to ruin a person.
It would be interesting to see what happens in relation to the girl who he was accused of raping. Could she now face perjury charges?
At this this stage nothing can be proved in this case. But talking in general a woman who falsely accuses a man of rape should face the same time in prison for someone who is convicted of rape. Obviously this would have to be proved at a seperate trial but if proved they need the same sentence as a rapist because they are trying to ruin a person.
She woke up in a strange room with no memory of the night - hard to see how she perjured herself and once the police pieced together the actions especially of Evans, it was hardly surprising the CPS pursued the case.
It would be interesting to see what happens in relation to the girl who he was accused of raping. Could she now face perjury charges?
At this this stage nothing can be proved in this case. But talking in general a woman who falsely accuses a man of rape should face the same time in prison for someone who is convicted of rape. Obviously this would have to be proved at a seperate trial but if proved they need the same sentence as a rapist because they are trying to ruin a person.
Sickening post
Over reaction (as usual), and somewhat inflammatory seeing as there are moves to introduce a law to stop people bringing false rape charges.
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?
The contradiction in that sentence is phenomenal.
Where's the contradiction?
You imply that being being found guilty by a court of law doesn't mean you are guilty, when it is reality it is the dictionary definition of guilt.
Once an individual has been found guilty, they can appeal, however until their conviction is overturned they are guilty.
If not you could go around saying nobody was guilty, and the justice system would be completely irrelevant.
When he first went down there were a lot of different opinions on here. Those saying he was innocent were giving reasons - her story didn't add up, she had sex with his mate right before, she was able to walk heels etc etc. those saying he was guilty had very little argument beyond 'he was found guilty in a court of law'. I'm not even saying one is right and one is wrong, I'm just genuinely interested in what the latter will say now, given what's just happened.
When he first went down there were a lot of different opinions on here. Those saying he was innocent were giving reasons - her story didn't add up, she had sex with his mate right before, she was able to walk heels etc etc. those saying he was guilty had very little argument beyond 'he was found guilty in a court of law'. I'm not even saying one is right and one is wrong, I'm just genuinely interested in what the latter will say now, given what's just happened.
As you can see, they will say that he is still guilty, but now just not guilty in a court of law.
Let's just hope none of them every get accused of something they didn't do.
It would be interesting to see what happens in relation to the girl who he was accused of raping. Could she now face perjury charges?
At this this stage nothing can be proved in this case. But talking in general a woman who falsely accuses a man of rape should face the same time in prison for someone who is convicted of rape. Obviously this would have to be proved at a seperate trial but if proved they need the same sentence as a rapist because they are trying to ruin a person.
I heard on Twitter that they're already building a pyre.
When he first went down there were a lot of different opinions on here. Those saying he was innocent were giving reasons - her story didn't add up, she had sex with his mate right before, she was able to walk heels etc etc. those saying he was guilty had very little argument beyond 'he was found guilty in a court of law'. I'm not even saying one is right and one is wrong, I'm just genuinely interested in what the latter will say now, given what's just happened.
As you can see, they will say that he is still guilty, but now just not guilty in a court of law.
Let's just hope none of them every get accused of something they didn't do.
When he first went down there were a lot of different opinions on here. Those saying he was innocent were giving reasons - her story didn't add up, she had sex with his mate right before, she was able to walk heels etc etc. those saying he was guilty had very little argument beyond 'he was found guilty in a court of law'. I'm not even saying one is right and one is wrong, I'm just genuinely interested in what the latter will say now, given what's just happened.
As you can see, they will say that he is still guilty, but now just not guilty in a court of law.
Let's just hope none of them every get accused of something they didn't do.
When he first went down there were a lot of different opinions on here. Those saying he was innocent were giving reasons - her story didn't add up, she had sex with his mate right before, she was able to walk heels etc etc. those saying he was guilty had very little argument beyond 'he was found guilty in a court of law'. I'm not even saying one is right and one is wrong, I'm just genuinely interested in what the latter will say now, given what's just happened.
I take your point. Many of those who claimed that "he was guilt because he was found guilty" did so in complete ignorance of the facts that were presented against them. But that isn't an unreasonable thing to do following a guilty verdict from a court of law. The general populous needs to have that faith in the justice system, otherwise it completely undermines the process.
But, in the same way, those people who did that now have to put their hands up and say, I was wrong, the first trial was wrong, he is not guilty and justice has been done.
When he first went down there were a lot of different opinions on here. Those saying he was innocent were giving reasons - her story didn't add up, she had sex with his mate right before, she was able to walk heels etc etc. those saying he was guilty had very little argument beyond 'he was found guilty in a court of law'. I'm not even saying one is right and one is wrong, I'm just genuinely interested in what the latter will say now, given what's just happened.
