Would you have Ched Evans?

[Canaryboy]

This will be a highly contentious and/or emotive subject. Would you have Ched Evans at the club (right now). If yes, why? If no, why? 

My vote goes to 'No' at current. 

In my opinion the only thing which would change my mind is if he is acquitted at a retrial, which remains a possibility. I've been following this case quite keenly ever since he was charged. 

Friends and relatives of Ched Evans have been disclosing a fair bit of the evidence put forward by the defence team on the website chedevans.com, some of it really makes you question the judgement. Although of course it is impossible to deduce anything from that information without a similar website putting forward an argument from the perspective of a prosecutor. 

Having my doubts about the conviction is not enough for me to say 'Yes' however, because whilst our legal system does have it faults and does make mistakes it will typically get to the truth in the end, so unless / until he manages to get his conviction overturned, I think that we have to see Ched Evans for what he is.... which is a man convicted of rape who has only served half of his sentence.

If he did manage to get his conviction overturned, then he'd become a man who had spent two and a half years wrongly imprisoned for an offence which our legal system has determined there is no evidence he commited. If that did happen, then the answer would probably be 'yes' if he is in tip top condition, because he was on the cusp of a Premier League move when convicted, can't turn down a free player of that quality? 

 

[Din]

My belief is that he was very hardly done by. I really don't want to sound like I am condoning rape at all, but looking at the reasons why he was convicted it does seem harsh.

The fact is though he has done his time whether he should've been convicted or not, he has served his punishment, and like anyone he should be allowed to return to work. 

My answer to this question though, is no. It's not really anything to do with his sentence, it's simply because after spending the last 2 years or so in prison, he's hardly going to be particularly fit, and after playing no football throughout that time, it's going to take him quite a while to re-adjust as well. Plus, we already have 4 very good strikers for this level, we don't really need another. 

 

[splutcho]

Absolutely not. Convicted by a jury of his peers to be a rapist, and had various appeals turned down. A biased website set up by his mates won't convince me otherwise either. The worst thing is that he shows no remorse.

 

[Wiz]

No, no and trice no............and especially no as respect for Delia and our female supporters.

 

[Lowestoft Canary]

He has commited the crime and done the time. I would have him back a good striker who knew where the net was

 

[GJP]

Would I like to see an unrepentant, convicted rapist at Norwich?

No.

 

[Canaryboy]

 and had various appeals turned down. 

You only get 28 days from the point of conviction to lodge an appeal application, that application was rejected, there haven't been any retrials. You only get granted a retrial if you can present substantial new evidence, and 28 days isn't very long to find it. 

Any second appeal then has to go through the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which they have now lodged. 

This seems to suggest that his defense team now have strong cause for complaint, as the CCRC are fast tracking their investigation? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29679563

It doesn't make any sense for McDonald to be acquitted of the exact same charge, with almost identical evidence, and when found not guilty McDonald had the perfect opportunity to wash his hands of Evans but instead sticks by him. The victim claimed to be too drunk to remember intercourse with either of them, so why was one guilty and one not guilty? There is enough reasonable doubt for me to want to wait and see what the CCRC concludes. 

It is the same body which determined that the Barry George conviction was unsafe and had that unturned, he spent 8 years of his life in prison for the murder of Jill Dando, which the public now accepts he didn't commit. 

The CCRC refer just 3.43% of applications to appeal, and of those around 70% are successful. So I'm interested in seeing whether CCRC decided to pursue an appeal after investigation, before concluding that he is a rapist. Every convicted criminal has the right to submit a CCRC application, it is part of our legal process, so I'm happy to await the outcome of that before concluding myself that he is a sex offender. It the last chance that he'll get of clearing his name. 

There have been enough unsafe convictions in British history to justify accepting a CCRC application as part of the legal process, The Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, for example. 

But I wouldn't want us to sign Ched Evans unless he did manage to get his conviction overturned. 

 

[ZLF]

No - he is a league one standard player and will never be prem standard - thats the level we should be aiming for 

 

[Jimmy smith]

Similar to CanaryBoy - I think he's been hard done by to be convicted but I don't think he's quite good enough for us. He was allagedly on the cusp of a premier league move when he was convicted though.

