Jump to content

Ched Evans


Batman

Recommended Posts

 

In terms of this thread, the fundamental difference is that the likes of soggy take the view that a victim of rape is the victim. The likes of you and Hypo take the view that the accused is the victim.

 

 

A victim of rape, is a victim. End of.

 

The disagreement on this thread is whether this bird was raped or not. Some of us think the best way to determine whether she was is that a jury sit and listen to all the evidence and then decide. Others think that this isn’t the best way and they just decide from reading newspaper articles.

 

Soggy seems to believe that it’s somehow a draw, that one particular jury acquitted him and one convicted him. What he fails to mention is that 3 of the countries senior judges sat and decided that his original conviction was unsafe. His original lawyers have paid him a substantial amount of compensation based on their negligent defence. The first trial was clearly unsafe and his defence team incompetent. Once he received a fair trial, a proper defence, and the birds previous immoral behaviour came out, he was proven to be innocence. An innocent man, who has served time is clearly a victim.

 

There’s no need to play judge & jury, as we have the real thing in this case. Judges decided his conviction was unsafe, a jury found him innocent.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll focus on just these words. I wouldn't call you a rape apologist but you protest a hell of a lot on behalf of someone who was convicted of rape but later acquitted.

 

Am I a terrorist apologist if I declare that the Birmingham six are innocent and were victims of a miscarriage of justice. After all they were convicted originally.

 

Is someone convicted in an unsafe conviction, then acquitted, less innocent than someone merely acquitted

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I a terrorist apologist if I declare that the Birmingham six are innocent and were victims of a miscarriage of justice. After all they were convicted originally.

 

Is someone convicted in an unsafe conviction, then acquitted, less innocent than someone merely acquitted

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Do you really think that a conviction being unsafe because of the application of the law is the same as someone being innocent of the crime? As I say, court's apply the law, and that is different to justice being done. I had a successful criminal defence practice at one point with a high acquittal rate but I never acted for an innocent person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll focus on just these words. I wouldn't call you a rape apologist but you protest a hell of a lot on behalf of someone who was convicted of rape but later acquitted. I've read enough of this thread to note that you have played judge and jury without knowing the full facts and/or what Evans was thinking that night - you say that you don't feel that Evans committed the crime. question why you feel you can say that and/or why you feel the need to. Sure, the conviction appeared unsafe, but to lurch from that to protesting his innocence is a big step and one can see why the label has been attacked to you.

 

Soggy hasn't come out of this looking like a "fool". He seems to understand that rape is hideous and that people who are acquitted may well have committed a crime. There's no "justice" in that. Indeed - the application of the law and justice rarely reconcile.

 

Initially I only posted my thoughts on the case once, it was the likes of soggy smearing posters like me as a rape apologist among other slurs that provoked the continuous debate. I don't agree with your assertion that I've played "judge and jury" and I don't believe there is evidence of that here, but the jury have ultimately agreed with my opinion on the case which is not the same thing at all. Again you're making quite a few of these assertions but you're not prepared to find examples so it's probably best not to throw things like this around if they are baseless. I said that looking at the facts it does not appear that Ched Evans should have been found guilty of raping this woman and subsequently the courts have found this opinion to be the correct one. You can disagree of course if you've actually read into the details but the difference is I'm not the one screaming insults at your or falsely smearing you for doing so.

 

I don't believe we should start saying things like "I don't think you should be charged with this crime and the legal process - that is not corrupt as far as we know- has shown this to be the case but I still think you did it and will suggest you did anyway." Otherwise how can we be sure of any conviction? Should everyone convicted of a crime and subsequently acquitted be treated as if they did it anyway even if the defendent is an a*sehole? Let's also be clear as I've said many times here that Ched Evans is clearly not a pleasant individual but the reason this thread has dragged on as long as it has is because there are certain individuals who believe that there should be a different standard for how we treat people based on someone's race, sex, gender, personality etc and my point has always been that people should be treated equally before the law.

 

In summary, we have lots of evidence to suggest that Ched Evans acted extremely poorly and that he is an unpleasant person and we currently have no evidence that Ched Evans has committed a crime so as a society we cannot act as if he is a criminal because that's not how the justice system works. Soggy and people in general may believe that someone acquitted of rape may be guilty of a crime but we are ill equipped to make that judgement ourselves which is why we rely on the justice system to make that determination for us. We can't start arbitrarily assigning guilt or innocence on someone based on how we feel about them because that's madness.

 

And soggy has absolutely looked massively foolish. Jumping in screaming rape apologist and all sorts of baseless slurs at anyone who suggested the verdict may be overturned is pretty disgusting to be honest and even more so when it's clear that this "defence" is employed because Ched is white, male and "provilidged." You'd think it would make him think twice before engaging in that sort of behaviour in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think that a conviction being unsafe because of the application of the law is the same as someone being innocent of the crime? As I say, court's apply the law, and that is different to justice being done. I had a successful criminal defence practice at one point with a high acquittal rate but I never acted for an innocent person.
Who decides innocence then if not the courts? Maybe we should open up every acquittal to the court of public opinion after the real trial so we can decide how someone should be treated?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Initially I only posted my thoughts on the case once, it was the likes of soggy smearing posters like me as a rape apologist among other slurs that provoked the continuous debate. I don't agree with your assertion that I've played "judge and jury" and I don't believe there is evidence of that here, but the jury have ultimately agreed with my opinion on the case which is not the same thing at all. Again you're making quite a few of these assertions but you're not prepared to find examples so it's probably best not to throw things like this around if they are baseless. I said that looking at the facts it does not appear that Ched Evans should have been found guilty of raping this woman and subsequently the courts have found this opinion to be the correct one. You can disagree of course if you've actually read into the details but the difference is I'm not the one screaming insults at your or falsely smearing you for doing so.

 

I don't believe we should start saying things like "I don't think you should be charged with this crime and the legal process - that is not corrupt as far as we know- has shown this to be the case but I still think you did it and will suggest you did anyway." Otherwise how can we be sure of any conviction? Should everyone convicted of a crime and subsequently acquitted be treated as if they did it anyway even if the defendent is an a*sehole? Let's also be clear as I've said many times here that Ched Evans is clearly not a pleasant individual but the reason this thread has dragged on as long as it has is because there are certain individuals who believe that there should be a different standard for how we treat people based on someone's race, sex, gender, personality etc and my point has always been that people should be treated equally before the law.

