Ched Evans

[symyjym]

I believe he was staying at the hotel, from memory. I'm not arguing the whole case again, my views on it haven't changed, none of the people involved come out of it in a good light, but, I did think at the time, I couldn't convict him beyond reasonable doubt, on the evidence presented in court, and had he not been a fairly high profile footballer, neither would the jury

Staying at the hotel and booking the room is not the same thing. I don't think it is relevant to what preceded anyway.

Some of his mates were also peeping in on the action and videoed it. It was clearly a sex prank with the joke being on her.

I was only having a larf with my mates your honour!

 

[lawros left foot]

No. No, he wasn't.

He was in a cab on his way elsewhere (to collect his brother from a police station, rings a bell) when he got the text from his mate, telling him to come and fill his boots, so diverted the cab.

After he'd gained access to the room (by lying to the receptionist) he sneaked out of the hotel by a fire exit, and got a cab home.

Fair enough, can't say I can remember to much of the nitty gritty, just the feeling that I wasn't convinced.

 

[Triggaaar]

So, if we only stick do what we DO know:

Evans responded to a text from a mate ('Got a bird') and let himself into a hotel room, with said mate and a drunk girl that he'd not previously encountered, had sex with her whilst his mate watched, and a few others through the window, before sneaking out of the fire exit, leaving her asleep in her own piss.

That's not quite true. It's unlikely he left her asleep in her own piss. She probably wet the bed later in the night. If the girl asked him to have sex with her in front of his mate, I'm not going to judge him further just because his mate watched.

It's possible the girl made it clear to his mate she was up for sex, and that he thought she'd be cool with a famous footballer joining in, and she was. Given that I don't know, IF he's found not guilty, my opinion will be that he's paid far more than he should have for a crime he didn't commit. There are plenty of scummy people, they don't all go to prison and lose a chunk of their career.

 

[Blues Rock DJ]

thought we were signing him for a mo' .

 

[Triggaaar]

Some of his mates were also peeping in on the action and videoed it.

I don't think there was any video footage of the incident. The only reason they know Ched had sex with her is because he (and his friend) said so.

 

[drew]

It’s a bit like the burglar claiming innocence because the window was open and he was only following his mate inside anyway. I mean surely the owner of the property must have given him permission to enter by leaving the window open in the first place.

That isn't correct though. Surely the question is whether the owner of the property was at the window beckoning the burglar in or asleep!

 

[symyjym]

I don't think there was any video footage of the incident. The only reason they know Ched had sex with her is because he (and his friend) said so.

I seem to remember that it was filmed but not very well. The intention was there.

Ched and his mate did not know if any of their DNA had been swabbbed so it would have been a good idea to admit to it. The police wouldn't have told him that there was no traces before they interviewed him.

I don't think admitting it makes him honest, he just had to cover his arse just in case they had DNA evidence.

 

[symyjym]

That isn't correct though. Surely the question is whether the owner of the property was at the window beckoning the burglar in or asleep!

The owner, who was drunk at the time, didn't say no.

 

[drew]

I seem to remember that it was filmed but not very well. The intention was there.

Ched and his mate did not know if any of their DNA had been swabbbed so it would have been a good idea to admit to it. The police wouldn't have told him that there was no traces before they interviewed him.

I don't think admitting it makes him honest, he just had to cover his arse just in case they had DNA evidence.

That is taken from the perspective that you believe he is definitely guilty. Playing devil's advocate, assume he was innocent. Would he have given a different statement?

 

[Triggaaar]

I seem to remember that it was filmed but not very well. The intention was there.

The intention of whom? Not the accused.

Ched and his mate did not know if any of their DNA had been swabbbed so it would have been a good idea to admit to it.

That's not relevant to whether it was videoed, which is what we were discussing. But I wouldn't suggest it was a good idea to admit it, given that he then went to jail. He could have just said 'my lawyer has advised me not to talk to comment' and waited for a charge to be brought.

I don't think admitting it makes him honest

No one said it did.

 

[symyjym]

That is taken from the perspective that you believe he is definitely guilty. Playing devil's advocate, assume he was innocent. Would he have given a different statement?

I was answering a comment that implied that by admitting it, it swings in his favour. I was saying that this is actually irrelevant because he would have been stupid not to.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Never convinced by the conviction at all. Very interested to see what the new evidence is as to get to this stage it must be something major.

 

[symyjym]

The intention of whom? Not the accused.