 

[Canaryboy]

No - he is a league one standard player and will never be prem standard - thats the level we should be aiming for 

Scored 35 goals in 42 games for Sheffield United in his last season of playing, so is safe to say that he was - in 2012 at least - far too good for League One? 

How high up the pyramid he can go now remains to be seen, but suspect he'd take a good career in League One if it were on the table. 

 

[bigfish]

Quite surprising that the CCRC are reviewing this until you consider that Evan's girlfriend's multimillionaire is paying for an expensive legal team, publicity and private investigators. Some of the comments above are shocking when you consider the Evan's innocent victim now has been forced to adopt a new identify to protect her from Evan's supporters and Internet trolls. His admissions are sleazy enough to question whether you would want him here anyway, The girl was incapable of giving consent (McDonald was probably acquitted because at least he picked up the girl - Evans just came in later while his brother and mate filmed it). That's rape.

Even if he gets off on a technicality there should be no place in English football for such a sleazeball.

 

[Jimmy smith]

Quite surprising that the CCRC are reviewing this until you consider that Evan's girlfriend's multimillionaire is paying for an expensive legal team, publicity and private investigators. Some of the comments above are shocking when you consider the Evan's innocent victim now has been forced to adopt a new identify to protect her from Evan's supporters and Internet trolls. His admissions are sleazy enough to question whether you would want him here anyway, The girl was incapable of giving consent (McDonald was probably acquitted because at least he picked up the girl - Evans just came in later while his brother and mate filmed it). That's rape.

Even if he gets off on a technicality there should be no place in English football for such a sleazeball.

Agree he is a sleazeball but i'm not sure about it being rape. That basically hinges on how drunk she was. She supposedly said yes but nobody will ever know the truth apart from Ched and Clayton.

 

[Canaryboy]

Quite surprising that the CCRC are reviewing this until you consider that Evan's girlfriend's multimillionaire is paying for an expensive legal team, publicity and private investigators. 

The CCRC are publicly funded and have to investigate all applications, only 1 in 29 go as far as a retrial, at current they have only decided to fast track the investigation. Has not been confirmed that they will pursue it with the courts to seek an acquittal. 

I don't think that it would be the slightest bit surprising if they were to pursue a retrial, because the evidence against Ched Evans was almost identical to the evidence against Clayton McDonald. One was found guilty, and the other not guilty.

So should Clayton McDonald have been found guilty too? Or should Ched Evans be found not guilty? 

Also, what about that withheld evidence? The jury were not allowed to know about previous rape allegations made by the victim, in case it prejudiced the case against the defendants. I'd have thought that they would be relevant in determining whether the victim was a reliable witness or not, considering rape allegations are usually one word against another. 

Then there were the tweets by the victim, after the incident, in which boasted that she would "win big", and that she had "tried this before", which she then tried to hide (but the internet didn't forget). 

Based on what we've heard from the defence the whole thing stinks. I think I'd quite like to know whether the victim had made prior false allegations or not, for me it is entirely relevant when the entire case for prosecution relies on the reliability of that one witness, and should not have been withheld from the court. Yes, the chedevans.com website isn't going to share prosecution evidence and offer impartial observation, but that would be the point in a retrial. 

Most of the convictions that the CCRC get overturned are rape convictions, that's why I'll refrain from calling Ched Evans a rapist until he has exhausted his appeal avenues. 

Our legal system does not convict enough rapists, because it is the toughest crime to prove. But for the same reasons it results in the highest proportion of incorrect or unsound convictions, because authorities are under a lot of pressure to bring more convictions, under the guidelines for proving rape pre-2003 Evans would have been found not guilty. 

In England we are supposed to use a standard of proof called 'beyond reasonable doubt' for convicting criminals in trials for all crimes, but rape has always been incredibly difficult to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt', so the reason that the CCRC are getting so many rape convictions overturned is because of the changes in the guidelines introduced in 2003 for that offence, which were intended solely to convict more people for the crime, irrespective of whether this would result in an increase in miscarriages of justice. 