 

In summary, we have lots of evidence to suggest that Ched Evans acted extremely poorly and that he is an unpleasant person and we currently have no evidence that Ched Evans has committed a crime so as a society we cannot act as if he is a criminal because that's not how the justice system works. Soggy and people in general may believe that someone acquitted of rape may be guilty of a crime but we are ill equipped to make that judgement ourselves which is why we rely on the justice system to make that determination for us. We can't start arbitrarily assigning guilt or innocence on someone based on how we feel about them because that's madness.

 

And soggy has absolutely looked massively foolish. Jumping in screaming rape apologist and all sorts of baseless slurs at anyone who suggested the verdict may be overturned is pretty disgusting to be honest and even more so when it's clear that this "defence" is employed because Ched is white, male and "provilidged." You'd think it would make him think twice before engaging in that sort of behaviour in the future.

 

Cheers and understood. I'd never label anyone a "rape apologist" but by the same token I'd never seek to protest someone's innocence in a rape allegation when there is insufficient information to form a view one way or the other. In this case I can see why there was a trial, but can also see the weakness with the initial verdict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who decides innocence then if not the courts? Maybe we should open up every acquittal to the court of public opinion after the real trial so we can decide how someone should be treated?

We're on different pages clearly. A not guilty verdict does not aways mean a man is actually innocent. In this case its you who assumed Evans was innocent and take great pleasure in his guilty verdict being overturned. I offer no opinion because I don't know.

Edited by egg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're on different pages clearly. A not guilty verdict does not aways mean a man is actually innocent. In this case its you who assumed Evans was innocent and take great pleasure in his guilty verdict being overturned. I offer no opinion because I don't know.

 

So who decides then? I'm well aware that the justice system is not perfect and that people get convicted when they are innocent and found innocent when they are guilty all the time but as a society we have collectively agreed to follow innocent until proven guilty in a court of law as a standard, otherwise anyone accused of a crime in court and then found not guilty or acquitted is never truly innocent even if they never did anything. Should all people acquitted by the courts be treated with suspicion or not as innocent people simply because they have been accused? By that logic I could accuse you of a crime that you are acquitted of yet still suggest you're not actually innocent of the crime.

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers and understood. I'd never label anyone a "rape apologist" but by the same token I'd never seek to protest someone's innocence in a rape allegation when there is insufficient information to form a view one way or the other. In this case I can see why there was a trial, but can also see the weakness with the initial verdict.

 

Well we are in agreement on that score then. It's a shame that others did not take a similar view at the time of the original conviction and this thread wouldn't be as long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're on different pages clearly. A not guilty verdict does not aways mean a man is actually innocent. In this case its you who assumed Evans was innocent and take great pleasure in his guilty verdict being overturned. I offer no opinion because I don't know.

 

No I didn't. You seem to reply in a reasonable manner and then you let yourself down by simply lying. I said that after looking at the case it wouldn't surprise me if the verdict was overturned and that I think he has a good chance of an appeal succeeding. There was no "assumption" of innocence at all after the initial guilty verdict until he was subsequently found not guilty and then he is "innocent until proven guilty". Or as Lord Duckhunter said, are you saying that you are less innocent if you are convicted and then a conviction is overturned?

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I didn't. You seem to reply in a reasonable manner and then you let yourself down by simply lying. I said that after looking at the case it wouldn't surprise me if the verdict was overturned and that I think he has a good chance of an appeal succeeding. There was no "assumption" of innocence at all after the initial guilty verdict until he was subsequently found not guilty and then he is "innocent until proven guilty". Or as Lord Duckhunter said, are you saying that you are less innocent if you are convicted and then a conviction is overturned?

 

I said "In this case its you who assumed Evans was innocent." That followed your post, just a few posts above, where you said "I don't like seeing individuals convicted of a crime when I'm not sure they have committed that crime"

 

You have/had clearly formed an opinion that Evans had not committed a crime. Please do not call me a liar when I quote your own words!

 

I'll leave it here as this is futile so fill your boots in having the last word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's start with the woman in question not being a "victim." Irrespective of what happened in the hotel room, despite it being illegal to name her, she has been constantly named and harassed on social media by the Evans camp right from the start. She even changed her name but they found out her new name and posted it on Twitter and in blogs. This continued despite a number of the Evans camp being warned and fined.

 

Now regarding his defence. His defence team maintain that they acted properly. The fact that they settled out of court does not mean that they accept that they were inept. Decisions to settle are made for many different reason, not least the cost. They might simply have decided that it would be cheaper to pay him off than to go through a lengthy and costly court battle. Evans father in law has plenty of financial clout and it was him that put up the cash for the reward amongst other things.

 

Now to the law. Legally someone is too drunk to consent to sexual activity if they are incapacitated. This can mean; their speech is slurred or incoherent and they cant maintain a conversation, they cant walk properly or are wobbly and unbalanced, they seem drowsy or fall in and out of consciousness, their behaviour seems wildly out of character and they've taken part in dangerous or risky activities, they won't be able to remember what happened the next day, they have been vomiting.

 

The prosecution established that the lady was incapacitated.

 

Neither McDonald or Evans had meet the lady before she became incapacitated therefore they could not argue that she had previously consented to sexual activity before she became incapacitated and that it was how the evening was going to pan out with or without booze or drugs.

 

If she was unable to consent to sexual activity because she was incapacitated and both McDonald and Evans engaged in sexual activity with her, both are technically guilty of rape.

 

A jury decision either way does not prove something one way or the other, it is just a decision based on what has been presented to them by the prosecution and the defence. As I have said before, I dont think that many people believe that OJ Simpson did not kill his wife and her boyfriend, but he walked free nonetheless.

 

There are clearly some different opinions on here, but the law clearly states that it is not possible to have consensual sex if one party is incapacitated. I guess we all have our own interpretations of what constitutes incapacitation in this case, but I also guess that we have all done things when drunk that we would never have dreamed of doing when sober. That is why this law is there, to protect the vulnerable.