That's not relevant to whether it was videoed, which is what we were discussing. But I wouldn't suggest it was a good idea to admit it, given that he then went to jail. He could have just said 'my lawyer has advised me not to talk to comment' and waited for a charge to be brought.

Saying no comment doesn't really help.

The relevance of the lads filming is that it was a bunch of lads, having a laugh with each other with the joke being on her. They clearly knew, before she did, that Ched went there for sex.

It was a titillating voyeuristic sex game as far as they were all concerned, and this case sends out a good message to others about how to not behave.

Even if he got his conviction overturned I wouldn't see him in a better light.

 

[Acker79]

IF he is acquitted, then, just because he is a 'shit', why should his career be in threads?

I always wonder about those who post the 'holier than thou' comments threads. They may have things in their own private lives which they wouldn't like being made public. We have all done things in our youth which we wouldn't want to own up to or be proud of. But, everyone has a different moral compass, and to try to judge everyone on one set of rules is impossible. What about people who like wife-swapping, threesomes, S&M, etc?

This self-righteousness reminds me of a old guy I used to work with on one of my customer sites. At lunch times he would read books about God/Jesus, but there was another guy in this company who he didn't like, who was voted 'Worker Of The Year' one year. This old guy referred to him as 'Wa*ker Of The Year'. So much for being a Christian person. So, when I hear all of these pious comments it makes me wonder.....

Criticising someone who is convicted of rape makes us pious? Criticising someone who admits to abandoning his brother at a police station so he can lie to a porter to gain access to someone else's hotel room to have sex with a drunk woman - without her consent in the eyes of the law - makes us "holier than thou"?

What sort of crime-riddled life do you live that criticising someone in such a situation (knowing what we know - that he has been convicted by a jury of peers, and two attempts to appeal had been turned down) is so hypocritical?

 

[Triggaaar]

Saying no comment doesn't really help.

Yes it does. In Ched's case it would probably have been better than saying 'I had sex with her'.

The relevance of the lads filming is that it was a bunch of lads, having a laugh with each other with the joke being on her.

You're saying that it was clearly a sex prank - that much is not clear at all.

They clearly knew, before she did, that Ched went there for sex.

That doesn't mean he raped her. She probably knew before Ched did that she went there for sex.

It was a titillating voyeuristic sex game as far as they were all concerned, and this case sends out a good message to others about how to not behave.

Oh so it's supposed to be a message then, rather than justice.

Even if he got his conviction overturned I wouldn't see him in a better light.

So even if he's not guilty of rape, you will think of him as a rapist, despite the fact that you know nothing about the girl or what she may or may not have wanted. I think that's crazy.

 

[Triggaaar]

Criticising someone who is convicted of rape makes us pious? Criticising someone who admits to abandoning his brother at a police station so he can lie to a porter to gain access to someone else's hotel room to have sex with a drunk woman - without her consent in the eyes of the law - makes us "holier than thou"?

Did you miss the bit where he said IF he is acquitted?

 

[nwgull]

Criticising someone who is convicted of rape makes us pious? Criticising someone who admits to abandoning his brother at a police station so he can lie to a porter to gain access to someone else's hotel room to have sex with a drunk woman - without her consent in the eyes of the law - makes us "holier than thou"?

What sort of crime-riddled life do you live that criticising someone in such a situation (knowing what we know - that he has been convicted by a jury of peers, and two attempts to appeal had been turned down) is so hypocritical?

No. However, if his conviction is quashed then he's no longer a convicted rapist.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

thought we were signing him for a mo' .

He's too poor a player for what we need up front, now we are top of the league.

 

[Acker79]

Did you miss the bit where he said IF he is acquitted?

No, I saw it as a separate point. There appears to be no link between that first line and the rest of his post.

No. However, if his conviction is quashed then he's no longer a convicted rapist.

And? "Threads like these" are responded to with the information at hand. When the "pious" and "holier than thou" comments that Larus refers to were made, they were based on the information at hand - he was (and currently is) still a convicted rapist.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Saying no comment doesn't really help.

Actually it does.

The purpose of the police interview is not as a neutral arbritation to establish the truth. Sadly ( and this where the system needs root and branch reform ), it is to build a case against the accused. Tapes of interviews are gone over with a fine toothcomb in order to see if any words can be over interpreted by a clever lawyer to imply guilt.

No comment all the time, I'm afraid. No matter the question. Especially if you are innocent. Tell your lawyer what happened before the police interview so they have an official record, and then the 'may harm your defence' clause won't come into play, as you haven't 'thought up your story' on the way to trial.