To be worried about the Ched Evans threads on here

[corkysgran]

Sorry but this does seem like a witchunt to me. Many of the posters (who have signed the petition) obviously have little knowledge of the case. At one point a poster said Sports Direct would withdraw sponsorship if Evans was NOT signed and immediately others were vowing to boycott. Laughable and shows the level of thought before clicking. Online justice and the court of public opinion, not for me. As for expecting football, an industry corrupt from the very top (Sepp Blatter) and inherently sexist, to show any moral stance, get real.

I'd said up thread that I believe that the Jury is more likely (in my view) to have arrived at the incorrect decision.

So, please could you explain why, given that they saw and heard all the evidence and, in particular, were able actually to assess the witnesses' demeanour when they gave evidence and how they performed under cross-examination.

contrarians eh ?

hmm

So, given that David Emanuel was unable to make the jury believe that there was a reasonable doubt; and that the judge also said that he had no doubt that the verdict was correct; and that you believe Emanuel to be very very competent; and that the evidence as to the events in question came mainly from Evans and MacDonald: where, Malice, do you say the "problem" lies?

Icimoi No we shouldn't assume that all of them probably aren't guilty, but what we should absolutley do (and you're struggling with this point) is accept that SOME of them probably aren't guilty.

I wasn't aware that she'd pissed the bed (urrgh) so I guess it's down (on this point alone) to how much (if any) alcohol she drank between squatting in the street, and pissing the bed.

Malice

In that case, why do you think the evidence of happened in the 2 minutes between him using the card key (obtained by deception) and intercourse beginning, that would give him a reasonable belief that she had consented?

Consistent with his own testimony, that is.

Maybe it's just me, but I would have to be mega, mega-hammered to pee in public by squatting down on a pavement. I suspect that if I were that desperate I would rather wet myself on the basis that with any luck no-one would be able to tell immediately, and hope to get a chance to clean up later.

Can i just make it clear (to any potential rapists or rape apologists) that not pissing ones self is not synonymous with consenting to sex with any random stranger who enters a room one might be sleeping in.
Before today I would not have thought that needed saying, but I am increasingly aware of the dangerous views held by people as I read this thread.

I wasn't aware that she'd pissed the bed

What else about this case were you not aware of before making your posts, Malice?

I guess it's down (on this point alone) to how much (if any) alcohol she drank between squatting in the street, and pissing the bed.

No, it isn't. A person's state of drunkenness is not simply linear and can ebb and flow (for want of a more scientific phrase) over a night out/whatever period of time.

Also, can you please find at least one quote from this thread that supports your assertion that 'some of the posters on here would have found CE guilty merely by virtue of the fact that he has a penis'?

Malice, there are always a very few people in prison who are not guilty, but the percentages are absolutely tiny - hence the fact that miscarriages of justice get a lot of publicity. But I suspect none of those people were convicted on the basis primarily of their own evidence - it's people like Stefan Kiszko who was convicted because no-one had checked his sperm count, and Sally Clark who was convicted because the expert witness got the statistics horrendously wrong.

Any chance of you answering that question about why your judgment is more reliable than that of the jury? This is not a case where you can sensibly do so just by referring vaguely to the fact that juries sometimes make mistakes.

I think it might have been possible that he was found guilty because he is a rapist. The penis was merely the instrument used in raping that young woman.
Plenty of 'em out there.
Probably lots on the internet too.

Malice - how can you possibly say that the jury is more likely to have arrived at an incorrect position, when you didn't even know she'd urinated in the bed...?

malice i sort of get some of what you are saying. I get a little uncomfortable when I see posters (not on this thread) piling in to say 'I believe her' on the basis of nothing more than the fact that a woman has said a man raped/sexually assaulted her.

On a thread a while a go i said that i thought that it was a shame that Charlie Webster had lost some of her credibility for campaigning about Ched Evans and imploring people not to forget he is a convicted rapistwhilst simultaneously getting all excited about meeting convicted rapist mike Tyson, and I was told that I was being unsupportive of women and the word 'rape apologist' was bandied about then as well. I don't like it when people are accused of being this or that just because they don't agree with a certain view, because I don't think the world is that black and white and I like to take individual cases with no agenda.

BUT

It has been explained to you over and over and over again, why this conviction was made, how it would have been made and how it is perfectl sound. And yet you still insist on saying that in your opinion its wrong.

So I have two questions for you:

1. what exactly is it that makes you believe that your opinion is more valid than a highly experienced judge, a jury who heard all of the evidence and saw the witnesses give their evidence, and not one but two CCRC hearings during which more highly experienced legal erm, people (!), decided that the conviction was sound?

2. because you didn't answer first time - do you objectively think that 120 seconds is enough time for someone to gain reasonable belief in consent from someone they have never met before, who categorically did not invite them into the room, who was highly likely to be very drunk given the circumstances, and who had not been seen stood up and had not had a conversation with the person.

Do you think it was in any way possible for CE to have reasonable belief in the woman's consent and if so, please could you explain how (because I'm sure David Emmanuel would love to hear from you!)

And I agree that if you didn't even know she had wet the bed than you have no business making the claims about Ched's innocence that you are making. It's laughable really.

If Malice didn't even know she'd wet the bed, he hasn't even read this thread.

I think he's on 'transmit' not 'receive'

I get a little uncomfortable when I see posters (not on this thread) piling in to say 'I believe her' on the basis of nothing more than the fact that a woman has said a man raped/sexually assaulted her.

I'm going to moderate my comment on this based on the rest of your post but you do realise this victim did not make a complaint because she couldn't remember, don't you? I'm going to assume this is a generic swipe rather than a specific one.

Flora, it says 'not on this thread' and 'a woman' and 'a man', which sounds generic, so yes, I think so.

Sorry, it's not really my business to respond on someone else's behalf, is it?

That's why I'm assuming it was a generic and totally unnecessary swipe. I just wanted to make sure since so many people have come out with so much rubbish.

in that case, if it was a generic swipe, I fail to see that phrase's relevance on this thread which happens to be about a very specific set of circumstances