 

Finally, there is the moral issue. Whatever you think of either of the verdicts, the actions of these two men suck, especially Evans. If anyone thinks what either of these men did was okay, I pity the women in your lives, if you have any, and doubt that you have daughters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said "In this case its you who assumed Evans was innocent." That followed your post, just a few posts above, where you said "I don't like seeing individuals convicted of a crime when I'm not sure they have committed that crime"

 

You have/had clearly formed an opinion that Evans had not committed a crime. Please do not call me a liar when I quote your own words!

 

I'll leave it here as this is futile so fill your boots in having the last word.

Not being sure that someone has committed a crime is categorically NOT the same as "assuming someone is innocent." Surely you can see the clear difference??? If you can't then I can't think of another way of explaining it.

 

Not being sure is not the same as assuming innocence I'm not sure why you are having difficulty here unless you are wilfully misinterpreting what I said?

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now to the law. Legally someone is too drunk to consent to sexual activity if they are incapacitated.

 

The prosecution established that the lady was incapacitated.

 

Neither McDonald or Evans had meet the lady before she became incapacitated therefore they could not argue that she had previously consented to sexual activity before she became incapacitated and that it was how the evening was going to pan out with or without booze or drugs.

 

If she was unable to consent to sexual activity because she was incapacitated and both McDonald and Evans engaged in sexual activity with her, both are technically guilty of rape.

 

 

 

There are clearly some different opinions on here, but the law clearly states that it is not possible to have consensual sex if one party is incapacitated. I guess we all have our own interpretations of what constitutes incapacitation in this case, but I also guess that we have all done things when drunk that we would never have dreamed of doing when sober. That is why this law is there, to protect the vulnerable.

 

Finally, there is the moral issue. Whatever you think of either of the verdicts, the actions of these two men suck, especially Evans. If anyone thinks what either of these men did was okay, I pity the women in your lives, if you have any, and doubt that you have daughters.

 

 

I don’t know where to start with this catalogue of pony.

 

You’re now throwing guilt at the other innocent party as well as Evans.

 

It is not for you, or me, or anyone else to decide if anyone is “technically” guilty of rape. Had you made such an outrageous comment in a newspaper I suggest you’d be facing a libel charge.

 

You really need to distinguish between bad behaviour and illegal behaviour, especially when it involves matters like rape.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's start with the woman in question not being a "victim." Irrespective of what happened in the hotel room, despite it being illegal to name her, she has been constantly named and harassed on social media by the Evans camp right from the start. She even changed her name but they found out her new name and posted it on Twitter and in blogs. This continued despite a number of the Evans camp being warned and fined.

 

Now regarding his defence. His defence team maintain that they acted properly. The fact that they settled out of court does not mean that they accept that they were inept. Decisions to settle are made for many different reason, not least the cost. They might simply have decided that it would be cheaper to pay him off than to go through a lengthy and costly court battle. Evans father in law has plenty of financial clout and it was him that put up the cash for the reward amongst other things.

 

Now to the law. Legally someone is too drunk to consent to sexual activity if they are incapacitated. This can mean; their speech is slurred or incoherent and they cant maintain a conversation, they cant walk properly or are wobbly and unbalanced, they seem drowsy or fall in and out of consciousness, their behaviour seems wildly out of character and they've taken part in dangerous or risky activities, they won't be able to remember what happened the next day, they have been vomiting.

 

The prosecution established that the lady was incapacitated.

 

Neither McDonald or Evans had meet the lady before she became incapacitated therefore they could not argue that she had previously consented to sexual activity before she became incapacitated and that it was how the evening was going to pan out with or without booze or drugs.

 

If she was unable to consent to sexual activity because she was incapacitated and both McDonald and Evans engaged in sexual activity with her, both are technically guilty of rape.

 

A jury decision either way does not prove something one way or the other, it is just a decision based on what has been presented to them by the prosecution and the defence. As I have said before, I dont think that many people believe that OJ Simpson did not kill his wife and her boyfriend, but he walked free nonetheless.

 

There are clearly some different opinions on here, but the law clearly states that it is not possible to have consensual sex if one party is incapacitated. I guess we all have our own interpretations of what constitutes incapacitation in this case, but I also guess that we have all done things when drunk that we would never have dreamed of doing when sober. That is why this law is there, to protect the vulnerable.

 

Finally, there is the moral issue. Whatever you think of either of the verdicts, the actions of these two men suck, especially Evans. If anyone thinks what either of these men did was okay, I pity the women in your lives, if you have any, and doubt that you have daughters.

 

Quick one for you.

 

Me and my Mrs go out for a few drinks. We both get a bit ****ed, and have sex. Next day we both wake up and can't remember having sex.

 

Are we both guilty of rape?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick one for you.

 

Me and my Mrs go out for a few drinks. We both get a bit ****ed, and have sex. Next day we both wake up and can't remember having sex.

 

Are we both guilty of rape?

 

Women can't technically commit rape, can they? I thought you were the forum's legal eagle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women can't technically commit rape, can they? I thought you were the forum's legal eagle.

 

I thought that they could - I thought anyone can commit rape as long as they penetrate with something ;)

 

I'll grab the old text books, haven't looked at Criminal Law for 16 years...

 

Either way, would I be guilty of rape?

 

 

Edit: She would be guilty of "Sexual Assault", but it carries the same sentencing profile and tariffs as "Rape".

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll focus on just these words. I wouldn't call you a rape apologist but you protest a hell of a lot on behalf of someone who was convicted of rape but later acquitted. I've read enough of this thread to note that you have played judge and jury without knowing the full facts and/or what Evans was thinking that night - you say that you don't feel that Evans committed the crime. question why you feel you can say that and/or why you feel the need to. Sure, the conviction appeared unsafe, but to lurch from that to protesting his innocence is a big step and one can see why the label has been attacked to you.

 

Soggy hasn't come out of this looking like a "fool". He seems to understand that rape is hideous and that people who are acquitted may well have committed a crime. There's no "justice" in that. Indeed - the application of the law and justice rarely reconcile.

