Very interesting. My gut feeling was still that he probably took advantage etc. However those two witness evidence (despite if they were paid) if true, would really not have helped her case. So she had sex with (I presume) a random the night before 'the incident' and then again two weeks after. It strikes me as strange that two weeks after you think you may have been raped, that you would be out having sex with a 'random' again.
By random I mean at best someone you're not in a relationship with.
I'm sorry but this is all a madness, the fact someone can do serious prison time based on a lack of evidence of consent, rather than evidence of a lack of consent is something that, regardless of the law, is terrifying to me.
For me that sums this whole case up.
And it's the thing I've been too afraid to say on here the past few months because people have been tripping over each other to be the most condemning of this guy and anyone who questioned his guilt. Before today I would have never claimed he was innocent, but at the same time I felt a sympathy for him, that maybe sexual deviance and rape have been merged into the same category. It is hard to fathom the kind of filth these kind of people get up to, that doesn't necessarily make them rapists.
I'm sorry but this is all a madness, the fact someone can do serious prison time based on a lack of evidence of consent, rather than evidence of a lack of consent is something that, regardless of the law, is terrifying to me.
For me that sums this whole case up.
And it's the thing I've been too afraid to say on here the past few months because people have been tripping over each other to be the most condemning of this guy and anyone who questioned his guilt. Before today I would have never claimed he was innocent, but at the same time I felt a sympathy for him, that maybe sexual deviance and rape have been merged into the same category. It is hard to fathom the kind of filth these kind of people get up to, that doesn't necessarily make them rapists.
Difficult to see how it could be the other way around given most sex takes place in private and without witnesses.
Would be near impossible to convict any rapist except the 'grab off the street' type.
I'm sorry but this is all a madness, the fact someone can do serious prison time based on a lack of evidence of consent, rather than evidence of a lack of consent is something that, regardless of the law, is terrifying to me.
For me that sums this whole case up.
And it's the thing I've been too afraid to say on here the past few months because people have been tripping over each other to be the most condemning of this guy and anyone who questioned his guilt. Before today I would have never claimed he was innocent, but at the same time I felt a sympathy for him, that maybe sexual deviance and rape have been merged into the same category. It is hard to fathom the kind of filth these kind of people get up to, that doesn't necessarily make them rapists.
Difficult to see how it could be the other way around given most sex takes place in private and without witnesses.
Would be near impossible to convict any rapist except the 'grab off the street' type.
I agree, and this is the crux of the problem, it will almost always be a case of "he said, she said" although that isn't the case here as there isn't any "she said." Regardless of what you think about all that, it is very difficult to convict beyond reasonable doubt if it is a case of he said she said, which is why we have such low conviction rates.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer," - Benjamin Franklin sums it up perfectly. It is both the beauty and tragedy of our legal system in one quote.
I agree, but if you are going to walk in on a naked drunk stranger and have sex with her, you probably shouldn't be surprised if you are subsequently accused of rape since alcohol plays games with one's memory.
With hindsight a quiet evening with his fiancee might have been preferable.
Absolute despise cases / incidents like this where social media is at its worst as you see first hand how black and white / extreme people's views are one way or another.
Personally I think there is a lot in this horrible sordid case that just doesn't sit easy with me, but the overriding thought is that he hasn't been found innocent, it's that the jury have not been able to categorically prove his guilt.
Absolute despise cases incidents like this where social media is at its worst as you see first hand how black and white / extreme people's views are one way or another.
Personally I think there is a lot in this horrible sordid case that just doesn't sit easy with me, but the overriding thought is that he hasn't been found innocent, but the jury have not been able to categorically prove his guilt.
Exactly right - his expensive legal team have done their job this time and ensured there is reasonable doubt.
Doesn't make him a saint who was wronged, and doesn't make her a slut/slag/liar deserving of being named, sued or charged like some are suggesting.
Absolute despise cases / incidents like this where social media is at its worst as you see first hand how black and white / extreme people's views are one way or another.
Personally I think there is a lot in this horrible sordid case that just doesn't sit easy with me, but the overriding thought is that he hasn't been found innocent, it's that the jury have not been able to categorically prove his guilt.
I disagree, the jury found him not guilty of rape, full stop.
There are many things which make me uncomfortable about his behaviour, and if I was his girlfriend or her parents I would have completely shunned him, but that doesn't make him a rapist.
Speaking as an ex massive beer monster, why can't they have a decent night out without waking up not knowing what they'd done the night before? Okay, 99.9% of the time there's not gonna be any problem, except a lost phone or summin, but then 0.01% of the time things like this happen.
