Ched refused right to appeal :(

[Highbury_Blade]

Can she sue anytime though? E.g. Once released and is earning money again?

Also can she sue McDonald at all?

Civil cases don't depend on the results of criminal cases, so i would assume she can sue macDonald if her lawyer advised her the case was strong enough.


Pinchy can advise further on your first point.

 

[Balham]

On a slightly different area of the case, what would happen if CE's conviction is squashed after a year or 2? He would a free man who was wrongly convicted for rape whilst spending time in Jail. Who would compensate CE for this? Would the state compensate Ched or would he go after the lass for money, and would her name be published if ched's appeal is successful?

The case was R v Evans & McDonald, meaning that it was between the Crown and the defendants. If the conviction is overturned, any compensation for Evans would come from the state. Don't forget; someone being found not guilty does not equate to them being innocent.

Can she sue anytime though? E.g. Once released and is earning money again?

Also can she sue McDonald at all?

On your first point, there's a time limit to civil claims (6 years, I think) but the longer you leave it the worse it looks.

On the second, as Highbury_Blade says, she could pursue McDonald through the civil courts with a Torts case. That would only require a balance of probabilities verdict but it would be difficult and long-winded.

I know it's not in the UK but that's what got OJ Simpson: not guilty in the criminal trial (ie not proven beyond reasonable doubt) but guilty in the civil case (ie it's more likely than not that he did it).

 

[2ndtenorblade]

Not true.

The lady in question went back to the hotel with McDonald after a night out, something that happens thousands of times each night across the UK. Therefore, could a jury, without reasonable doubt, say that consent wasn't given?

Evans however went there alone, deceived the receptionist at the hotel to gain entry to a room that wasn't his, he had absolutely no business being in there, therefore the two outcomes can be different, as they were.

Déjà vu? I'm sure this has been pasted from an earlier message.

Are things really that slow on porksquawk?

 

[JJ Sefton]

There were the arrests made in north Wales.

You mean the people who tweeted her name?

 

[Bladesman]

The case was R v Evans & McDonald, meaning that it was between the Crown and the defendants. If the conviction is overturned, any compensation for Evans would come from the state. Don't forget; someone being found not guilty does not equate to them being innocent.



On your first point, there's a time limit to civil claims (6 years, I think) but the longer you leave it the worse it looks.

On the second, as Highbury_Blade says, she could pursue McDonald through the civil courts with a Torts case. That would only require a balance of probabilities verdict but it would be difficult and long-winded.

I know it's not in the UK but that's what got OJ Simpson: not guilty in the criminal trial (ie not proven beyond reasonable doubt) but guilty in the civil case (ie it's more likely than not that he did it).

And that is the end of that chapter.



So the longer she takes to present a Civil Case the less chance she has of more cash. Interesting to know she can claim off McDonald as well.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

And that is the end of that chapter.



So the longer she takes to present a Civil Case the less chance she has of more cash. Interesting to know she can claim off McDonald as well.

Given that she's a supposed money grabbing little tramp you'd have thought she'd be off down the nearest no win no fee solicitors as soon as the judges hammer went down.....

 

[Bladesman]

Given that she's a supposed money grabbing little tramp you'd have thought she'd be off down the nearest no win no fee solicitors as soon as the judges hammer went down.....

True but she has time to make the claim though.

Could just be a balance of anonymity vs money at the moment.

 

[JJ Sefton]

Seems like this victim cant do owt to satisfy some people. Shes a money grabber who hasn't grabbed any money but people still think that charge holds because she might, at some point in the future.

 

[metalblade]

On a slightly different area of the case, what would happen if CE's conviction is squashed after a year or 2? He would a free man who was wrongly convicted for rape whilst spending time in Jail. Who would compensate CE for this? Would the state compensate Ched or would he go after the lass for money, and would her name be published if ched's appeal is successful?

Who would compensate SUFC for not being promoted ....................... another opportunity for McCabe to sue someone ? how much could he wring out of a judge and jury
Seriously it is time to move on Ched is a convicted rapist who is NO LONGER anything to do with SUFC. If he wants to appeal that conviction good luck to him he can easily afford it but it is no longer a worry of ours. I for one couldn't care less if he did it or not, no one on this forum knows the full story, the only certainty to us is that all three of them have the morals of stray dogs.

 

[Crouchy]

Just for the record, Ched Evans is a convicted rapist. At best, he is a boorish fool who considers that women are there for him to shag, at worst, he's a cynical manipulating rapist.

That he scored goals for us is irrelevant. My opinion is that he was shit for us before the arrest - it seems to me that being under scrutiny made him knuckle down. I don't really give a fuck what happens to him.

Had the rape case not happened, he'd be playing for Swansea or West Brom now and would have deleted Sheffield from his SatNav. Fuck him.

 

[geekblade]

Thanks to the journo who was tweeting throughout the case, we heard all the evidence from both sides. There was no other damning evidence that has not been reported.