 

Hi Egg, I worked for the CPS for 8 years. For the last few years I managed a team of paralegals, some who worked with our RASSO unit (Rape and Serious Sexual Offences). It is a hideous crime and going through case notes on a regular basis really brings it home. Despite efforts to make bringing these prosecutions to court easier it is still a tall order to get the cases to court, let along to get a conviction. You will see by some of the comments on this thread that a dinosaur attitude still prevails whether it be Unbelievable Jeff deliberately missing the point or Duckhunter talking about those who bring false rape accusations when they are a tiny minority and the bigger problem is the number of people who dont follow through on rape accusations because they can't face going through it all again in court. The defence will do all they can to discredit the victim and whereas the accused just used to deny it, they cant do that anymore thanks to DNA evidence. Now that just say it was consensual and the prosecution have to prove otherwise. Not easy in so many rape cases when it is one word against another. If the victim isnt covered in bruises she clearly didnt try and fight the bloke off. If she was prone to wear short skirts and low cut tops she was clearly asking for it. If she was drunk it was her own fault for not being in control. These things still go through people's minds even in 2019, when you'd like to think we would be more enlightened. It is very expensive bringing cases to court. The CPS do not prosecute people for the fun of it and clearly believed McDonald and Evans were guilty of rape. These are very professional people who deal with these cases on a daily basis, not a bunch of internet warriors just filling in time while they wait for the pubs to open or looking for a wind up. I prefer to believe them than some of the clowns on here who still seem to think that it is perfectly ok to use someone for sex who you have just found wandering around and out of it. And yes UJ, there is a big difference in getting wasted with your wife and having sex and picking up a wasted stranger, taking her to a hotel and having sex with her, but then you know that don't you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Egg, I worked for the CPS for 8 years. For the last few years I managed a team of paralegals, some who worked with our RASSO unit (Rape and Serious Sexual Offences). It is a hideous crime and going through case notes on a regular basis really brings it home. Despite efforts to make bringing these prosecutions to court easier it is still a tall order to get the cases to court, let along to get a conviction. You will see by some of the comments on this thread that a dinosaur attitude still prevails whether it be Unbelievable Jeff deliberately missing the point or Duckhunter talking about those who bring false rape accusations when they are a tiny minority and the bigger problem is the number of people who dont follow through on rape accusations because they can't face going through it all again in court. The defence will do all they can to discredit the victim and whereas the accused just used to deny it, they cant do that anymore thanks to DNA evidence. Now that just say it was consensual and the prosecution have to prove otherwise. Not easy in so many rape cases when it is one word against another. If the victim isnt covered in bruises she clearly didnt try and fight the bloke off. If she was prone to wear short skirts and low cut tops she was clearly asking for it. If she was drunk it was her own fault for not being in control. These things still go through people's minds even in 2019, when you'd like to think we would be more enlightened. It is very expensive bringing cases to court. The CPS do not prosecute people for the fun of it and clearly believed McDonald and Evans were guilty of rape. These are very professional people who deal with these cases on a daily basis, not a bunch of internet warriors just filling in time while they wait for the pubs to open or looking for a wind up. I prefer to believe them than some of the clowns on here who still seem to think that it is perfectly ok to use someone for sex who you have just found wandering around and out of it. And yes UJ, there is a big difference in getting wasted with your wife and having sex and picking up a wasted stranger, taking her to a hotel and having sex with her, but then you know that don't you.

who are these people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Egg, I worked for the CPS for 8 years. For the last few years I managed a team of paralegals, some who worked with our RASSO unit (Rape and Serious Sexual Offences). It is a hideous crime and going through case notes on a regular basis really brings it home. Despite efforts to make bringing these prosecutions to court easier it is still a tall order to get the cases to court, let along to get a conviction. You will see by some of the comments on this thread that a dinosaur attitude still prevails whether it be Unbelievable Jeff deliberately missing the point or Duckhunter talking about those who bring false rape accusations when they are a tiny minority and the bigger problem is the number of people who dont follow through on rape accusations because they can't face going through it all again in court. The defence will do all they can to discredit the victim and whereas the accused just used to deny it, they cant do that anymore thanks to DNA evidence. Now that just say it was consensual and the prosecution have to prove otherwise. Not easy in so many rape cases when it is one word against another. If the victim isnt covered in bruises she clearly didnt try and fight the bloke off. If she was prone to wear short skirts and low cut tops she was clearly asking for it. If she was drunk it was her own fault for not being in control. These things still go through people's minds even in 2019, when you'd like to think we would be more enlightened. It is very expensive bringing cases to court. The CPS do not prosecute people for the fun of it and clearly believed McDonald and Evans were guilty of rape. These are very professional people who deal with these cases on a daily basis, not a bunch of internet warriors just filling in time while they wait for the pubs to open or looking for a wind up. I prefer to believe them than some of the clowns on here who still seem to think that it is perfectly ok to use someone for sex who you have just found wandering around and out of it. And yes UJ, there is a big difference in getting wasted with your wife and having sex and picking up a wasted stranger, taking her to a hotel and having sex with her, but then you know that don't you.

 

Firstly, show us the post where people have said that what Evans did was OK, or shut the **** up.

 

Secondly, I wasn't saying it was the same. I was asking you if it was rape, and the answer, according to your definition above, is yes, surely? What would stop the CPS prosecuting someone for that.

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defence will do all they can to discredit the victim and whereas the accused just used to deny it, they cant do that anymore thanks to DNA evidence. Now that just say it was consensual and the prosecution have to prove otherwise. Not easy in so many rape cases when it is one word against another. If the victim isnt covered in bruises she clearly didnt try and fight the bloke off. If she was prone to wear short skirts and low cut tops she was clearly asking for it. If she was drunk it was her own fault for not being in control.

