Ched Evans

[drew]

Why on earth wouldn't you balance your opinion that a women might lie with equal balance that Ched Evans might have committed rape?

You seem sure one is the case while the other isn't. The opinions of me you and [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION] would likely have been in that jury room in some form, and I don't doubt a similar discussion we're having would have happened between them in there. Some might well have been prejudiced, but no way would all of them. The upshot was all 12 of them came out of there convinced of his guilt.

How do you know they were all convinced of his guilt? You don't know what deliberations took place, what discussions, what arguments one way or the other. All 12 may have been convinced or maybe some weren't but just 'went with the flow'. Having said that, I appreciate that it was a unanimous verdict so that is what is on record.

 

[nwgull]

How do you know they were all convinced of his guilt? You don't know what deliberations took place, what discussions, what arguments one way or the other. All 12 may have been convinced or maybe some weren't but just 'went with the flow'. Having said that, I appreciate that it was a unanimous verdict so that is what is on record.

It wasn't unanimous initially. The jury deliberated for a few hours and then came back with a majority decision. The judge said that he wouldn't accept the majority decision, which meant that they would have to have come back in the following Monday to continue. They then went away for 90 minutes and came back as unanimous.

 

[nwgull]

Why on earth wouldn't you balance your opinion that a women might lie with equal balance that Ched Evans might have committed rape?

You seem sure one is the case while the other isn't. The opinions of me you and [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION] would likely have been in that jury room in some form, and I don't doubt a similar discussion we're having would have happened between them in there. Some might well have been prejudiced, but no way would all of them. The upshot was all 12 of them came out of there convinced of his guilt.

You haven't read what I wrote.

 

[Bold Seagull]

This sums up how I feel about this. It's such a flimsy conviction based on no concrete evidence. I don't for one minute believe that the jury didn't have prejudices against young, rich footballers either. Not too disimilar to the case with the Albion players, when it required 2 juries to find them not guilty in the face of no evidence other than that of a young woman who 'couldn't remember a thing' and had a history of telling tall stories.

You haven't read what I wrote.

What did I miss? The bit where you doubt the integrity of the jury of 12 of our peers? That they must be prejudiced against footballers over what you've read and seen? That the girl is a serial liar - this seemingly being the link you create with the Albion case?

In the Evans case, if that girl is a liar, then she is also a criminal mastermind. All she needed to do to make some money was ring a newspaper. Instead, she rings the police to say she can't remember a thing and has woken up in a place she doesn't remember getting to etc. To have planned and contrived that lie with the foresight to believe it would lead to convictions over her simply telling the police she'd been assaulted by 2 professional footballers the night before is just so hard to believe to credit it her with that level of planning.

 

[drew]

What did I miss? The bit where you doubt the integrity of the jury of 12 of our peers? That they must be prejudiced against footballers over what you've read and seen? That the girl is a serial liar - this seemingly being the link you create with the Albion case?

In the Evans case, if that girl is a liar, then she is also a criminal mastermind. All she needed to do to make some money was ring a newspaper. Instead, she rings the police to say she can't remember a thing and has woken up in a place she doesn't remember getting to etc. To have planned and contrived that lie with the foresight to believe it would lead to convictions over her simply telling the police she'd been assaulted by 2 professional footballers the night before is just so hard to believe to credit it her with that level of planning.

Seems you are the one that actually twists words. I never said she was a liar but that is of course a possibility. It's also a possibility that she had consensual sex but in the morning couldn't remember what did or didn't happen! It is also possible that Evans and McDonald lied.

Out of interest, have you served on a jury?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Well played Charlie Webster

'Television presenter Charlie Webster has resigned as a patron of Sheffield United after the club allowed convicted rapist Ched Evans to train.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30015701

 

[dazzer6666]

Unless you were on the jury or in the courtroom throughout it's pretty difficult to comment on the safety of the conviction, particularly in a 'her word against his' kind of case. I'm sure there would have been at least one jury member prejudiced against him for being a flashy young footballer, but given the random selection of members it's likely any such prejudice would be balanced by pre-conceived ideas about her as well. Makes for interesting debates in the Jury Room. As for members of the jury 'going with the flow', this happens too, and similarly in my experience reaching a unanimous verdict can be difficult as there will likely be someone who has a contrary view of things.