Ched was convicted on the whim of the jury. I don't for one moment condone what he did, but I still think the conviction was questionable.

We didn't hear all the evidence we heard the evidence that the journalists were allowed to publicise. There is a difference.

 

[JohnDenver]

We didn't hear all the evidence we heard the evidence that the journalists were allowed to publicise. There is a difference.

A bit off-topic, but your avatar scares me.

 

[Bladesway]

Just like the many people who post incorrect information and are happy that someone can convict a man by saying "she was too drunk to remember". How convenient?

Fact : He was convicted.
Fact : By people who know more about the case than we do
Fact : He is in clink
Fact : His appeal has been chucked out at this stage.

You see where this is heading don't you Jacko?

 

[BladeFisher]

I agree with sheffielder; we need to move on. The fact that the initial appeal has been rejected means it will be quite a length of time before an appeal is officially lodged, dealt with and heard with by the full court of appeal.

It could be up to another year or even longer. In all likelihood there is a chance he will have served most of his time (will only serve 2 and a half years of 5 year sentence). If he is/was innocent then its his fight to fight. He is no longer an employee of SUFC and never will be again (despite these half baked stories doing the rounds about the club paying his fees for an appeal - why would we pay the appeal - surely he has funds to be able to do this and what does the club owe him now?).

I am still unsure why there is such support for him and continued fascination with him. It was his idiocy (guilty or not) along with being on around 15-20K per week for 3 years (more so the idiots that gave him such a contract) that has contributed to what a mess we are in currently - along with so many other factors of couse. Supposedly the club also may lose 20 of 50 staff (some of which have mortages/families etc) and the club are in desperate straits (contacting clubs like Scunny to try and take Cresswell for instance). We do have so much more to worry about rather than planks like him and Williamson who bled the club dry for very little they gave back the other way. Sorry if that sounds harsh but way I feel.

Ugh? What are you blaming him for exactly? Sheff Utd's failure to go up, which in the end was arguab;ly down to other players not Evans. Funny that whilst Ched was in an HMP establishement on Merseyside his teammates couldn't beat Huddersfield despite being 1-0 on penalties. Don't blame Evans he wasn'r even playing!!

I think Evans was a plank and acted arrogantly and I can see how he was convicted, but... the other guy was oh so lucky to get off. Imo it was the jury were not convinced that a relationship had not begun between Miss X and the other player, since they were together much longer, even if that relationship was just sexual, but in the case of Evans Miss X was so drunk as to be incapable of consenting hence Evans was done.

I dont think what Evans did was morally right, I think he clearly wanted a shag and was using Miss X as was the other guy but there are many instances up and down the country that go unreported and that is where I have some sympathy for him. He was wrong it was rape end of. But don't blame him for our plight, he damn near got us promoted for heavens sake.

 

[Deadbat]

Ugh? What are you blaming him for exactly? Sheff Utd's failure to go up, which in the end was arguab;ly down to other players not Evans. Funny that whilst Ched was in an HMP establishement on Merseyside his teammates couldn't beat Huddersfield despite being 1-0 on penalties. Don't blame Evans he wasn'r even playing!!

.......But don't blame him for our plight, he damn near got us promoted for heavens sake.

His actions both on and off the field have been a contributory part of our current standing I still maintain. Only a contributory part and ridiculous managerial appointments, sanctioning of wages for over the hill players, reliance on loans and the general management of the club from messrs McCabe (and Robinson/Birch) are the chief reasons.

However, his spell at the club coincided with the worst period in the clubs recent history (over 20 years) and rightly or wrongly the nonsencial huge wages we gave out are soomething the club may take 5-10 years to recover from. The idiot who sanctioned such big wages for him is the one chiefly to blame. Evans was not the one who decided how much we paid him. As an aside, do you think Evans contributed much in the previous 2 seasons; against much better oppositions? Do you think he went any way towards earning any of his 15k-20K reported salary? His performances for the most part (over 2 thirds) of a 3 year contract were not good enough; certainly for someone on his salary.

He had a great season last year but his actions off the field meant he/we were unable to seal promotion and ensured the club were completely destablilised with 3 matches to go. If he had kept it in his trousers we would have got promoted last season; I think thats a fairly safe assumption. Our current plight (reduncancies, playing squad bereft of talent and maybe stuck in the third tier for a forseeable amount of time) is in many ways a direct result of failure to seal promotion and bring more income in. Of course you are right wiithout Evans goals we may not have been near the top places but you can also argue if he had even put in 4 or 5 performances in crucial games then we may not have gone down (you can say the same about Quinn, Williamson, Simonsen, Collins, Doyle etc all who made positive contributions last year but did nothing to prevent our slippage into league one the previous campaign).

 

[Pinchy]

I know that, but it's my understanding that if a victim is too drunk to consent, she's too drunk to consent. Period.(?)

I prefer to put it this way: It's rape if the victim does not consent and the shagger (a neutral legal term ), does not reasonably believe that the shagee is consenting.

