Ched ......... is this nearer the truth ?

[1889]

Is Ched a bit thick ?

I think so. Which is probably why he isn't wasn't playing in the Premiership.

 

[beightonblade]

I think so. Which is probably why he isn't wasn't playing in the Premiership.

I only ask because he had a reight gud legal team ............. but the owd saying yer can lead a horse to watter but yer can't make it drink

 

[1889]

I only ask because he had a reight gud legal team ............. but the owd saying yer can lead a horse to watter but yer can't make it drink

In Cheds case, I think it was more a case of, 'It's no good knocking if there's no one at home'

 

[beightonblade]

I think it was more a case of, 'It's no good knocking if there's no one at home'

Lights on ...............nobody in ?

 

[Northyorksblade]

Sandwich short of a picnic

 

[judge]

Oh FFS, this is about the biggest pile of drivel I have ever set eyes on. So in this country we should all lie and cheat because it will get us somewhere.

Apparently the same old suspects keep banging on about how this convicted rapist couldn't have done it. I'm expecting Gene Hunt to come in next and tell everyone she was asking for it because she had high heels on.

If he appeals and gets out then alls good but all this Ched is innocent bollocks doesn't wash. It didn't wash with the Jury or the Judge. The legal process is what it is. Oddly enough its the envy of most of the evolved world. Right now, he is guilty and that is that. I know some blades like to go around with a chip on each shoulder but to decry the legal system for a case where you were neither there at the time nor there for the duration of the case is all a bit shit.

Does it get lonely up there ? On your pedestal ?

 

[Toronto Blade]

He's a footballer. Go figure.

Paddy Kenny falls into the same category.

 

[Darren]

But doesn't this go to the crux of this case? If Ched was still a bit pissed when the police questioned him, wouldn't this make this 'evidence' inadmissible?

Ched's problems began when, upon engaging a solicitor, he fell for the crap about being totally honest. All Ched and McDonald needed to do was get their story straight between themselves and then it would have been two stories against hers. His second mistake was trusting his career/future to what is obviously an 'Injury Lawyers4U'-type solicitor. Any half-decent brief would have driven a coach and horses through this girls' version of events.

Instead, they 'played by the rules' and we all know where that gets you in this country.

I'd be interested to know how you know what his solicitor said to him.

When Ched was arrested, the police would, before interviewing him, have told him very little about the allegation against him. They would not have told him if there was any forensic evidence confirming he had had sex with the complainant.

When you are at the police station you get a private consultation with your solicitor. You tell him what happened and he then advises you whether to give your account to the police or say nothing. If you say nothing there is a huge risk this can be held against you at trial. Ched would have told his solicitor he had had sex with her but it was consensual. In a situation where neither Ched nor the solicitor know what other evidence there is of sex, virtually every solicitor I know would have advised him to get his consent defence on record at the first opportunity.

 

[Sirius]

As I've said before I believe it is ridiculous that one can be found guilty whilst the other is innocent and hope his appeal is successful.

After much thought I honestly think the reason that Ched got convicted, is the way the jury perceived him to be, which would have been based on his demeanour, the nature and tone of his replies.

In a case such as this, where there is very little factual corroborated evidence and it is reliant on one persons word over another, I think a juries decision is influenced by their perception of the defendants character and based on that, whether or not they could imagine them commiting the alleged offence.

Obviously I wasn't there, but I've seen him walking into court with his hands in his pockets and read his replies such as 'We're footballers, we have money and can get any girl we like' or words to that affect. He went out of the fire escape in case his girlfriend rang him, just to reiterate he was betraying her trust aswell. Previously lied to the Police about his mobile phone, thereby questioning his integrity. In the Mirror it was reported that when McDonalds not guilty verdict was read out 'the defendants banged their heads together' this is obviously after the decision will have been made, but is not the actions I would expect from someone respectful of the court process.

In short, I think he's come across as some arrogant, billy big bollocks Footballer who thinks he is above the law and can do what he likes. Whilst legal opinion may poo poo this theory, lets not forget that juries are not made up of Solicitors or Barristers, they are made up of ordinary every day people, who have little knowledge of the legal process. When faced with some cocky footballer who probably earns more in a month than they earn in a year, any element of doubt will fall squarely in favour of the poor victim.

As I said, I hope Cheds appeal is successful because I do not think he is a rapist, but I hope he has learnt a lesson in humility before he stands in the dock again.

