Would you have Ched Evans?

[Indy_Bones]

As politely requested, I'll continue my previous post from the Grabban thread here.

The reason I can have tolerance for Evans is because on the basis of the evidence provided, I simply don't think he was guilty of what he was convicted of, and instead has been used as a high profile target to try to help increase the number of rape convictions whilst showing footballers that they're not invincible and that they can't act however they like.

I find Evans behaviour surrounding the actual rape to be quite seedy and certainly in regards to the hidden filming, pretty deplorable, but that doesn't make him a rapist, it just makes him a somewhat disagreeable individual whose behaviour many may well find difficult to stomach and fairly ill-advised, but still not a rapist.

All that being said, we're now a year on (nearly) from the original post, he's had another year of not playing and probably not even training at the right level and thus it's arguable whether he'd be anywhere near ready to start playing again, never mind whether or not he was good enough for this level to begin with (I personally think he could have been with the right development and in the right setup), and that's all on top of waiting to see if he actually gets his re-trial and whether or not the independent commission will support his appeal.

 

[Canaryboy]

As politely requested, I'll continue my previous post from the Grabban thread here.

The reason I can have tolerance for Evans is because on the basis of the evidence provided, I simply don't think he was guilty of what he was convicted of, and instead has been used as a high profile target to try to help increase the number of rape convictions whilst showing footballers that they're not invincible and that they can't act however they like.

I find Evans behaviour surrounding the actual rape to be quite seedy and certainly in regards to the hidden filming, pretty deplorable, but that doesn't make him a rapist, it just makes him a somewhat disagreeable individual whose behaviour many may well find difficult to stomach and fairly ill-advised, but still not a rapist.

All that being said, we're now a year on (nearly) from the original post, he's had another year of not playing and probably not even training at the right level and thus it's arguable whether he'd be anywhere near ready to start playing again, never mind whether or not he was good enough for this level to begin with (I personally think he could have been with the right development and in the right setup), and that's all on top of waiting to see if he actually gets his re-trial and whether or not the independent commission will support his appeal.

My opinion, as you'll see from this thread if you've read it through, was pretty similar to yours. 

That video though, I was wondering, did the jury get to watch that video? Because that's one potentially important piece of evidence that no member of the public is ever going to see, and potentially crucial in helping the jury decide whether the girl was capable of consenting? 

I mean, I agree with you that evidence seems to be almost completely non-existent, Ched Evans had intercourse with a girl who was equally as drunk when she slept with another apparently innocent footballer. But, the jury determined that McDonald was innocent on the basis that the girl was effectively consenting simply by returning to his hotel room, could that video, the one that none of us have seen, have given us good reason to believe that for one reason or another the girl was clearly in no fit state to consent to Ched Evans? 

What if, for example, she appeared effectively semi-conscious in that mysterious balcony video? Mute point if the jury didn't watch that video I guess, but a pretty crucial piece of evidence that neither you or I have seen if it was presented in court as evidence? 

 

[Din]

I also agree that he was very hard done by, however my main question would be why would you want someone who hasn't played football for 3 years, and has barely even played at Championship level?

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

 

[Canaryboy]

Rape conviction ruled unsafe and quashed on appeal.

 

[splutcho]

Yep. Have to wait on another trial. 

 

[morty]

No reason why not, if he is proven innocent, on retrial.

 

[ZLF]

On capabaility?  depends what league we are in.   Prem?  absolutely not, way out of his depth.

Because of associated baggage (press clamour, short term protests etc) even lower down he is unlikely to be worth it. 

 

[Canaryboy]

This thread was started in 2014, I bumped it on today's news. 

If he gets cleared he'll end up at Oldham or Tranmere or similar. 

 

[Ricardo]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case it has destroyed his reputation and his best earnings years. The fact that the Law Lords have overturned the conviction as unsafe should tell us something about the new evidence that has come to light. It always looked a pretty weak case and relied largely on he said, she said.

Unfortunately nobody is going to come out of this looking like a winner. Not Evans, not the girl and not the Law.

 

[It's Character Forming]

That was my thinking.  We're always told that criminals should be rehabilitated when they've served their time.  But with Ched Evans, when he was released in the normal way, trying to resume his job unleashed a media feeding frenzy.  It seems criminals can be rehabilitated but not if they're going to be earning a lot of money and in the public eye.

It doesn't mean he's innocent, just that enough evidence has come up that the Supreme Court thinks that the lower court might well have come to a different decision so it needs to be re-heard.

If he's found innocent, I suspect he'll end up somewhere in L1 because there will still be a media circus at least to start with, and probably only a team down at that level would be willing to put up with it to get a striker who did pretty well in the 2nd tier before.