The chedevans.com website, however bias and partial, does a pretty good job of arguing that his convinction is unsound. I certainly have some doubts, and that would be the point in a retrial, to determine whether the conviction was sound or not. Is there anybody who can honestly say that they are 100% certain he is guilty of rape, and what are your reasons for that?

I don't want to sound like a rape apologist, I'm certainly not, but I personally wouldn't object to a retrial if the CCRC consider there to be grounds for one. And I wouldn't want to live in a country where a body like the CCRC doesn't exist, e.g. one where your innocence is only established after you've been given a lethal injection. 

 

[Canaryboy]

Agree he is a sleazeball but i'm not sure about it being rape. That basically hinges on how drunk she was. She supposedly said yes but nobody will ever know the truth apart from Ched and Clayton.

Presumably less drunk than she was when she slept with the other defendant, who was cleared by a jury. 

 

[ZLF]

Its seems a sound conviction;   the consent was given to mcdonald by her agreeing to go back to the hotel with him,  which she gave before the alcohol fully kicked in.   She only agreed to go with him;  that she was too drunk to remember actually having sex is irrelevant. 

Evans was not part of that agreement - turning up significantly later.    The law is extremely clear, and has been for nearly 50 years (1965 I think) that being blindingly drunk means consent can not be given,  (this is a sensible precaution otherwide plying with drinks and or drugs for example becomes acceptable) -    the jury found she had no knowledge or expectation of evans being there so in no way could she have given any consent. 

Given the enormous failure rate of rape charges,  including at trial,   Evans credibility to the judge & jury must have been poor,  and hers strong,  for any guilty verdict to be passed AND for the judge to pass a 5 year sentence. 

He may, of course, succeed at appeal.   However be under no illusions that the fast track consideration of whether the appeal has any justification is nothing to do with the strength of the case and everything to do with quelling the debate as quickly as possible - if its strong a further appeal can proceed,  but can still be found guilty. 

 

[ZLF]

I wouldn't want to live in a country where a body like the CCRC doesn't exist. 

Agree completely  - a sign of the strength of our justice system. 

 

[Monty13]

I would have to say no....I feel a bit of a hypocrite as I personally agree with a lot of what CanaryBoy is arguing and I also believe that people who have served their time deserve a second chance, but until such time as his conviction is overturned I wouldn't want him at our club, and even then the stigma will never leave him, meaning we will be the Club giving a career and money to a rapist in many's eyes. 

The conviction does seem incredibly unsound and I will be interested to see how his appeal continues as the CCRC only ever seems to go with cases that look like having a very good chance of holding up the appeal. 

I think many take the easy view on this, and I'm ashamed to see politicians speaking out against him when there is an appeal in process, it's pretty shameful. 

I can't imagine being wrongly convicted of such a crime (and I'm not suggesting he definitely was), what an awful taint to the rest of your life. 

 

[Canaryboy]

I think many take the easy view on this, and I'm ashamed to see politicians speaking out against him when there is an appeal in process, it's pretty shameful. 

I agree completely. He only gets one crack at trying to get this overturned. You aren't allowed to talk about a trial as it happens, in case you prejudice the case and give jurors a preconceived opinion. Yet that is what many public figures seem to be doing now, in advance of a possible retrial. 

I don't even want to come across like I'm defending Ched Evans, I'm not really - I don't find him particularly likeable - but he is entitled to his right to challenge his conviction, just as any of us would be if convicted of a crime. 

 

[Watling the Gnome]

He was found guilty and served his time, and that is the justice system. I don't understand why he should be treated differently to people in other professions who have been convicted and served their sentence. The "role model" argument is dubious at best, I doubt very much that rapes will increase at whatever club he ends up at.

I would not have him here but only because we don't need him here.

Also, seeing Nick Clegg taking the moral high ground makes my stomach turn.

 

[Canaryboy]

Also, seeing Nick Clegg taking the moral high ground makes my stomach turn.

He stole my vote and I'll never forgive him for that. I don't swear much, but he's a c*nt.