[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I don't get that though Nedusa because she did phone the police as soon as she woke up in the hotel room and couldn't remember going there etc...I don't think that she reported rape as such because that's the point and why consent was doubtful..she had no recollection of any of it so how could she have consented..?..that's not me btw saying that but what the court findings were with Chad and the reason it was different with McDonald is that she had approached him so consent was possible../element of doubt...


..also this case is more complicated as opposed to someone who may have accused someone of rape because they had regrets about something for the very reason that she didn't make any rape accusations when she called the police...their investigations led to that, surely..?...

I think she phoned the police because she thought her drink had been spiked and she couldn't remember getting to the hotel, also her phone and handbag were missing (she actually left these at the kebab shop). She didn't complain of any physical symptoms of a rape.

The cctv allowed the police to contact the two footballers and they went to the nearest police station and gave the police full and honest accounts of what happened. They both admitted consensual sex and this perhaps made the police decide a possible rape had taken place.

In the event a toxicology report showed this woman had no date rape drugs in her system and cctv clearly showed her able to walk in heels unaided and fairly aware of all around her.

As I said she made no complaint of rape and I can only imagine the footballers honesty coupled with the circumstances of taking the girl back to the hotel may have led to the police suggesting she was raped.

Had both footballers said nothing then there would have been no grounds for any charges to have been brought as there was no evidence a crime had been committed. No forensic evidence, no witness evidence, etc

This is why I have a big problem trying to get into the minds of jurors when they decided beyond a reasonable doubt that ONE of them did commit rape ..????

This I have a real problem with, and this is why I think a mistrial or retrial is needed as this conviction is surely unsafe.




.

[Shaun]

He seems to have agreed terms with Oldham now.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I think she phoned the police because she thought her drink had been spiked and she couldn't remember getting to the hotel, also her phone and handbag were missing (she actually left these at the kebab shop). She didn't complain of any physical symptoms of a rape.

The cctv allowed the police to contact the two footballers and they went to the nearest police station and gave the police full and honest accounts of what happened. They both admitted consensual sex and this perhaps made the police decide a possible rape had taken place.

In the event a toxicology report showed this woman had no date rape drugs in her system and cctv clearly showed her able to walk in heels unaided and fairly aware of all around her.

As I said she made no complaint of rape and I can only imagine the footballers honesty coupled with the circumstances of taking the girl back to the hotel may have led to the police suggesting she was raped.

Had both footballers said nothing then there would have been no grounds for any charges to have been brought as there was no evidence a crime had been committed. No forensic evidence, no witness evidence, etc

This is why I have a big problem trying to get into the minds of jurors when they decided beyond a reasonable doubt that ONE of them did commit rape ..????

This I have a real problem with, and this is why I think a mistrial or retrial is needed as this conviction is surely unsafe.




.

It's not unusual for there to be no date rape drug in the system after a few hours, that's why they're date rape drugs.

His 'friend' came across someone so vulnerable they could not stand, was disorientated and had no bag so no money to get home that in itself is odd enough.
But for him to turn up at 5am with an entourage? That's creepy.
She had been working that evening so perhaps she wasn't even fully conscious by 5am? If you want consent the girl has to be awake as a rule.

[Locke.]

I'm glad Oldham didn't cave in to the pressure. Two and a half year deal with 2k p/w wages, could make his first appearance this weekend apparantely

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It's not unusual for there to be no date rape drug in the system after a few hours, that's why they're date rape drugs.

His 'friend' came across someone so vulnerable they could not stand, was disorientated and had no bag so no money to get home that in itself is odd enough.
But for him to turn up at 5am with an entourage? That's creepy.
She had been working that evening so perhaps she wasn't even fully conscious by 5am? If you want consent the girl has to be awake as a rule.

Yes, I hear what you are saying and I agree the circumstances surrounding this do look suspicious but she could have given consent and forgotten plus both footballers testified that she did give consent plus the guys at the windows heard all the normal sounds of lovemaking including her requesting oral sex from one of the footballers, so let's not think she was unconscious and had no part to play.