So: Assume the jury are sure the shagee was so intoxicated as to lack capacity to consent. Consent is a positive state of affairs, not the default position, thus "can't consent" = "doesn't consent".

End of the matter? No.

The shagger says a) "the shagee consented"; b) "even if you the jury are against me on that, I genuinely believed that she consented". The jury, in order to convict must now be sure that the shagger had no reasonable belief in consent. That exercise necessarily involves:

"Are we sure she did not consent - Yes, she could not so she did not"

"Are we sure that the defendant did not have a genuine belief that she had the capacity to consent (we're sure she was so intoxicated as to lack capacity, but, in all the circumstances prevailing at the time, might the defendant have reasonably believed otherwise?) If sure no such reasonable belief - Guilty. If not sure:

"Are we sure, having concluded that he might have reasonably believed that she had the capacity to consent that the shagger had no reasonable belief that she did actually consent.

In short, to convict, in a case like this: A unanimous decision (we're all sure) that:

1. too intoxicated to consent, ergo did not consent.

2. no reasonable belief she was able to consent. Guilty verdict. OR:

Not sure of 1 - Not Guilty.

Sure of 1 but not sure of 2 - consider 3

3. no reasonable belief she actually consented - Guilty. Not sure - Not Guilty.

Phew!

 

[mpjacko]

Had the rape case not happened, he'd be playing for Swansea or West Brom now and would have deleted Sheffield from his SatNav. Fuck him.

But you would have been calling him God and the best thing since slice bread as he would of scored the goals to take us up. Double standards I thinks

 

[Pinchy]

But you would have been calling him God and the best thing since slice bread as he would of scored the goals to take him up. Double standards I thinks

What does "would of" mean in the above, mate? I don't understand what you've written.

 

[mpjacko]

What does "would of" mean in the above, mate? I don't understand what you've written.

Just corrected a word. soz

 

[Pinchy]

Sorry if post 76 is difficult to understand. I was writing cogent educated stuff until I switched on the RS commentary. There's a bloke on there talking complete, unmitigated bollocks. I got confused.

 

[JohnDenver]

Sorry if post 76 is difficult to understand. I was writing cogent educated stuff until I switched on the RS commentary. There's a bloke on there talking complete, unmitigated bollocks. I got confused.

If he wasn't so insistent on talking testicles he might have a proper job by now.

 

[Pinchy]

If he wasn't so insistent on talking testicles he might have a proper job by now.

He says we're attacking with too much confidence - need to be more cautious!

La plus ça change...la plus c'est la même chose.

 

[Bath Blade]

Had the rape case not happened, he'd be playing for Swansea or West Brom now and would have deleted Sheffield from his SatNav.

I think you can probably add that had he been found not guilty, he'd still have now been playing for Swansea or West Brom (although we would now be in the Championship).

 

[Crouchy]

But you would have been calling him God and the best thing since slice bread as he would of scored the goals to take us up. Double standards I thinks

The idea that I would call any footballer "God" is laughable. I don't think that a hypothetical attitude formed by a person you have never met really constitutes double standards.

 

[IOM Blade]

I know that, but it's my understanding that if a victim is too drunk to consent, she's too drunk to consent. Period.(?)

What troubles me is that the jury believed she was too drunk to consent (which pretty much means she was semi-conscious does it not?), yet she wasn't too drunk to be heard making 'sexual noises' whilst being raped by Ched.

 

[kent-blade]

What troubles me is that the jury believed she was too drunk to consent (which pretty much means she was semi-conscious does it not?), yet she wasn't too drunk to be heard making 'sexual noises' whilst being raped by Ched.

There is something deeply disturbing about your opinion.

All the debate about the definite of rape ignores what he and his friend set out to do, in booking the room, pre-planning it all. It's inherently twisted, and to ignore it is to ignore even the weakest moral compass.

 

[IOM Blade]

There is something deeply disturbing about your opinion.

All the debate about the definite of rape ignores what he and his friend set out to do, in booking the room, pre-planning it all. It's inherently twisted, and to ignore it is to ignore even the weakest moral compass.

Bollocks, even if it was rape there was nothing pre-planned about it whatsoever, booking a hotel room for your visiting mate is not a crime.

 

[grafikhaus]

Convicted rapist, end of story.

And with that thinking you probably think Pussy Riot were guilty.

Ched. Piss poor 'defence' team. End of story.

 

[JJ Sefton]

And with that thinking you probably think Pussy Riot were guilty.

Ched. Piss poor 'defence' team. End of story.

Pussy Riot were guilty. The question is whether it should have been a crime.

 

[Jehovah]

Bollocks, even if it was rape there was nothing pre-planned about it whatsoever, booking a hotel room for your visiting mate is not a crime.

I could easily go visiting a friend and book a hotel room with the hope of getting a girl back. If I got seperated from my room mate and then got a girl to come back, text my mate and said "I've got one" would that make me a rapist? No, it would make me a legend.

This case still winds me up today, the biggest joke of a conviction ever witnessed.