 

[Gaffer]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case it has destroyed his reputation and his best earnings years. The fact that the Law Lords have overturned the conviction as unsafe should tell us something about the new evidence that has come to light. It always looked a pretty weak case and relied largely on he said, she said.

Unfortunately nobody is going to come out of this looking like a winner. Not Evans, not the girl and not the Law.

Not even a case of 'he said, she said' because she's never said she was raped, just that she woke up and had no idea what happened the night before. The more you look into it the more perverse the jury's decision seems. They seem to have just had a wild guess as to the extent of the woman's drunkenness at various stages of her encounters with him and Clayton McDonald and on that basis acquitted one guy and convicted the other. And it might take another year for the new trial to begin but will the hysterical self-righteous mob allow him to resume his career? I doubt it. 

 

[Ricardo]

Not even a case of 'he said, she said' because she's never said she was raped, just that she woke up and had no idea what happened the night before. The more you look into it the more perverse the jury's decision seems. They seem to have just had a wild guess as to the extent of the woman's drunkenness at various stages of her encounters with him and Clayton McDonald and on that basis acquitted one guy and convicted the other. And it might take another year for the new trial to begin but will the hysterical self-righteous mob allow him to resume his career? I doubt it. 

Yes, that is the point I was trying to make, regardless of the truth or legalities both parties will be tainted by this for the rest of their lives.

There is also the point that it seemed much of what you call the self righteous mob, seem more motivated by revenge than seeing that justice is served and having done his time they still wanted their pound of flesh. Evans may well have been guilty of stupidity and a depraved act but he may also be innocent of the charge of rape.

 

[Canaryboy]

both parties will be tainted by this for the rest of their lives.

Its actually destroyed Clayton McDonald's career too, and he was found not guilty, so make that three.

Everybody needs to wait for the retrial and for the media to disclose what this 'new evidence' is. it was deemed substantial enough to warrant a retrial but we won't get to hear what it is until the trial has finished.

 

[Canaryboy]

Not even a case of 'he said, she said' because she's never said she was raped, just that she woke up and had no idea what happened the night before. 

She actually initially phoned the police to report a missing handbag!

She'd left it in the pizza shop where she met Clayton McDonald. 

Amazing how a report of a missing handbag could turn into the police and CPS pursuing rape charges. Remember that the police or CPS don't need the consent of the alleged victim to press charges, they can just run with what they have. 

It hasn't been made clear whether the alleged victim actually ever felt like they were the victim of rape. It appears, on the face of it, that she'd never made that allegation?

 

[Bill and ben]

She actually initially phoned the police to report a missing handbag!

She'd left it in the pizza shop where she met Clayton McDonald. 

Amazing how a report of a missing handbag could turn into the police and CPS pursuing rape charges. Remember that the police or CPS don't need the consent of the alleged victim to press charges, they can just run with what they have. 

It hasn't been made clear whether the alleged victim actually ever felt like they were the victim of rape. It appears, on the face of it, that she'd never made that allegation?

is this correct?. It was not the story I read, which was that she was concerned that she was drugged. True though that she didn't complain of rape at the time as far as I know.

i don't see why it is problematic that one was convicted and the other not. The circumstances were different. I also really don't see the original decision as perverse, the evidence was heard and the decision was logical. Maybe another jury would have acquitted but that's the luck of the system

as far as I know the court of appeal can acquit and refuse a retrial. They chose not to do so. I guess it remains in the balance.

i wouldn't have him because he was never that good but if he was better I'd have have him only if and when he clears his name

 

[Canaryboy]

There isn't a chance in hell he'd be good enough for the Championship now, he'll score goals in League 2 like Lee Hughes. 

But if he were acquitted he'd get a lot of compensation from the state.

If you search for "Ched Evans handbag" it comes up with quite a few references to her calling to report a missing handbag, from the Daily Telegraph, Mirror, and Daily Mail (admittedly the latter can't be trusted). 

Who knows, we'll wait and see. 

 

[ZLF]

I dont think I have seen any suggestion that she was drugged;  only that she was completely drunk.

Whether it is rape or not revolves solely around whether she was non compos mentis at the time Evans joined Donaldson in the hotel room.   A contract has no legal standing if signed by someone so drunk they dont know what they are doing;  its the same for sexual consent;   in that state the law, as it has been for years,  is crystal clear that without prior explicit agreement it is rape,  whether people like that interpretation or not.

 

[morty]

I'm just glad that we can discuss this here, when other "more popular" forums are deleting threads about the subject.

 

[Canaryboy]

I just find it difficult to comprehend how she could have been any drunker when sleeping with Evans than she was when sleeping with McDonald a few minutes earlier, so the claim that she was either too drunk to consent or not too drunk to consent doesn't really stack up. 

If it does all boil down to her being too drunk to consent then I can't see how one can be found guilty of rape and not the other.