Whenever these cases come up, I tend to think of both parties and say to meself, PRICKS! before not giving no more shits about it.
For that reason, I know nothing about the case really, but I do have one question:- Where were this 19 year old girl's pals when she went off with the first bloke? Or has it become acceptable to watch your 'too pissed to remember 19 year old' chum walk off with a fella.
NB I'm not saying she deserved it as much as I'm not saying he deserved being banged up, but I do think all of em involved need to take a fuckin good hard look at emselves (him, her, his mates, her mates and cos she was only 19, her parents)
IIRC & this from a few years ago. I think she lived alone or at least not with parents. She finished work late, say 11pm, then used to go out at say 1am, get pissed & pick up/get picked up by blokes.
It was a regular thing.
Apologies if I've not recalled correctly.
A little confused, where is this from @Covered End mate?
IIRC & this from a few years ago. I think she lived alone or at least not with parents. She finished work late, say 11pm, then used to go out at say 1am, get pissed & pick up/get picked up by blokes.
It was a regular thing.
Apologies if I've not recalled correctly.
A little confused, where is this from @Covered End mate?
My overall feeling is that after two trials we still don't know exactly what happened. Which I guess, if I was on the jury would be sufficient doubt for a not guilty vote. But ultimately I wonder how many criminal cases are that cut and dried. There are so many grey areas in real life whereas courts are always looking for a simple binary answer.
Over 20 years ago I sat on a jury in a sexual assault case. We found the guy not guilty by majority decision, on that jury 2 people were certain he was guilty, 1 person certain he was innocent and the remaining 9 felt he was probably guilty but couldn't say so beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on that experience not guilty doesn't always mean innocent it simply means guilt couldn't be proven to the necessary standard. I believe in Scotland they have the option of not proven which I would imagine would apply in a huge majority of cases like this one.
I bet his girlfriend and her parents wouldnt have stood by him if he wasnt a mega rich foootballer A lot of morals have been broken by this case But sadly we all know money talks
I bet his girlfriend and her parents wouldnt have stood by him if he wasnt a mega rich foootballer A lot of morals have been broken by this case But sadly we all know money talks
Have either of you entertained the idea that maybe he is innocent of rape and, because she is a lot closer to the case than any of us, she knows a bit more about it than any of us? I think it's more telling that she is from money and yet she still stayed with him. This 'well he probably did do it, but there just weren't enough evidence was there' mentality is all well and good, but in cases like this I think it's a little bit dangerous to say the least.
At this point, Id just like to point out that I obviously think rape is one of the most heinous of crimes and if someone is guilty of it, they should be strung up. But thats probably why I also think that the only crime worse than rape, is falsely accusing someone of it (although I'm not saying she has done that in this case either, I'm talking about in general) As I said above, I think that all of this could've been completely avoidable on so many levels
He felt the need to sleep with a girl who his mate had literally just slept with despite the fact he had a girlfriend. His girlfriend stood by him despite being made to look a complete mug. He was sent down and lost years of his career when now it appears he was guilty of nothing other than being a cunt. New witnesses coming forward at the retrial amid rumours they were paid off. Social media at it's absolute worst, comments like "the girl is nothing more than a slag" and his "girlfriend is only with him for the money", people who clearly haven't read into the details of the case at all.
Have either of you entertained the idea that maybe he is innocent of rape and, because she is a lot closer to the case than any of us, she knows a bit more about it than any of us? I think it's more telling that she is from money and yet she still stayed with him. This 'well he probably did do it, but there just weren't enough evidence was there' mentality is all well and good, but in cases like this I think it's a little bit dangerous to say the least.
At this point, Id just like to point out that I obviously think rape is one of the most heinous of crimes and if someone is guilty of it, they should be strung up. But thats probably why I also think that the only crime worse than rape, is falsely accusing someone of it (although I'm not saying she has done that in this case either, I'm talking about in general) As I said above, I think that all of this could've been completely avoidable on so many levels
I posted what I did regarding my jury service more in response to the posts stating that as Evans was found not guilty she must be lying, when clearly that is not always the case. With regard to his girlfriend, what amazes me is that she stayed with him at all irrespective of whether she believed it was rape. I really wouldn't want to make my life with someone who thought that behaviour was ok.
'If the prosecution have failed to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, then you must return a verdict of not guilty' is how I remember the judge instructing us at the trials I have been on the jury.