 

This is complete and utter pony. You seem stuck in the 70’s. Birds past sexual history (except in exceptional circumstances ) is never taken into account, neither is what she was wearing or whether she was covered in bruises. You’ve just made a load of pony up based on your dislike of white working class blokes. Had it been a white working class bird involved in a threesome with Mohamed & Aabidullah you’d be singing a different song.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is complete and utter pony. You seem stuck in the 70’s. Birds past sexual history (except in exceptional circumstances ) is never taken into account, neither is what she was wearing or whether she was covered in bruises. You’ve just made a load of pony up based on your dislike of white working class blokes. Had it been a white working class bird involved in a threesome with Mohamed & Aabidullah you’d be singing a different song.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Pay attention, it was in this case and defence often try and find ways to bring it up. You really don’t have a clue and your constant defence of Evans speaks volumes about you. You were bothered that I called him a rapist but not in the least bit bothered about me accusing OJ Simpson of a double homicide. Odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pay attention, it was in this case and defence often try and find ways to bring it up. You really don’t have a clue and your constant defence of Evans speaks volumes about you. You were bothered that I called him a rapist but not in the least bit bothered about me accusing OJ Simpson of a double homicide. Odd.
Questioning the original verdict based on the facts of the case does not equal "supporting" Ched Evan's actions. It is possible to be critical of the man's actions whilst being glad that justice seems to have been served and that he has been found innocent of a crime that there was not enough evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questioning the original verdict based on the facts of the case does not equal "supporting" Ched Evan's actions. It is possible to be critical of the man's actions whilst being glad that justice seems to have been served and that he has been found innocent of a crime that there was not enough evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed.

 

Sadoldgit is all over the place.

 

I would still like him to back up him assertion that posters here think the way Ched acted was OK?

 

He really really dislikes white, well-off, straight men, doesnt he.....slightly creepy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadoldgit is all over the place.

 

I would still like him to back up him assertion that posters here think the way Ched acted was OK?

 

He really really dislikes white, well-off, straight men, doesnt he.....slightly creepy

 

He can't back it up, the same as he can't answer my questions.

 

He's backed himself into a corner, but won't do the decent thing and admit he was wrong, which is why he's contradicting himself everytime he posts. That's why he's taken to projecting libellous opinions onto other posters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadoldgit is all over the place.

 

I would still like him to back up him assertion that posters here think the way Ched acted was OK?

 

He really really dislikes white, well-off, straight men, doesnt he.....slightly creepy

He clearly has an ingrained prejudice against them. As you say its very strange.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can't back it up, the same as he can't answer my questions.

 

He's backed himself into a corner, but won't do the decent thing and admit he was wrong, which is why he's contradicting himself everytime he posts. That's why he's taken to projecting libellous opinions onto other posters.

Whenever he inevitably loses an argument, his response is to make up claims about what someone else has said in the hope that no one will notice. Fails every time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really don’t have a clue and your constant defence of Evans speaks volumes about you.

 

I will always defend the right of men & women to drink too much and indulge in threesomes, because their sex life & legal behaviour has absolutely nothing to do with me. What are you the moral police, maybe you should move to Dubai or Pakistan where your intolerance will be welcomed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Egg, I worked for the CPS for 8 years. For the last few years I managed a team of paralegals, some who worked with our RASSO unit (Rape and Serious Sexual Offences). It is a hideous crime and going through case notes on a regular basis really brings it home. Despite efforts to make bringing these prosecutions to court easier it is still a tall order to get the cases to court, let along to get a conviction. You will see by some of the comments on this thread that a dinosaur attitude still prevails whether it be Unbelievable Jeff deliberately missing the point or Duckhunter talking about those who bring false rape accusations when they are a tiny minority and the bigger problem is the number of people who dont follow through on rape accusations because they can't face going through it all again in court. The defence will do all they can to discredit the victim and whereas the accused just used to deny it, they cant do that anymore thanks to DNA evidence. Now that just say it was consensual and the prosecution have to prove otherwise. Not easy in so many rape cases when it is one word against another. If the victim isnt covered in bruises she clearly didnt try and fight the bloke off. If she was prone to wear short skirts and low cut tops she was clearly asking for it. If she was drunk it was her own fault for not being in control. These things still go through people's minds even in 2019, when you'd like to think we would be more enlightened. It is very expensive bringing cases to court. The CPS do not prosecute people for the fun of it and clearly believed McDonald and Evans were guilty of rape. These are very professional people who deal with these cases on a daily basis, not a bunch of internet warriors just filling in time while they wait for the pubs to open or looking for a wind up. I prefer to believe them than some of the clowns on here who still seem to think that it is perfectly ok to use someone for sex who you have just found wandering around and out of it. And yes UJ, there is a big difference in getting wasted with your wife and having sex and picking up a wasted stranger, taking her to a hotel and having sex with her, but then you know that don't you.

 

tldr summary: #believe her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, show us the post where people have said that what Evans did was OK, or shut the **** up.

 

Secondly, I wasn't saying it was the same. I was asking you if it was rape, and the answer, according to your definition above, is yes, surely? What would stop the CPS prosecuting someone for that.

 

Firstly calm down UJ, you will have a stroke. If you have been following the comments about this case you will see that one particular poster refered to this type of incident as, and I can't remember the exact words, but it was to the affect of a "normal night out." Said poster has also sided with Evans pretty much through the whole episode. If you are that bothered you go and find the post, frankly, life is too short but I will give you a clue, his sidekick is called Robin.

 

As well you know, if a consenting couple get wasted and have sex, of course it is not rape. This law is about protecting those in completely different circumstances so please let's not pretend that you do not understand the difference (especially in this case when the defendant walked into the room, did what he had to do and walked out without having previously met the person or even having a rudimentary conversation with her).

 

Duckhunter, you have the nerve to call me stuck in the 70's. Do you read your own posts? Your constant references to "birds" and "chicks" and your arcane view of women make it sound like you have been stuck in a timewarp and, for you, the last 30 or 40 years haven't actually happened. You are lucky that there are very few women on this site otherwise you would have been lynched long ago. For the record, your last post shows that you could not have missed the point any further if you had tried! Try to understand this, there is a very big difference between consensual sex and rape. The idea that women someone how enjoy being raped died out with people calling women "birds" or "chicks." Plying someone with drink or drugs in order to get them to have sex with you is no longer viewed in the way it was in the last century.

 

Where did your notion that I see the two trials as a "draw" come from? I raised the point about the first trial for those like you who seem to think that Evans did nothing wrong and is a victim. Senior Crown Prosecutors obviously thought that he did something wrong as they charged him with rape. The first jury obviously believed that he had done something wrong as they found him guilty of rape. He put himself in a position where a serious criminal charge was brought against him. No one dragged him to that hotel room. No one forced him to have a sexual encounter with an inebriated, total stranger. To somehow pretend that he is a complete victim is nonsense.