After I did jury service I was left feeling much more confident in the process than before.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Seems you are the one that actually twists words. I never said she was a liar but that is of course a possibility. It's also a possibility that she had consensual sex but in the morning couldn't remember what did or didn't happen! It is also possible that Evans and McDonald lied.

Out of interest, have you served on a jury?

Drew, I was replying to [MENTION=643]nwgull[/MENTION] who has stated that belief. I've not twisted any words - you've replied to a post that wasn't even to you.

I have served on a jury and found it to be an enlightening experience. The weight of responsibility on a jury is keenly felt. One of the cases I sat was pretty much as open and shut as you could get regarding possession of a stolen car. However, we deliberated at length on every point of evidence to the point of it being excruciatingly painful. In the end we had one guy left undecided, so we went through everything line by line, and he realised a crucial line in the defendants statement that gave him the certainty to convict which we then did unanimously. The burden of responsibility was somewhat lifted however when following the conviction the Judge then listed his 15 previous convictions for car theft prior to sentencing (which of course we had no idea of during the case).

That is why I made the point that our differing opinions I don't doubt would have been represented on that jury. The misgivings about the evidence, or witnesses I also don't doubt were discussed and argued at length in that jury room. I really don't believe that you and [MENTION=643]nwgull[/MENTION] have seen something in the case that the jury wouldn't have deliberated at length. Neither did the original appeals panel, and it will be interesting to see if the CCRC do unpick a reason for granting an appeal.

Unless you're privy to evidence, expertise or something else not revealed, I don't see how you can fall on the side of not believing in the conviction.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Unless you were on the jury or in the courtroom throughout it's pretty difficult to comment on the safety of the conviction, particularly in a 'her word against his' kind of case. I'm sure there would have been at least one jury member prejudiced against him for being a flashy young footballer, but given the random selection of members it's likely any such prejudice would be balanced by pre-conceived ideas about her as well. Makes for interesting debates in the Jury Room. As for members of the jury 'going with the flow', this happens too, and similarly in my experience reaching a unanimous verdict can be difficult as there will likely be someone who has a contrary view of things.

After I did jury service I was left feeling much more confident in the process than before.

I'd echo this. I think it's unreasonable to doubt them unless you really are privy to some further information on the case.

 

[Bombadier Botty]

Well played Charlie Webster

'Television presenter Charlie Webster has resigned as a patron of Sheffield United after the club allowed convicted rapist Ched Evans to train.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30015701

Ah yes, that woman who has done so much for the feminist cause with her provocative sexploitation photo shoots for the likes of FHM and other lads mags. Good on you for making a stand on this one Charlie.

 

[keaton]

Bold Seagull
How you can doubt that two people (who are definitely not biased) don't know more about the case than the people who spent hours listening to and debating evidence?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Bold Seagull
How you can doubt that two people (who are definitely not biased) don't know more about the case than the people who spent hours listening to and debating evidence?

Well, exactly!

 

[Bold Seagull]

Ah yes, that woman who has done so much for the feminist cause with her provocative sexploitation photo shoots for the likes of FHM and other lads mags. Good on you for making a stand on this one Charlie.

So let me get this right, she can't make a stand against a rapist because she poses provocatively in some lads mags!?

Jeez, man, she could have made her wealth from being a porn star but that doesn't exclude her from making a stand against rape. You get that don't you!? Or are you saying that anyone involved in anything 'sexploitation' doesn't have the grounds to start complaining about rape!!?

 

[Bombadier Botty]

So let me get this right, she can't make a stand against a rapist because she poses provocatively in some lads mags!?

Jeez, man, she could have made her wealth from being a porn star but that doesn't exclude her from making a stand against rape. You get that don't you!?

If you understood for one second how that representation of women impacts on other women, and especially teenage girls, and links into eating disorders, body dismorphia and low self esteem then you would be able to see the double standard here. You get that don't you? Patronising prick.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Well played Charlie Webster

'Television presenter Charlie Webster has resigned as a patron of Sheffield United after the club allowed convicted rapist Ched Evans to train.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30015701

Ah yes, that woman who has done so much for the feminist cause with her provocative sexploitation photo shoots for the likes of FHM and other lads mags. Good on you for making a stand on this one Charlie.