You don't have to think someone is not guilty, you just have to think the prosecution have not sufficiently proved guilt.
Just goes to show that the most important things to have if you want to get the result you want in court are money and a good media team. Enough money to get good lawyers working for you for three years, enough money to offer financial incentives for former sexual partners to remember things about your sex life right on time, and a smart media team who can now say you've 'proven your innocence' when really what you've done is out-manoeuvred the prosecution. It's a complicated case, but paying people to say things that fundamentally affect the outcome of a case, and allowing a girl's previous sexual history to be brought into a case about a question of fact based on one specific moment in time does not sit well with me
Comments
However those two witness evidence (despite if they were paid) if true, would really not have helped her case. So she had sex with (I presume) a random the night before 'the incident' and then again two weeks after. It strikes me as strange that two weeks after you think you may have been raped, that you would be out having sex with a 'random' again.
By random I mean at best someone you're not in a relationship with.
For me that sums this whole case up.
And it's the thing I've been too afraid to say on here the past few months because people have been tripping over each other to be the most condemning of this guy and anyone who questioned his guilt. Before today I would have never claimed he was innocent, but at the same time I felt a sympathy for him, that maybe sexual deviance and rape have been merged into the same category. It is hard to fathom the kind of filth these kind of people get up to, that doesn't necessarily make them rapists.
What a gentleman your parents have raised...
Would be near impossible to convict any rapist except the 'grab off the street' type.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer," - Benjamin Franklin sums it up perfectly. It is both the beauty and tragedy of our legal system in one quote.
With hindsight a quiet evening with his fiancee might have been preferable.
Personally I think there is a lot in this horrible sordid case that just doesn't sit easy with me, but the overriding thought is that he hasn't been found innocent, it's that the jury have not been able to categorically prove his guilt.
Doesn't make him a saint who was wronged, and doesn't make her a slut/slag/liar deserving of being named, sued or charged like some are suggesting.
There are many things which make me uncomfortable about his behaviour, and if I was his girlfriend or her parents I would have completely shunned him, but that doesn't make him a rapist.
Whenever these cases come up, I tend to think of both parties and say to meself, PRICKS! before not giving no more shits about it.
For that reason, I know nothing about the case really, but I do have one question:-
Where were this 19 year old girl's pals when she went off with the first bloke? Or has it become acceptable to watch your 'too pissed to remember 19 year old' chum walk off with a fella.
NB I'm not saying she deserved it as much as I'm not saying he deserved being banged up, but I do think all of em involved need to take a fuckin good hard look at emselves (him, her, his mates, her mates and cos she was only 19, her parents)
She finished work late, say 11pm, then used to go out at say 1am, get pissed & pick up/get picked up by blokes.
It was a regular thing.
Apologies if I've not recalled correctly.
My overall feeling is that after two trials we still don't know exactly what happened. Which I guess, if I was on the jury would be sufficient doubt for a not guilty vote. But ultimately I wonder how many criminal cases are that cut and dried. There are so many grey areas in real life whereas courts are always looking for a simple binary answer.
I believe in Scotland they have the option of not proven which I would imagine would apply in a huge majority of cases like this one.
A lot of morals have been broken by this case
But sadly we all know money talks
At this point, Id just like to point out that I obviously think rape is one of the most heinous of crimes and if someone is guilty of it, they should be strung up. But thats probably why I also think that the only crime worse than rape, is falsely accusing someone of it (although I'm not saying she has done that in this case either, I'm talking about in general) As I said above, I think that all of this could've been completely avoidable on so many levels
He was found guilty so he was scum etc...
And now he has found not guilty, people don't see him any differently?
How many footballers are loyal to their wives really in this day and age? Not many I'd bet.
I think it's clear for all to see that this case was a mess.
Hopefully in future years we won't see anything like this case again!
He felt the need to sleep with a girl who his mate had literally just slept with despite the fact he had a girlfriend.
His girlfriend stood by him despite being made to look a complete mug.
He was sent down and lost years of his career when now it appears he was guilty of nothing other than being a cunt.
New witnesses coming forward at the retrial amid rumours they were paid off.
Social media at it's absolute worst, comments like "the girl is nothing more than a slag" and his "girlfriend is only with him for the money", people who clearly haven't read into the details of the case at all.
With regard to his girlfriend, what amazes me is that she stayed with him at all irrespective of whether she believed it was rape. I really wouldn't want to make my life with someone who thought that behaviour was ok.
You don't have to think someone is not guilty, you just have to think the prosecution have not sufficiently proved guilt.