 

Also where did this thing about my disliking working class blokes come from? Ched Evans used to earn £18,000 a week. How does that make him working class? Feel free to provide evidence Duckie. Perhaps you are basing your assumption on my dislike of Tommy Robinson (or that well know working class lad Stephen Yaxley-Lennon)? I can assure you that my dislike of him is based entirely on his racist politics and his behaviour.

 

Your idea of what goes on in rape trials and the ordeal that many rape victims still go through in court is as outdated as your language. Yes, there have been a number of moves to try and improve things for the victims, but don't kid yourself that the defence don't try every trick in the book to discredit the victims in the eyes of the jury or try to influence judges to allow the use previous sexual history in court.

 

Women are no longer the preserve of all red blooded males and the days when you could hit them over the head with a club and drag them back to your cave are long gone. The class system doesnt exist in the way you think it does anymore.The world has moved on Duckie, you need to too mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Duckhunter, you have the nerve to call me stuck in the 70's. Do you read your own posts? Your constant references to "birds" and "chicks" and your arcane view of women make it sound like you have been stuck in a timewarp and, for you, the last 30 or 40 years haven't actually happened. You are lucky that there are very few women on this site otherwise you would have been lynched long ago. For the record, your last post shows that you could not have missed the point any further if you had tried! Try to understand this, there is a very big difference between consensual sex and rape. The idea that women someone how enjoy being raped died out with people calling women "birds" or "chicks." Plying someone with drink or drugs in order to get them to have sex with you is no longer viewed in the way it was in the last century.

 

Dear god!!!!!

 

Of course there’s a big difference between rape & consensual sex, that’s the point people are trying to make to you. This was not rape, if it was Evans would be inside. It was consensual sex, how many times do you need telling before it sinks in?

 

Who said Evans got her drunk, according to you he’d only just met her. Make your mind up.

 

 

You seem to think that birds are delicate wall flowers, that need protecting from themselves. I don’t, I think they should have the right to act like men. Go out and get bladdered and then bang whoever they want. I’ve had a go on plenty of 3/10’s when I’ve been polluted and regretted it in the morning. They took advantage of my drunken state, they didn’t rape me.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly calm down UJ, you will have a stroke. If you have been following the comments about this case you will see that one particular poster refered to this type of incident as, and I can't remember the exact words, but it was to the affect of a "normal night out." Said poster has also sided with Evans pretty much through the whole episode. If you are that bothered you go and find the post, frankly, life is too short but I will give you a clue, his sidekick is called Robin.

 

.

there you go, making stuff up again

 

the only poster I recall comparing god awful acts to a particular night out was YOU. Something to do with Maidstone

How dare you suggest or imply I condone illegal actions.

 

what is wrong with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Egg, I worked for the CPS for 8 years. For the last few years I managed a team of paralegals, some who worked with our RASSO unit (Rape and Serious Sexual Offences). It is a hideous crime and going through case notes on a regular basis really brings it home. Despite efforts to make bringing these prosecutions to court easier it is still a tall order to get the cases to court, let along to get a conviction. You will see by some of the comments on this thread that a dinosaur attitude still prevails whether it be Unbelievable Jeff deliberately missing the point or Duckhunter talking about those who bring false rape accusations when they are a tiny minority and the bigger problem is the number of people who dont follow through on rape accusations because they can't face going through it all again in court. The defence will do all they can to discredit the victim and whereas the accused just used to deny it, they cant do that anymore thanks to DNA evidence. Now that just say it was consensual and the prosecution have to prove otherwise. Not easy in so many rape cases when it is one word against another. If the victim isnt covered in bruises she clearly didnt try and fight the bloke off. If she was prone to wear short skirts and low cut tops she was clearly asking for it. If she was drunk it was her own fault for not being in control. These things still go through people's minds even in 2019, when you'd like to think we would be more enlightened. It is very expensive bringing cases to court. The CPS do not prosecute people for the fun of it and clearly believed McDonald and Evans were guilty of rape. These are very professional people who deal with these cases on a daily basis, not a bunch of internet warriors just filling in time while they wait for the pubs to open or looking for a wind up. I prefer to believe them than some of the clowns on here who still seem to think that it is perfectly ok to use someone for sex who you have just found wandering around and out of it. And yes UJ, there is a big difference in getting wasted with your wife and having sex and picking up a wasted stranger, taking her to a hotel and having sex with her, but then you know that don't you.

 

Do you accept that sometimes people get drunk, make poor descisions and regret what they have done and/or have little recollection of what happened in the morning. Without being incapacitated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there you go, making stuff up again

 

the only poster I recall comparing god awful acts to a particular night out was YOU. Something to do with Maidstone

How dare you suggest or imply I condone illegal actions.

 

what is wrong with you?

And note that once again he makes these totally unsubstantiated claims without being able to provide a scintilla of evidence. He's a disgrace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly calm down UJ, you will have a stroke. If you have been following the comments about this case you will see that one particular poster refered to this type of incident as, and I can't remember the exact words, but it was to the affect of a "normal night out." Said poster has also sided with Evans pretty much through the whole episode. If you are that bothered you go and find the post, frankly, life is too short but I will give you a clue, his sidekick is called Robin.

 

As well you know, if a consenting couple get wasted and have sex, of course it is not rape. This law is about protecting those in completely different circumstances so please let's not pretend that you do not understand the difference (especially in this case when the defendant walked into the room, did what he had to do and walked out without having previously met the person or even having a rudimentary conversation with her).

 

Duckhunter, you have the nerve to call me stuck in the 70's. Do you read your own posts? Your constant references to "birds" and "chicks" and your arcane view of women make it sound like you have been stuck in a timewarp and, for you, the last 30 or 40 years haven't actually happened. You are lucky that there are very few women on this site otherwise you would have been lynched long ago. For the record, your last post shows that you could not have missed the point any further if you had tried! Try to understand this, there is a very big difference between consensual sex and rape. The idea that women someone how enjoy being raped died out with people calling women "birds" or "chicks." Plying someone with drink or drugs in order to get them to have sex with you is no longer viewed in the way it was in the last century.

