Reece Thompson

But he was the one with the money, think he owns his own company or something and he was offering rewards for information. But why you want a low life cheat like that in your daughter's life is beyond me!

 

We can’t have it all ways mate, sadly. The justice system is all we have to go on in this case. She was proven to be, shall we say economic with the truth. The verdict was overturned. You may say it was money. Better lawyers, neither of us can say for certain. But it wouldn’t be the first time cases have been overturned. How do we, come to say who is guilty and who is not. We can only rely on the system. Even though that system has condemned many an innocent.

 

This is horrendously misguided for several reasons. Firstly not guilty is not the same as proven innocent. Secondly she never even alleged that she had been raped, she simply said that she couldn't remember. It was specifically noted in the judgment that: "to this day she has not alleged that she was raped or that she was incapable of consenting to intercourse".

But don't let the facts get in the way of a bit of "lying slag" misogyny.

 

Why did it go to prosecution then?

 

Because when presented with a woman with no memory and a bloke who admitted that he turned up to the Premier Inn following a text from his mate that he'd "got a bird" and immediately had sex with her (after being invited to join in by the mate and not the woman) the CPS considered that there was a case for Evans to answer.

 

Why would the daughter?

 

Never mentioned rape. But obviously you are judge and jury. A woman with no memory. The CPS won then lost the case on appeal. You also introduced the word slag. Not i. I believed in the verdict first time. Other evidence suggests it was wrong. If the facts as you say were indeed facts. You have opened yourself up to all sorts of arguments. Only those present know the full facts.

 

Nice try, but you referred to her as a "proven liar" and having "played the victim" when the Court clearly stated that wasn't the case. You also referred to him as "proven innocent" which isn't correct.

I'd love to know what arguments I've "opened myself up to".

 

You have your answer right there Helen. A jury. Not you or I. Or indeed Mansfield red. How on earth do we judge she didn’t consent to sex with Evans. . What happened I find abhorrent consensual or not.

 

What are you on about now? I've been explaining the case by reference to the judgments and facts accepted by the Court. It was alleged by Evans in his first appeal that the judgments against the 2 defendants were necessarily inconsistent. The court rejected this:

it was open to the jury to convict both defendants, to acquit both defendants, or to convict one and not the other defendant. That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider, as it seems to us, that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. These seem to us to be matters entirely open to the jury. There is no inconsistency.

 

Fair enough. But if she. as quoted . to this day she has not alleged that she was raped or that she was incapable of consenting to intercourse". It begs the question how did it end up in court. appears the CPS screwed up . And hung her out to dry.

 

A not guilty verdict doesn't mean that a prosecution wasn't justified.

 

On that I agree. I should have read more about the outcome. ( my bad ) maybe if we had a not proven. like Scotland We wouldn’t be where we are on the issue. But as we don’t we have that choice It’s basically guilty or not.

 

It's rape if she was drunk. The jury found him guilty, hence his prison sentence. He was looking to get his conviction squashed hence the stuff about phrases she uttered during sex.This was the new "evidence" that was provided .

 

Was Referring to the appeal Helen Or have I misunderstood your comment.
Edit retracked . And see where your coming from . Apologies.

 

Sorry, when you put jury it must have been the original trial as it was a judge that ruled on his acquittal, there wasn't a retrial as I understood it?

 

Signed on for Wombwell Town. Then under pressure from fans on social media and the press they decided to cancel the contract.



Just to clarify. They didn’t cancel it because he is a convicted woman beater who has repeatedly showed no remorse for his actions, they cancelled it because of the bad publicity. Get this club away from our town.

 

Jesus the PR person there needs to drop their CV off at Tory headquarters tone deaf barsteward.

 

They also have Steven Bennett on their books who was recently charged with death by dangerous driving, he faces sentencing next year. And I keep seeing stuff on twitter about their manager but not sure who he is. He’s called Karl Rose apparently.

 

Karl Rose was a striker who made a few appearances for Tarn at the turn of the century. He is the co-founder and chairman of Wombwell Town.

In 2003 he was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment for having sex with an underage girl.