As you can see, they will say that he is still guilty, but now just not guilty in a court of law.
Let's just hope none of them every get accused of something they didn't do.
When he first went down there were a lot of different opinions on here. Those saying he was innocent were giving reasons - her story didn't add up, she had sex with his mate right before, she was able to walk heels etc etc. those saying he was guilty had very little argument beyond 'he was found guilty in a court of law'. I'm not even saying one is right and one is wrong, I'm just genuinely interested in what the latter will say now, given what's just happened.
As you can see, they will say that he is still guilty, but now just not guilty in a court of law.
Let's just hope none of them every get accused of something they didn't do.
When he first went down there were a lot of different opinions on here. Those saying he was innocent were giving reasons - her story didn't add up, she had sex with his mate right before, she was able to walk heels etc etc. those saying he was guilty had very little argument beyond 'he was found guilty in a court of law'. I'm not even saying one is right and one is wrong, I'm just genuinely interested in what the latter will say now, given what's just happened.
To reiterate, it's perfectly reasonable to have accepted both the 1st & 2nd verdicts based on events - we don't always have the desire or time to read case notes, and in any case the jury are entitled to consider other signals not reflected in print (body language, the tone in which evidence is given, etc.) in making up their minds. So there's no inconsistency here. Yes juries can make mistakes or be prejudiced in some way, but in our system they can only make a judgment as best they can based on the facts.
As a bystander you're entitled to disagree with any verdict, I don't believe that i or anyone else here characterised your disagreement at the time as 'child-like'
It would be interesting to see what happens in relation to the girl who he was accused of raping. Could she now face perjury charges?
At this this stage nothing can be proved in this case. But talking in general a woman who falsely accuses a man of rape should face the same time in prison for someone who is convicted of rape. Obviously this would have to be proved at a seperate trial but if proved they need the same sentence as a rapist because they are trying to ruin a person.
Less than 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction, is that because 94% of women are committing perjury or because in those cases there is not enough evidence to convict beyond all reasonable doubt.
Are you advocating charging all of those women because if you are you may as well give up on women reporting the crime in the first place.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial?CMP=share_btn_tw
- During the appeal case that led to the retrial, lawyers for the crown suggested the two new witnesses may have been “fed” information by those close to Evans. This claim was rejected by Evans’s side.
- Evans’s fiancee, Massey, was accused in legal argument during the second trial of offering an “inducement” to a key witness. The prosecution said this had “the flavour of a bribe”. The trial judge disagreed with this description.
-The appeal court judges, whose decision can be reported for the first time, expressed “a considerable degree of hesitation” before allowing in the new evidence of the former partners because it resulted in the complainant’s sexual behaviour being subject to forensic scrutiny – which is almost always banned.
- The complainant continues to be named and abused on social media though the law gives her lifelong anonymity. The police are investigating one blog that identified her during the trial.
‘Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system.
'We distinguish between the guilty and the not guilty.
‘A person is only guilty if the state can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt… if it can be conclusively shown that the state was not entitled to punish a person, it seems to me that he should be entitled to compensation for having been punished.
‘He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now.’
At this this stage nothing can be proved in this case. But talking in general a woman who falsely accuses a man of rape should face the same time in prison for someone who is convicted of rape. Obviously this would have to be proved at a seperate trial but if proved they need the same sentence as a rapist because they are trying to ruin a person.
Once an individual has been found guilty, they can appeal, however until their conviction is overturned they are guilty.
If not you could go around saying nobody was guilty, and the justice system would be completely irrelevant.
When he first went down there were a lot of different opinions on here. Those saying he was innocent were giving reasons - her story didn't add up, she had sex with his mate right before, she was able to walk heels etc etc. those saying he was guilty had very little argument beyond 'he was found guilty in a court of law'. I'm not even saying one is right and one is wrong, I'm just genuinely interested in what the latter will say now, given what's just happened.
Let's just hope none of them every get accused of something they didn't do.
But, in the same way, those people who did that now have to put their hands up and say, I was wrong, the first trial was wrong, he is not guilty and justice has been done.
As a bystander you're entitled to disagree with any verdict, I don't believe that i or anyone else here characterised your disagreement at the time as 'child-like'
As for him leaving via the fire exit, maybe his friend told him to use the back door and poor old Ched got confused?
And the original incident didn't sound much better either
Are you advocating charging all of those women because if you are you may as well give up on women reporting the crime in the first place.