One thing that I don't think was mentioned on this thread is that he had a steady girlfriend at the time and makes it all the more despicable. Although in the eyes of the law he has done nothing illegal and as some posters point out he, like many young men keeps his brains between his legs, he wasn't a 'free agent'. Bad enough, taking advantage of a young, drunk girl, but betraying your girlfriend like that adds to the misery caused to others and makes him a scumbag of the highest order.
I've not got a clue whether Evans should've been found guilty or not but what he did was definitely morally wrong. The issue I have is that having done jury service, you're told that if you have doubts you have to return a not guilty verdict which means you may have people on the jury who were 80% confident that Evans raped her but they would've returned a not guilty verdict due to the 20% doubt. I think that's where a lot of people aren't clear on the law, I see it on twitter a lot, 'he was found not guilty so he didn't rape her'. That could be true but at the same time the jury could've thought he'd done it but not be confident enough to return a guilty verdict. We'll never know.
Spot on. Let me say also I'm also in favour of convicted criminals being given another chance by employers, but there are certain jobs that should be ruled out. If I was running a football club there is no chance I'd consider employing Ched Evans. If he gets abuse at Oakwell next season I won't join in, but I won't blame others for doing so.
He'll get dogs abuse. Everywhere he goes. He'll expect it and possibly feed off it. Personally I'll not pay him any more attention than any other opposition player. And as discussed at length, he's not a convicted criminal so no job could be ruled out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is exactly how the law works, I understand that though I haven't been asked to sit on a jury up to now. However, in your experience, do you think if the jurors were 80% sure he'd done it but had some doubt, that they would have been able to return a verdict in under two hours? I would suggest that such a short deliberation after an eight day trial would suggest that they were pretty unanimous in that they didn't think he was guilty. As I say I've not sat on a jury but with all the evidence of an eight day trial presented I can't imagine returning a verdict so quickly is particularly common if there is any doubt as to their decision Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You might be right with that I don't know On one case we were on, all 12 of us came away saying we still didn't have a clue whether he was guilty or not when we all went to deliberate & we were only in the room about an hour because we all agreed there was no way we could be sure of his guilt so we returned a not guilty verdict in no time.
I'm not offering any opinion on whether what he did was rape or not as there's little point dredging the usual arguments back up. But what I will say is that a lot of people think that Mcdonald being found innocent and Evans being initially found guilty weree inconsistent verdicts. They weren't. It was held that Mcdonald had a reasonable belief that the girl was consenting, as he had spent the entire night with her and had been dancing, kissing etc. Thus there was no mens rea and no crime. Evans, however, just turned up at the hotel when she was smashed and so the reasonable belief test was a much harder hurdle for him to overcome.
All this. What I don't understand from a United point of a view is why they want him. He let them down at a crucial moment. Allowed their biggest rivals to steal their glory. Let their fans down. Let his employer down. With what at best can be described as 'questionable behaviour'
Fair enough it's a very emotive issue. Tge sexualisation of culture and pressure on young girls is enormous and this young lass has had her life ruined. However you look at it that's *****.
I was on a jury for a similar case (in that the parties only disagreed on the issue of consent). At the time I definitely had very real suspicions that he was guilty, and I wasn't the only one, but it didn't take more than a couple of hours for us all to decide that the verdict had to be not guilty. You can deliberate all you like, but it's not going to change the fact that it comes down to one person's word against another.
Was it a case of Ched's mate phoning or texting him and saying hes got a bird who is 'high' and definitely up for it and offering consent in a hotel room (because she was pissed or drugged, or both). If and I ask IF that is true (and do any of us really know what actually happened ?), then Ched Evans should be ashamed of himself especially as he had a steady partnership with another woman at the time. BUT he is innocent or at least he has been found to be innocent, of the charges of rape. Wherever he plays now in footy Im sure fans wont let him ever forget this incident, and although its a shame for him because he could have been 'somebody', I think hes only got himself to blame for the whole thing.
