opinions4u Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 If it is overturned it won't make him any less of a complete :censored: though! Well...not in my eyes... Agreed! But anyone who turns round and says "I told you we were right to sign him" should also be considered a c***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 If innocent I would hope everyone affords him the same rights and privileges any innocent person receives. If it is overturned it won't make him any less of a complete :censored: though! Well...not in my eyes... ^That's about the size of it. I've got another quibble. It's not easy to be found guilty of rape by a jury of your peers. I think I prefer the jury's verdict to a judicial one, but that's the system we have. I 100% agree Ched is :censored: whatever the outcome today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 If it is overturned it won't make him any less of a complete :censored: though! Well...not in my eyes... For cheating on his girlfriend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc_lover Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 If it is overturned it won't make him any less of a complete :censored: though! Well...not in my eyes... Wow. If it is overturned he will technically have spent a number of years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. If I was going to prison for a crime I didn't commit I think I'd be pissed off too. Get off the bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twisbrogan Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 This provides an overview on what will (could) be happening over the next couple of days. http://ukcriminallawblog.com/ched-evans-appeal-to-be-heard-on-22nd-march/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Break The Silence Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 If it is overturned he will technically have spent a number of years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Does that mean he will be entitled to shed loads of compensation including loss of earnings etc etc? That'll be some figure if so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc_lover Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Does that mean he will be entitled to shed loads of compensation including loss of earnings etc etc? That'll be some figure if so. Maybe not entitled but I would imagine he could definitely go to court over it? Imagine he'll be sick of courts by now though and he can't be short of a bob or two anyway! Time will tell I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 You can't prove innocence. It would mean that the court found that he is not proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Thats innocent. You are either innocent or guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Thats innocent. You are either innocent or guilty. Interesting concepts these. If you're found guilty by a jury of your peers, you're guilty. If the judge finds that the jury was misguided or misdirected, or that the trial was iffy in another decisive way, does that make you innocent? Can the prosecution have another go? No one disputes the :censored: allegation though, do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I've heard the judges can choose to uphold forever, quash forever or order a retrial. Is it worth putting money on retrial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozzer Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I've heard the judges can choose to uphold forever, quash forever or order a retrial. Is it worth putting money on retrial? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) Interesting concepts these. If you're found guilty by a jury of your peers, you're guilty. If the judge finds that the jury was misguided or misdirected, or that the trial was iffy in another decisive way, does that make you innocent? Can the prosecution have another go? No one disputes the :censored: allegation though, do they? Yes it makes you innocent. Until you are guilty you are innocent. If the original trial was "iffy" then it is a mis-trial surely, therefore you were never guilty and the original verdict is quashed. Innocent. The c*nt thing.... who cares. I'd say a very high % of footballers are c*nts who behave like this pretty much every weekend, probably some of those amongst our squad current or past. The problem comes from idiot parents and society putting footballers up as role models. I guess they are role models in a way though...... in how NOT to act and live your personal/private life. I support a football team, I don't idolise players these days and certainly don't look up to them in any way. Edited March 22, 2016 by kowenicki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Interesting concepts these. If you're found guilty by a jury of your peers, you're guilty. If the judge finds that the jury was misguided or misdirected, or that the trial was iffy in another decisive way, does that make you innocent? Can the prosecution have another go? No one disputes the :censored: allegation though, do they? British law is based on innocent until proven guilty so technically he would be innocent. It doesn't excuse our club's directors for making one of the stupidest decisions this or any football club has ever made by inviting the circus to town. But we've been there with that one and we drew a line under it long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Interesting concepts these. If you're found guilty by a jury of your peers, you're guilty. If the judge finds that the jury was misguided or misdirected, or that the trial was iffy in another decisive way, does that make you innocent? Can the prosecution have another go? No one disputes the :censored: allegation though, Do you apply the same moral compass when assessing the actions of the 650 elected employees in your place of work? ....or is your moral compass just a flag of convenience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Although one of those hypotheticals we'll never know, but I'd LOVE to have some sort of alternate universe device to see how many of the Ched sympathisers would be so vocal about if if he hadn't been linked with the club in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 For cheating on his girlfriend? That and other things. I don't believe he will get off for any other reason than a police cock up or the judge mis-directing the jury. Which in that case will lead to a re-trial. It won't be the end of it. And it won't make me believe he is any less guilty. I'm well aware that will upset others who so desperately want him to be acquitted so he can pull on an Oldham shirt. I don't care much about those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Interesting concepts these. If you're found guilty by a jury of your peers, you're guilty. If the judge finds that the jury was misguided or misdirected, or that the trial was iffy in another decisive way, does that make you innocent? Can the prosecution have another go? No one disputes the :censored: allegation though, do they? Depending on the reasons for the acquittal, the CPS could be allowed to re-trial it. To those talking about compensation, he can claim for loss of earnings but there is a cap on this at £500,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Depending on the reasons for the acquittal, the CPS could be allowed to re-trial it. To those talking about compensation, he can claim for loss of earnings but there is a cap on this at £500,000. Any compo might be subject to the Barry George hurdle - he might not be sufficiently innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozzer Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Depending on the reasons for the acquittal, the CPS could be allowed to re-trial it. To those talking about compensation, he can claim for loss of earnings but there is a cap on this at £500,000. Do you honestly think the CPS are going to go through the time, effort and cost of a re-trial not to mention the trauma for all concerned, particularly the alleged victim, when whatever the outcome he'll walk out of court at the end of it. It's not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 Lions Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 There won't be a retrial because he has already served his time. He'll either be cleared or he wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Please make it stop... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 There won't be a retrial because he has already served his time. He'll either be cleared or he wont. But if there is a retrial, he could theoretically get more time than he got first time round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Judge has placed restriction on reporting until the end. Sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozzer Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 But if there is a retrial, he could theoretically get more time than he got first time round. No he couldn't. Retrials after conviction are not allowed to impose greater sentences than originally imposed. The sentence could only have been increased if the crown had appealed the original sentence was unduly lenient. They didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 · Hidden by Ackey, March 23, 2016 - No reason given Hidden by Ackey, March 23, 2016 - No reason given Judge has placed restriction on reporting until the end. Sensible. Given that literally nothing new can come out (other than wild speculation) until the conclusion of the proceedings I am going to lock this thread, as it's for the most part petty repetition of baseless statements and baiting. That said; there's no intent to stifle free speech, as I expect someone to scream any moment now, and thus if someone does start a new thread it will be left open (as long as it's within standard rules). I hope it's appreciated why I am doing this, though I expect not everyone will agree. Link to comment
Recommended Posts