 

Where did your notion that I see the two trials as a "draw" come from? I raised the point about the first trial for those like you who seem to think that Evans did nothing wrong and is a victim. Senior Crown Prosecutors obviously thought that he did something wrong as they charged him with rape. The first jury obviously believed that he had done something wrong as they found him guilty of rape. He put himself in a position where a serious criminal charge was brought against him. No one dragged him to that hotel room. No one forced him to have a sexual encounter with an inebriated, total stranger. To somehow pretend that he is a complete victim is nonsense.

 

Also where did this thing about my disliking working class blokes come from? Ched Evans used to earn £18,000 a week. How does that make him working class? Feel free to provide evidence Duckie. Perhaps you are basing your assumption on my dislike of Tommy Robinson (or that well know working class lad Stephen Yaxley-Lennon)? I can assure you that my dislike of him is based entirely on his racist politics and his behaviour.

 

Your idea of what goes on in rape trials and the ordeal that many rape victims still go through in court is as outdated as your language. Yes, there have been a number of moves to try and improve things for the victims, but don't kid yourself that the defence don't try every trick in the book to discredit the victims in the eyes of the jury or try to influence judges to allow the use previous sexual history in court.

 

Women are no longer the preserve of all red blooded males and the days when you could hit them over the head with a club and drag them back to your cave are long gone. The class system doesnt exist in the way you think it does anymore.The world has moved on Duckie, you need to too mate.

 

"As well you know, if a consenting couple get wasted and have sex, of course it is not rape. "

 

But the point is they can't consent can they, as they were incapacitated.

 

What is the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did your notion that I see the two trials as a "draw" come from? I raised the point about the first trial for those like you who seem to think that Evans did nothing wrong and is a victim. Senior Crown Prosecutors obviously thought that he did something wrong as they charged him with rape. The first jury obviously believed that he had done something wrong as they found him guilty of rape. He put himself in a position where a serious criminal charge was brought against him. No one dragged him to that hotel room. No one forced him to have a sexual encounter with an inebriated, total stranger. To somehow pretend that he is a complete victim is nonsense.

 

 

"He put himself in a position" -> that's really dangerous talk. Quite worrying if CPS really thinks that way.

"No one dragged him to that hotel room" -> not illegal to go to a hotel room

"No one forced him to have a sexual encounter with an inebriated, total stranger" -> not illegal to have sex with a p*ssed up stranger

 

"To somehow pretend that he is a complete victim is nonsense." -> he was arguably the victim of an inadequate/negligent defence (settled out of course, so this is not proven) resulting in an unsafe conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He put himself in a position" -> that's really dangerous talk. Quite worrying if CPS really thinks that way.

"No one dragged him to that hotel room" -> not illegal to go to a hotel room

"No one forced him to have a sexual encounter with an inebriated, total stranger" -> not illegal to have sex with a p*ssed up stranger

 

"To somehow pretend that he is a complete victim is nonsense." -> he was arguably the victim of an inadequate/negligent defence (settled out of course, so this is not proven) resulting in an unsafe conviction.

It's scary to think that people with the mindset of soggy potentially had even a small influence over court decisions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He put himself in a position" -> that's really dangerous talk. Quite worrying if CPS really thinks that way.

"No one dragged him to that hotel room" -> not illegal to go to a hotel room

"No one forced him to have a sexual encounter with an inebriated, total stranger" -> not illegal to have sex with a p*ssed up stranger

 

"To somehow pretend that he is a complete victim is nonsense." -> he was arguably the victim of an inadequate/negligent defence (settled out of course, so this is not proven) resulting in an unsafe conviction.

 

Dangerous talk? Why? Evans made decisions that evening that led to him being prosecuted for rape. If he had made different decisions the chances are he wouldnt have been.

No it is not illegal to go to a hotel room. But it is what happened when he went into that hotel room that led to him being prosecuted for rape.

If it is not illegal to have sex with a p*ssed up stranger why was he originally found guilty of rape?

If he was the victim of an inadequate defence, why did'nt the Evans camp just change their legal team? Instead they put up a reward of £50,000 and it was this money that swung the case is their favour.

 

As you say, they settled out of court. You might think that was because his original team thought that they would lose. Here is another thought. Perhaps they estimated that fighting the case would cost them £1.25m. Perhaps they took the pragmatic approach and saved themselves thousands by settling out of court?

 

This is a quote from Brabners, his original legal team:

 

"We are glad that Ched Evans has agreed not to pursue this case which we believe was entirely without merit. Brabners put forward a strong defence of Mr Evans' claim following a thorough process and we were prepared to vigorously defend our handling of the case."

 

Apparently Evans tried to sue them for £21m.

 

UJ - I believe that you know exactly what the difference is and are being deliberately being obtuse. If you dont, then you really are not vert bright, are you?

Either way, I will leave you to play your silly games on your own.

 

So, for those who realise that fine margins apply in the Criminal Justice System just as much as they do in football matches, here are something that came out after the appeal that are worth knowing:-

 

During the appeal case that led to the retrial, layers for the Crown suggested that the two new witnesses (that came forward when the reward was offered) may have been "fed" information by those close to Evans. This claim was rejected by Evans's side and by the appeal court.

 

The appeal court judges expressed "a considerable degree of hesitation" before allowing the new evidence of the former partners because it would result in the complainant's sexual behaviour being subject to forensic scrutiny. Sexual offence prosecutors fought for years to protect rape victims from this and there is a real fear that this ruling has set a precedent and the prosecution of rape and serious sexual assault cases could be set back years.

 

Evans's girlfriend, Massey, was accused in legal argument during the second trial of offering an "inducement" to a key witness. The prosecution said that this had "the flavour of a bribe." The trial judge disagreed.

 

The complainant continues to be named and abused on social media, even though the law grants her lifelong anonymity. The police are investigating at least one blog that identified her during the trial. She changed her identity and her new identity was circulated through Twitter and other forms of social media by what are thought to be people close to Evans. Some of these people have already been fined and warned.

 

You probably know this already but it also emerged that Evans's younger brother and another man were trying to film what was happening from outside the room.

