Connor Brown

[Durlston]

I hope at the very least Connor Brown is sacked from Sheffield United. At the most a possible jail term for breaching confidential information to the general public.

The sad thing in all this is the total lack of respect shown by these footballers to women. Do they have older or younger sisters? If they do how would they feel if it happened to them? For me personally, I would beat the attackers to a pulp and put them in hospital. If you're rejected by a woman in a pub, club or hotel then that's it. Move on. Finito.

 

[Acker79]

I still find this whole thing worrying. Do we know for certain she was unconscious as claimed above? I still can't get past the possibility that she might have consented, but can't remember doing so, and the jury have decided that you can be 'too drunk' to consent.

I find it worrying that the jury, who saw all the evidence, are being doubted by people who saw none of it.

If you read Connor Brown's comments, he seems to believe she was too drunk to consent. When people who are friends and team mates of Ched Evans and are defending Ched Evans, and are attacking his victim while accepting that she was too drunk to consent, why should we, who know none of the people involved, doubt that she was too drunk to consent?


Of course he is appealing, it's pretty much a given that anyone in his position would appeal.

 

[Meade's Ball]

I agree with you. The media are well within their right and by law they are correct in calling him that.

I just mean PERSONALLY I would feel bad to call him that and then to find out he was innocent. That's why I dont like using the term RAPIST in such cases when they have gone to an appeal.

Again, it's just personal. Not a disagrement with the ruling or the term.

I think it would be better to ask yourself the question of why on this occasion it is uncomfortable for you to say whilst you wait for the currently-seen-as-guilty criminal to appeal the decision before you label him a monster. It seems to me that you don't fully understand the decision, therefore having doubts over it, partly thanks to one being guilty and the other not, and wish for someone here to let you know that the punishment is just or correct.
Personally, i am uncomfortable saying that term too, but not because i am unsure of the decision being correct. It's just that i squirm at myself making the mistake of wrongly-labelling someone, the miniscule sliver of guilt and foolishness i will feel if the decision is overturned, and also jumping on a bandwagon of haters. From what i read, i do feel morally sickened by what these young men did and what made them all see women purely as meat and something to brag about without an ounce of respect inside them. They won't be the only ones who do this, with maybe many getting away with it, but that doesn't make it right, or that the law should not be firm in carrying out a justice that ideally the majority of us should support.
I would say that it is good to ask questions, both of the law, the press and of yourself and what you believe, but not to think anything you don't quite understand or see all of is therefore worthy of doubting.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

. It seems to me that you don't fully understand the decision, therefore having doubts over it, partly thanks to one being guilty and the other not, and wish for someone here to let you know that the punishment is just or correct.
Personally, i am uncomfortable saying that term too, but not because i am unsure of the decision being correct. It's just that i squirm at myself making the mistake of wrongly-labelling someone, the miniscule sliver of guilt and foolishness i will feel if the decision is overturned, and also jumping on a bandwagon of haters..

Brilliantly put. I think you have got my feelings on the matter SPOT ON.

The issue I raised earlier about me needing 'proof' via dna, or video etc etc is kind of summed up with this. I don't like labelling someone unless I feel sure in myself that it won't come back to bite me morally. Of course we have to rely on the courts findings. Sometimes the decision is backed by evidence which I can see proves it beyond any doubt. In that situation i'm fine with attaching a 'label'. In other cases it is not so clear cut. That is when I like to avoid it.

 

[Acker79]

There is nothing morally wrong with trusting the justice system. Reports seem to suggest the fellas outside the hotel filmed it on their phones, so it appears there was video evidence, and still he was found guilty, which perhaps gives an indication of what the video showed.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Reports seem to suggest the fellas outside the hotel filmed it on their phones, so it appears there was video evidence, and still he was found guilty, which perhaps gives an indication of what the video showed.

Indeed.

Either way it certainly will be interesting to see what angle the defence take on their appeal.

Also, can MacDonald be called as a witness now that he has been cleared?

 

[Meade's Ball]

Brilliantly put. I think you have got my feelings on the matter SPOT ON.

The issue I raised earlier about me needing 'proof' via dna, or video etc etc is kind of summed up with this. I don't like labelling someone unless I feel sure in myself that it won't come back to bite me morally. Of course we have to rely on the courts findings. Sometimes the decision is backed by evidence which I can see proves it beyond any doubt. In that situation i'm fine with attaching a 'label'. In other cases it is not so clear cut. That is when I like to avoid it.