Seriously?? You're seriously going to suggest that the woman's earlier career as a model, denies her the right to an opinion on the football club she loves embracing a convicted, unremorseful rapist?

Webster does a heap of work with women's shelters / campaigns raising awareness of domestic violence, etc. There is no way she was ever going to remain linked to Sheff United in any capacity if Evans returned.

 

[Hillian1]

..............

 

[Bold Seagull]

If you understood for one second how that representation of women impacts on other women, and especially teenage girls, and links into eating disorders, body dismorphia and low self esteem then you would be able to see the double standard here. You get that don't you? Patronising prick.

So you can patronise one poster, then get the hump when it's done back! Well played.

I don't actually get the double standard. Rape is surely an assault on an individual that can effect men and women?

The representation of the female image and how that effects women in general is surely unconnected to the act of rape. You seem to be suggesting that because Charlie Webster may have some kind of impact in the overall media portrayal of women, that the potential harm from that means she has a double standard to object to rape?

Nope, still don't get it.

 

[drew]

Drew, I was replying to [MENTION=643]nwgull[/MENTION] who has stated that belief. I've not twisted any words - you've replied to a post that wasn't even to you. It's a forum, I believe anyone is entitled to comment on anyone's posts.

I have served on a jury and found it to be an enlightening experience. The weight of responsibility on a jury is keenly felt. One of the cases I sat was pretty much as open and shut as you could get regarding possession of a stolen car. However, we deliberated at length on every point of evidence to the point of it being excruciatingly painful. In the end we had one guy left undecided, so we went through everything line by line, and he realised a crucial line in the defendants statement that gave him the certainty to convict which we then did unanimously. The burden of responsibility was somewhat lifted however when following the conviction the Judge then listed his 15 previous convictions for car theft prior to sentencing (which of course we had no idea of during the case).

That's fine but on the jury I served on dealing with a case of one word against another, one juror had made up their mind based purely on the prosecution evidence. The rest of us, having heard the defence considered it proven, ie. not guilty. Twice we were sent back for a unanimous verdict until the Judge eventually accepted an 11-1 verdict.

That is why I made the point that our differing opinions I don't doubt would have been represented on that jury. The misgivings about the evidence, or witnesses I also don't doubt were discussed and argued at length in that jury room. I really don't believe that you and [MENTION=643]nwgull[/MENTION] have seen something in the case that the jury wouldn't have deliberated at length. Neither did the original appeals panel, and it will be interesting to see if the CCRC do unpick a reason for granting an appeal.

Unless you're privy to evidence, expertise or something else not revealed, I don't see how you can fall on the side of not believing in the conviction.

You seem to believe that the jury were presented with all the relevant evidence?

As the case has been referred to the CCRC surely that vindicates that something may not be quite right. With your line of thinking, the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6 and the 374 cases I referred to earlier would all still be locked up!!!

Bold Seagull
How you can doubt that two people (who are definitely not biased) don't know more about the case than the people who spent hours listening to and debating evidence?

Good intelligent contribution. Well done.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You seem to believe that the jury were presented with all the relevant evidence?

As the case has been referred to the CCRC surely that vindicates that something may not be quite right. With your line of thinking, the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6 and the 374 cases I referred to earlier would all still be locked up!!

At this point yes, I'm choosing to believe that they were; based on the current decision, and the fact a panel of 3 judges didn't grant an appeal. There is no vindication of any doubt just because the CCRC have it, until they return their review.

You seem to be confusing me with someone who believes his conviction can't be wrong. I've never said that. All I've argued is that to strongly believe he has been wrongly convicted at this stage appears to go against a jury and a panel of appeal judges. I don't see how any of us not involved in the case, or have access to something withheld, can have the expertise to hold a belief that both those systems got it wrong to this point. I've not said that there isn't possibility they could have, but to just hold a belief they've got it wrong based only on what you've read just seems a strange way of coming to a decision that only serves to exonerate a convicted rapist, and effectively apportions blame to a victim.

 

[Del Fenner]

I heard from an ex Sheffield Utd shareholder, that there is sufficient evidence to clear him

Then have him cleared before allowing him to have any involvement with the club.