 

More,

 

Rachel Krys of End Violence Against Women Coalition said after, "We are very concerned at the precedent which might have been set. In addition to this there are reports that the defence offered a "bounty" for such testimony. This is extremely worrying."

 

Polly Neate, chief executive of Women's Aid said, "There is a big risk that this case overall has a negative impact on reporting. Only this week the CPS figures revealed a quarter of women (already in the system) are not pursuing cases. If you look at the surrounding maelstrom about this case, it's easy to see why that is the case."

 

"A woman's past sexual history bears no relevance on whether or not they have been a victim of rape. There is a need to challenge pervasive cultural assumptions that equate a woman's former sexual history with her likelihood of being a victim of rape." (This is particularly relevant in the Evans case and the evidence in the second trial).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dangerous talk? Why? Evans made decisions that evening that led to him being prosecuted for rape. If he had made different decisions the chances are he wouldnt have been.

No it is not illegal to go to a hotel room. But it is what happened when he went into that hotel room that led to him being prosecuted for rape.

If it is not illegal to have sex with a p*ssed up stranger why was he originally found guilty of rape?

If he was the victim of an inadequate defence, why did'nt the Evans camp just change their legal team? Instead they put up a reward of £50,000 and it was this money that swung the case is their favour.

 

As you say, they settled out of court. You might think that was because his original team thought that they would lose. Here is another thought. Perhaps they estimated that fighting the case would cost them £1.25m. Perhaps they took the pragmatic approach and saved themselves thousands by settling out of court?

 

This is a quote from Brabners, his original legal team:

 

"We are glad that Ched Evans has agreed not to pursue this case which we believe was entirely without merit. Brabners put forward a strong defence of Mr Evans' claim following a thorough process and we were prepared to vigorously defend our handling of the case."

 

Apparently Evans tried to sue them for £21m.

 

UJ - I believe that you know exactly what the difference is and are being deliberately being obtuse. If you dont, then you really are not vert bright, are you?

Either way, I will leave you to play your silly games on your own.

 

So, for those who realise that fine margins apply in the Criminal Justice System just as much as they do in football matches, here are something that came out after the appeal that are worth knowing:-

 

During the appeal case that led to the retrial, layers for the Crown suggested that the two new witnesses (that came forward when the reward was offered) may have been "fed" information by those close to Evans. This claim was rejected by Evans's side and by the appeal court.

 

The appeal court judges expressed "a considerable degree of hesitation" before allowing the new evidence of the former partners because it would result in the complainant's sexual behaviour being subject to forensic scrutiny. Sexual offence prosecutors fought for years to protect rape victims from this and there is a real fear that this ruling has set a precedent and the prosecution of rape and serious sexual assault cases could be set back years.

 

Evans's girlfriend, Massey, was accused in legal argument during the second trial of offering an "inducement" to a key witness. The prosecution said that this had "the flavour of a bribe." The trial judge disagreed.

 

The complainant continues to be named and abused on social media, even though the law grants her lifelong anonymity. The police are investigating at least one blog that identified her during the trial. She changed her identity and her new identity was circulated through Twitter and other forms of social media by what are thought to be people close to Evans. Some of these people have already been fined and warned.

 

You probably know this already but it also emerged that Evans's younger brother and another man were trying to film what was happening from outside the room.

 

More,

 

Rachel Krys of End Violence Against Women Coalition said after, "We are very concerned at the precedent which might have been set. In addition to this there are reports that the defence offered a "bounty" for such testimony. This is extremely worrying."

 

Polly Neate, chief executive of Women's Aid said, "There is a big risk that this case overall has a negative impact on reporting. Only this week the CPS figures revealed a quarter of women (already in the system) are not pursuing cases. If you look at the surrounding maelstrom about this case, it's easy to see why that is the case."

 

"A woman's past sexual history bears no relevance on whether or not they have been a victim of rape. There is a need to challenge pervasive cultural assumptions that equate a woman's former sexual history with her likelihood of being a victim of rape." (This is particularly relevant in the Evans case and the evidence in the second trial).

 

So you can't answer what the difference is - thought so.

 

As it is possible to rape your wife, then surely an inhibriated wife is the same situation, from a legal definition POV. No clear consent, so a rape charge if the CPS wanted to pursue it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it a rest Soggy. I’m starting to think you’re a misandrist chick, no bloke could post the anti men bile you post. Calm down, suck a Werther's Original & stop defending the indefensible.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Not anti men Duckie. Just anti rapists, terrorists, anyone who makes the lives of others miserable etc. But then you right wingers don’t like us liberals do you? I will give it a rest for now but think it a shame that you do not seem remotely bothered that there is a possibility that the new evidence was bought and orchestrated. If I were a defence counsel in sex cases there are a few people on this thread who I’d love to have on a jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not anti men Duckie. Just anti rapists, terrorists, anyone who makes the lives of others miserable etc. But then you right wingers don’t like us liberals do you? I will give it a rest for now but think it a shame that you do not seem remotely bothered that there is a possibility that the new evidence was bought and orchestrated. If I were a defence counsel in sex cases there are a few people on this thread who I’d love to have on a jury.

 

why are you anti Ched? he isnt a rapist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not anti men Duckie. Just anti rapists, terrorists, anyone who makes the lives of others miserable etc. But then you right wingers don’t like us liberals do you? I will give it a rest for now but think it a shame that you do not seem remotely bothered that there is a possibility that the new evidence was bought and orchestrated. If I were a defence counsel in sex cases there are a few people on this thread who I’d love to have on a jury.

 

Do you have any proof that this new evidence was bought and orchestrated? It's interesting that you were adament initially that the original judgement was sound and yet now you're very keen to question the validity now that that has been overturned. Why is that?

 

Oh and I'm sure a prosecution would be dying to have you on a jury. If the defendent is white and male then you'll be pushing to convict every time before you've even seen the evidence!

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any proof that this new evidence was bought and orchestrated? It's interesting that you were adament initially that the original judgement was sound and yet now you're very keen to question the validity now that that has been overturned. Why is that?

 

Oh and I'm sure a prosecution would be dying to have you on a jury. If the defendent is white and male then you'll be pushing to convict every time before you've even seen the evidence!

 

The prosecution said they may have done, so obviously they did. FACT.

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})