In a previous post, I suggested that one wrong response/ answer from Ched could make all the difference.
Perhaps things have changed over the years but I would have expected that the defence team would have had some sort of"rehearsal" with Ched before he gave evidence. If they didn't, they should have, and perhaps avoided the stupi d answer he gave regarding his exit from the building. I hope that on appeal the conviction is overturned. It looks unsafe to me.

 

[davidpinder]

any word on appeal dates??

 

[BladeFisher]

I'd be interested to know how you know what his solicitor said to him.

When Ched was arrested, the police would, before interviewing him, have told him very little about the allegation against him. They would not have told him if there was any forensic evidence confirming he had had sex with the complainant.

When you are at the police station you get a private consultation with your solicitor. You tell him what happened and he then advises you whether to give your account to the police or say nothing. If you say nothing there is a huge risk this can be held against you at trial. Ched would have told his solicitor he had had sex with her but it was consensual. In a situation where neither Ched nor the solicitor know what other evidence there is of sex, virtually every solicitor I know would have advised him to get his consent defence on record at the first opportunity.

Darren there is one bit about all of this I find really disturbing so perhaps you can advise.

What is the difference in essence/reality between saying nothing and I can't remember? In my mind the former sort of implies guilt the latter just forgetfulness. But in this instance doesn't it suit Miss X's story that can't remember could be a load of tosh as well as on the contrary being genuine. To me the complainant has the upper hand here, always. I can't remember if I consented, I can't remember what I drunk versus she consented, says the defendant.

Now I think Ched is guilty, but of what some, maybe a lot get up to. But I have a lot of sympathy for him and given the local outpourings do feel the can't remember may not be strictly the truth, more won't recall for the court being more apt.

I thought that Evans defence was too slow in querying and probing this can't remember bit and should have been more agressive over this issue as it now seems to me a good get out for a woman not impressed afterwards by her actions.

 

[Bladesway]

Does it get lonely up there ? On your pedestal ?

You care to explain why i am on any pedestal? The law of the land has convicted the bloke. How am I being high and mighty about stating basic facts? Or is it just your topic of the day?

 

[judge]

You care to explain why i am on any pedestal? The law of the land has convicted the bloke. How am I being high and mighty about stating basic facts? Or is it just your topic of the day?

I'm not really talking specifically about this subject , just everything in general

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Darren there is one bit about all of this I find really disturbing so perhaps you can advise.

What is the difference in essence/reality between saying nothing and I can't remember? In my mind the former sort of implies guilt the latter just forgetfulness. But in this instance doesn't it suit Miss X's story that can't remember could be a load of tosh as well as on the contrary being genuine. To me the complainant has the upper hand here, always. I can't remember if I consented, I can't remember what I drunk versus she consented, says the defendant.

If "I can't remember " was the only bit of evidence then Ched wouldn't have been convicted. Even if she could remember and said they both forced themseleves on her, then without any supporting evidence then it's highly unlikely that they would have been found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

The victim wasn't on trial so the bit i've highlighted in your post is doesn't apply.

 

[Darren]

Darren there is one bit about all of this I find really disturbing so perhaps you can advise.

What is the difference in essence/reality between saying nothing and I can't remember? In my mind the former sort of implies guilt the latter just forgetfulness. But in this instance doesn't it suit Miss X's story that can't remember could be a load of tosh as well as on the contrary being genuine. To me the complainant has the upper hand here, always. I can't remember if I consented, I can't remember what I drunk versus she consented, says the defendant.

Now I think Ched is guilty, but of what some, maybe a lot get up to. But I have a lot of sympathy for him and given the local outpourings do feel the can't remember may not be strictly the truth, more won't recall for the court being more apt.

I thought that Evans defence was too slow in querying and probing this can't remember bit and should have been more agressive over this issue as it now seems to me a good get out for a woman not impressed afterwards by her actions.

As I have said elsewhere it is highly likely that when the complainant said that she couldn't remember this was, in fact, the truth. She would have absolutely no motive for saying that if it wasn't true. If she was the money grabbing liar that some people have suggested she would have said she refused consent. By saying that she didn't remember she was guaranteeing there would be no prosecution unless there was other evidence (and when she first gave her account she did not know what other evidence might emerge) as, on the basis of that alone, it would have been impossible for the prosecution to prove a lack of consent.