Any doubts should be cleared by the result of the appeal. Or possibly increased. Don't be trapped in the uncertainty of a decision you weren't asked to make, though. I didn't get it, and i wanted someone to explain it to me. And on here they did a bit, but it didn't fully clear my misunderstanding. What this really told me was that i wasn't fit for jury duty. Although confronted with all the evidence the jury were given, the decision would have been obviously "easier", if one can call it that.
What it also taught me, or reminded me, was that it was ok not to get things. And that not everyone needs to be tagged with one word that says just what they are, whether they be saintly or villainous to the core.

 

[cjd]

Is there any truth in his rant, stating the young lady in question has...... 'done this before'.....?

Is there any truth in his rant, stating there are.....' videos going around of her being smashed by diff blokes'....?

 

[leigull]

Brilliantly put. I think you have got my feelings on the matter SPOT ON.

The issue I raised earlier about me needing 'proof' via dna, or video etc etc is kind of summed up with this. I don't like labelling someone unless I feel sure in myself that it won't come back to bite me morally. Of course we have to rely on the courts findings. Sometimes the decision is backed by evidence which I can see proves it beyond any doubt. In that situation i'm fine with attaching a 'label'. In other cases it is not so clear cut. That is when I like to avoid it.

Completely agree with you.

It's something that is so difficult to prove conclusively and it just needs one jury member with a really strong opinion one way or another that can swing things for other jury members who aren't sure (seen from my own time on jury service). I would hate to have had to decide on a rape case because there is a lack of physical evidence in most cases and it's one word against another.

I have no idea over the evidence in this case but can't help feel if someone is so adament about their innocence then it does make me feel uneasy in labelling them as such until the appeal is heard and concluded.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Is there any truth in his rant, stating the young lady in question has...... 'done this before'.....?

Is there any truth in his rant, stating there are.....' videos going around of her being smashed by diff blokes'....?

Does it make a difference? Doesn't stop someone being a victim.

 

[drew]

Seperate issue entirely, but I do hate how Evans (or anyone found guilty in a court of such an offence) is immediately titled RAPIST. Suddenly all the news stories are along the lines of 'the woman Evans raped' etc etc.

Obviously he's been found guilty but thats in the OPINION of a court.* I always find when something hasn't been actually PROVEN, that calling someone that is quite hard-hitting.

*Please note that I agree this is as fair a judicial system as we can have and obviously have no idea of the ins and outs (pun not intended) of the case.

I see Ched's appealed.

Genuine question, and not one to try and STIR anything.

If he is cleared the 2nd time round, were we not technically wrong to call him a RAPIST? This of course applies to all cases, not just his.

It's a difficult one I think. This is more what my issue was. I like to hold back until at least an appeal (as it was always obvious he was going to do) before calling someone that, even though it was found in court.

Again, not stirring, just interested to see what people think?

The problem with your argument is that you will never be in a position to call any convicted felon after the crime he has been convicted of unless you yourself were present at the time the crime was perpetrated and know for a fact he/she did what they are accused of doing.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

See? Who hasn't done something uttely stupid is not a question a court will ask. You fail to see the point while underlining it in your own post!

But in effect they are asking it. They're asked to consider whether the fact she did something utterly stupid while drunk to the point she barely knew what she was doing means she was fair game for a randy footballer. We can all see the effect of the alcohol on her, but that doesn't mean she deserved some nasty piece of work to decide she was there for the taking. Her past is irrelevant: if a lifelong prostitute says she doesn't want sex one night and someone forces her into it, it's still rape.

The jury have (quite fairly I believe) decided that she wasn't fair game and reached a verdict on Evans accordingly.

Can't see how ANYONE can consider having sex with an unconscious female is in any way appropriate or reasonable (no jokes here, please lads).

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Oh you're gonna get SHOT DOWN for that comment. I dared suggest that it was a difficult case to prove as there wasn't all that much evidence and I was LAMBASTED.

Shit

I find it worrying that the jury, who saw all the evidence, are being doubted by people who saw none of it.

If you read Connor Brown's comments, he seems to believe she was too drunk to consent. When people who are friends and team mates of Ched Evans and are defending Ched Evans, and are attacking his victim while accepting that she was too drunk to consent, why should we, who know none of the people involved, doubt that she was too drunk to consent?

Like Mejona, I'm hedging my bets on the guilt because I don't know for certain. The jury are very confident it appears, but there's no actual smoking gun - there's a girl who says she can't remember and a CCTV showing she was very drunk. There's a suggestion there is a video from outside the window as well, which is clearly evidence we're never going to see.

I'm just saying I find it uneasy, because there is one perfectly plausible series of events in which she did consent and he has got 5 years jail time. What is 'too drunk to consent' anyway? If he says 'can we have sex' and she says 'yes' - does that not count as consent if she is 'too drunk'?