Again I come back to the question of was a rape committed and how a jury could say beyond a reasonable doubt that ONE of them committed rape the other didn't ??

This is disturbing and should be investigated as one cannot see any circumstances where one is innocent but the other guilty.

This conviction is unsafe and a retrial should be ordered at the very least.




.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Shaun

He seems to have agreed terms with Oldham now.

They probably are aware of the legal situation and perhaps they think a retrial will result or that the conviction is unsafe, either way they feel he has been punished enough and should be allowed to earn a living.

Plus they get a very good footballer in a cut price deal.





.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Yes, I hear what you are saying and I agree the circumstances surrounding this do look suspicious but she could have given consent and forgotten plus both footballers testified that she did give consent plus the guys at the windows heard all the normal sounds of lovemaking including her requesting oral sex from one of the footballers, so let's not think she was unconscious and had no part to play.

Again I come back to the question of was a rape committed and how a jury could say beyond a reasonable doubt that ONE of them committed rape the other didn't ??

This is disturbing and should be investigated as one cannot see any circumstances where one is innocent but the other guilty.

This conviction is unsafe and a retrial should be ordered at the very least.




.

Where is the record of this request?
She met had a conversation, shared a taxi, entered a hotel, was witness entering a room with one... the other entered without her prior knowledge ( so to speak)

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I think she phoned the police because she thought her drink had been spiked and she couldn't remember getting to the hotel, also her phone and handbag were missing (she actually left these at the kebab shop). She didn't complain of any physical symptoms of a rape.

The cctv allowed the police to contact the two footballers and they went to the nearest police station and gave the police full and honest accounts of what happened. They both admitted consensual sex and this perhaps made the police decide a possible rape had taken place.

In the event a toxicology report showed this woman had no date rape drugs in her system and cctv clearly showed her able to walk in heels unaided and fairly aware of all around her.

As I said she made no complaint of rape and I can only imagine the footballers honesty coupled with the circumstances of taking the girl back to the hotel may have led to the police suggesting she was raped.

Had both footballers said nothing then there would have been no grounds for any charges to have been brought as there was no evidence a crime had been committed. No forensic evidence, no witness evidence, etc

This is why I have a big problem trying to get into the minds of jurors when they decided beyond a reasonable doubt that ONE of them did commit rape ..????

This I have a real problem with, and this is why I think a mistrial or retrial is needed as this conviction is surely unsafe.




.

..so did they both talk to the police and give a statement without their solicitors present..(who I guess would have told them to say nothing until they had spoken to him/her..)....that would seem a bit odd as well...

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Shaun

He seems to have agreed terms with Oldham now.

Good for him. I'm pleased. And good for those at the club responsible for the decision.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Where is the record of this request?
She met had a conversation, shared a taxi, entered a hotel, was witness entering a room with one... the other entered without her prior knowledge ( so to speak)

To be honest I've said enough about this now, feel maybe you are just playing devils advocate to keep the thread going.

Suggest you read up on this case and read the transcripts from the trial and I'm sure a person of your intelligence will see that there are more than a few problems with this whole case.

Glad he is at least going to be given a chance to earn a living so at least he will have some money to help fund his fight to clear his name.




.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

To be honest I've said enough about this now, feel maybe you are just playing devils advocate to keep the thread going.

Suggest you read up on this case and read the transcripts from the trial and I'm sure a person of your intelligence will see that there are more than a few problems with this whole case.

Glad he is at least going to be given a chance to earn a living so at least he will have some money to help fund his fight to clear his name.

.

[smudgie]

I wonder how many sponsors etc will walk away from the club.

[Locke.]

A deal has been agreed for convicted rapist Ched Evans to play for Oldham Athletic, the club's sponsors say.

They have been told to prepare for an announcement confirming the signing of striker Evans on Thursday or Friday, the BBC has learned.

One sponsor, Verlin Rainwater Solutions, has now ended its association with the club as a result.

Director Craig Verling said the "imminent signing" of Evans, 26, had prompted the decision.