As it happens there was other evidence, but by saying she didn't remember the complainant made the prosecution case a damn sight harder.

 

[beightonblade]

That is unless she is a reight cunniving fooker .......................and knew other evidence would come to light !

 

[Crouchy]

. If she was the money grabbing liar that some people have suggested she would have said she refused consent. .

If she was after money I'd suggest she'd have tried blackmail (or at least a "conversation") rather than a complaint - and she can't have tried that first because it would have been the centre of Ched's defence if she had.

 

[broomhillblade]

Let's not forget the clowns at the window, trying to make a video on their mobile. That can't have helped Ched's chances at the trial. Maybe it was the final straw which tipped the balance against him.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Let's not forget the clowns at the window, trying to make a video on their mobile. That can't have helped Ched's chances at the trial. Maybe it was the final straw which tipped the balance against him.

So many people keep mentioning this on articles about it. Aside from the fact that they didn't film ched they filmed macdonald, it's completely irrelevant to the issue of whether she was too drunk to consent. Darren do you think it likely that the judge will have directed the jury to ignore this evidence?

 

[Darren]

That is unless she is a reight cunniving fooker .......................and knew other evidence would come to light !

And how would she know that?

 

[Darren]

So many people keep mentioning this on articles about it. Aside from the fact that they didn't film ched they filmed macdonald, it's completely irrelevant to the issue of whether she was too drunk to consent. Darren do you think it likely that the judge will have directed the jury to ignore this evidence?

He think he would have done.

From a strict legal point of view, it probably would have helped Ched rather than anything else. After all, if you are going to commit rape, you would hardly want your mates to film it....

 

[Junior Soduko]

On another note, is there any way to follow the appeal ?

When its submitted does it go to a central kind of database which then gets published online etc?

 

[Bladesway]

I'm not really talking specifically about this subject , just everything in general

Topic of the day then

 

[beightonblade]

And how would she know that?

Well Darren she might have a brain cell or two that works in a cunniving way , i've known one or two crooks who had they put there mind to it wud have made reight gud criminal lawyers.

 

[judge]

Topic of the day then

No , just commenting on the way you come accross as thinking you're better than everyone else

 

[Bladesway]

No , just commenting on the way you come accross as thinking you're better than everyone else

Shame because actually you know better than that. But keep up the good work.

 

[Large Mendonca]

As I have said elsewhere it is highly likely that when the complainant said that she couldn't remember this was, in fact, the truth. She would have absolutely no motive for saying that if it wasn't true.

I don't get this - one huge motivation I can think is avoiding probing defence questions with a ready made answer of "sorry, don't remember".

 

[Darren]

I don't get this - one huge motivation I can think is avoiding probing defence questions with a ready made answer of "sorry, don't remember".

It's simple:

She says to the police "I don't remember what happened".
The suspects say "she consented".
Without other evidence the prosecution cannot then possibly prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did not consent. Hence without other evidence there would be no prosecution. It wouldn't even get to the stage of her being asked "probing defence questions".

When she told the police she suspected she had been raped the first thing they did was interview her. At that stage neither she nor the police would have known if there was any other evidence to support a rape prosecution. Hence it made absolutely no sense - if she just wanted to make money from a false allegation - to say she didn't remember anything.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

It's simple:

She says to the police "I don't remember what happened".
The suspects say "she consented".
Without other evidence the prosecution cannot then possibly prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did not consent. Hence without other evidence there would be no prosecution. It wouldn't even get to the stage of her being asked "probing defence questions".

When she told the police she suspected she had been raped the first thing they did was interview her. At that stage neither she nor the police would have known if there was any other evidence to support a rape prosecution. Hence it made absolutely no sense - if she just wanted to make money from a false allegation - to say she didn't remember anything.

She did go to the Hotel prior to informing the police, so she may have known that there would be supporting evidence

 

[Darren]

She did go to the Hotel prior to informing the police, so she may have known that there would be supporting evidence

She may have spoken to the recepetionist who may have said "you came in drunk with some bloke and some other blokes turned up later". I suggest that to think a 19 year old woman with no legal knowledge that we know of could think that that, coupled with a "I don't remember" line could found a rape prosecution is to enter the realms of Jon Bon type bizzare conspiracy theories.

Applying Occam's razor, if she wanted to make a false allegation to make money she would have just said "I refused consent and they went ahead anyway". It's frankly nonsense to suggest she concocted some complicated devious plan