They're asked to consider whether the fact she did something utterly stupid while drunk to the point she barely knew what she was doing means she was fair game for a randy footballer.

Can't see how ANYONE can consider having sex with an unconscious female is in any way appropriate or reasonable (no jokes here, please lads).

There's two parts to your post - the first I disagree with: to a randy, and possibly drunk guy, if a girl indicates consent and doesn't resist it seems bloody unfair to later decide she was in no fit state to consent and send him to jail.

the second is obvious, it is not acceptable to shag an unconscious girl. So in the case of Evans, was she unconscious? All the reports I've seen say she was 'too drunk to consent', not 'she was unconscious'. Its a pretty critical distinction I think?

 

[Acker79]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2134622/Ched-Evans-Only-football-rapist-round-applause--Martin-Samuel.html

 

[Acker79]

Like Mejona, I'm hedging my bets on the guilt because I don't know for certain. The jury are very confident it appears, but there's no actual smoking gun - there's a girl who says she can't remember and a CCTV showing she was very drunk. There's a suggestion there is a video from outside the window as well, which is clearly evidence we're never going to see.

The trial lasted over a week. The jury have seen more evidence and heard testimony from everyone involved and they believe, beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. If evidence was so scarce, there would be enough to rule not guilty, if it was so scarce, it would have never gone to trial. There was enough evidence to convince 12 of his peers that he was guilty of having sex with a woman who did not consent to it.

I'm just saying I find it uneasy, because there is one perfectly plausible series of events in which she did consent and he has got 5 years jail time.

And I'm fairly confident this one perfectly plausible series of events was considered by the jury who, in possession of all the evidence, and the statements of those involved found it may have been plausible, but it was their belief beyond a reasonable doubt it didn't happen.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The trial lasted over a week. The jury have seen more evidence and heard testimony from everyone involved and they believe, beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. If evidence was so scarce, there would be enough to rule not guilty, if it was so scarce, it would have never gone to trial. There was enough evidence to convince 12 of his peers that he was guilty of having sex with a woman who did not consent to it.

And I'm fairly confident this one perfectly plausible series of events was considered by the jury who, in possession of all the evidence, and the statements of those involved found it may have been plausible, but it was their belief beyond a reasonable doubt it didn't happen.

I guess you're right.

 

[cjd]

Does it make a difference? Doesn't stop someone being a victim.

No, of course it doesn't stop someone from being a potential victim.

I just queried whether there was any truth in Connor Browns accusations. If....(and it's a big 'if') theyare true, was any of this evidence presented at the trial...? (I simply don't know). If it wasn't, I presume this could be a basis for Evans to appeal.....?

I think 'rape' cases have one of the poorest conviction rates in court. Therefore, in a high profile case like this, the guilty verdict has to be seen to be beyond all doubt, so that women have the confidence to pursue their aggressors in the courts. A succesful appeal in high profile cases just makes the many, many victims of domestic rape, far less likely to go through all the trauma of a court case.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Has Evans been sacked yet? Or do Sheffield Utd believe there has been a miscarriage of justice?

 

[Acker79]

Has Evans been sacked yet? Or do Sheffield Utd believe there has been a miscarriage of justice?

Initially

Sheffield United Football Club has today learned of the verdict in the trial of Ched Evans at Caernarfon Crown Court. The Club recognises the seriousness of these events and as such wishes to respond in a responsible way when it has taken sufficient time to consider the matter fully.

The Club is aware of the statement issued by the legal team representing Ched, which is printed below. This is not a statement from, or in co-operation with, SUFC but an independently issued statement from the Brabners Chaffe Street Law Firm, representing Ched.

Statement on behalf of Ched Evans

Ched Evans is shocked and extremely disappointed with the decision reached today by the Jury at Caernarfon Crown Court to convict him of the charge brought against him.

Mr Evans firmly maintains his innocence in this matter and is being advised regarding an appeal of the decision​

Sheffield United | News | Latest News | Latest News | Sheffield United - Statement

and yesterday

Sheffield United Football Club has followed the trial of player Ched Evans at Caernarfon Crown Court, which culminated in his conviction by a jury after a lengthy trial on Friday 20th April.

We have been asked by Ched's legal team to place the following statement on our website:

We act on behalf of Ched Evans in connection with his recent conviction for rape at Caernarfon Crown Court.

Mr Evans firmly maintains his innocence in this matter and as such, we confirm that Mr Evans will be appealing the decision.

No further comment will be made while the appeal process is on-going.

Brabners Chaffe Street LLP​

Sheffield United has at all times been mindful of the very serious nature of the sensitive issues involved in this legal process, and in the circumstances will refrain from making further comment at this time.​

Sheffield United | News | Latest News | Latest News | Sheffield United - statement