He added: "We would like to take this opportunity to make clear that we feel that Mr Evans should be able to lead a life without further punishment after serving his sentence, although our feelings remain the same that this should not be within the public domain where his previous behaviour may influence the next generation.

"We sincerely wish the club a very successful future and have no regrets about being associated with Oldham Athletic over the past few seasons, but feel our continued support would be sending out the wrong message."

A second sponsor, ZenOffice, said it will also end its association with the club if Evans signs.

Managing director Les Kerr said Oldham's "current path" did not "espouse" the company's values of "family and community".

Oldham, who are 14th in League One, said there would be no statement on Wednesday but hope to make a statement on Thursday.

Wales international Evans was expected to join the Latics on a long-term deal and train with the club on Monday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30681333

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by smudgie

I wonder how many sponsors etc will walk away from the club.

tbf they dont have that many

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

To be honest I've said enough about this now, feel maybe you are just playing devils advocate to keep the thread going.

Suggest you read up on this case and read the transcripts from the trial and I'm sure a person of your intelligence will see that there are more than a few problems with this whole case.

Glad he is at least going to be given a chance to earn a living so at least he will have some money to help fund his fight to clear his name.




.

Excuse me? I've said as much and as little as yourself on this topic, I shouldn't have to feel guilty for voicing my opinion on any subject ...and let it be known I most certainly don't on this one.
If you don't wish to continue your input in this debate that's your prerogative.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Excuse me? I've said as much and as little as yourself on this topic, I shouldn't have to feel guilty for voicing my opinion on any subject ...and let it be known I most certainly don't on this one.
If you don't wish to continue your input in this debate that's your prerogative.

I have no reason to make you feel "guilty " as you say, not my intent. I have tried to show at some length the deep legal flaws in this case, the glaring errors the lack of any type of real evidence to suggest a rape had taken place, the absence of even a complaint of rape or anything untoward.

No shouts of stop of screams of rape, yet sounds from the women in question were heard and possibly observerd by 3rd parties.

For a jury to decide beyond ALL reasonable doubt that one of these men is a rapist but the other innocent is quite ridiculous.

I feel the points you make in your threads comment only on the circumstances which could be interpreted as suspicious if other more damming evidence existed. Taken together I agree this may help the prosecutions case, but as there was no evidence of an actual crime, the jury must decide on primary evidence of which there was none.

So this conviction for rape handed down to this footballer who probably never thought in a million years he would end up as a rapist after a drunken night out, was given to him by a jury who decided he probably was a rapist because ....?????

Exactly ...???? Because of what ??

Simply put there is not enough evidence to convict one of these footballers beyond a reasonable doubt whilst con firming the other one was innocent.

I am not a barrister but even I can see the huge flaws in this case.

Anyway, glad he has a contract now and may be able to earn enough to help fund the fight to clear his name.





.

[Crimson Dynamo]

BBC keep reporting on the "convicted rapist" Ched Evans

Surely once a man has served his time he deserves to lose that taG?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

BBC keep reporting on the "convicted rapist" Ched Evans

Surely once a man has served his time he deserves to lose that taG?

He is a convicted rapist though

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

BBC keep reporting on the "convicted rapist" Ched Evans

Surely once a man has served his time he deserves to lose that taG?

Feck The BBC

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

He is a convicted rapist though

One almost gets the feeling given the voracity of the media's hate campaign against him, even if his rape conviction was overturned the media would still introduce him as..

Ched Evans .... Ex Convicted Rapist . Lol






.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

He is a convicted rapist though

Yes but I dont hear the BBC say and now at the cricket its convicted wife beater Geoffrey Boycott..

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Yes but I dont hear the BBC say and now at the cricket its convicted wife beater Geoffrey Boycott..

maybe they should

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Yes but I dont hear the BBC say and now at the cricket its convicted wife beater Geoffrey Boycott..

Nor did we ever hear anyone refer to the 'Dirty Den' actor as 'Convicted Murder and Corpse Robber Lesley Grantham'.

The words 'Sensationalism' and 'Witch Hunt' spring to mind.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by arista

Feck The BBC

Yes Arista, I agree.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

maybe they should