blueatheart Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 Just drink the :censored:ing tea!!! "My mate text me to says you want some tea so I got you some" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 Just drink the :censored:ing tea!!! People pay people to drink tea? :censored: off world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagger Lee Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) the new evidence is mobile phone footage that was ruled inadmissible by the original trial judge that shows shows she was a more than willing participant apparently plus various texts & twitter posts bragging about how she was going to get a big payday as a result .all of which throws into doubt her claims to have been oblivious and uncomprehending of what went on ***** deleted reference to previous incident - taking a guess it is still in front of the court and still subject to some UK laws ***** Must admit the info that has been printed overseas did not refer to footage but only to her bragging texts and ..... errr .... ummm.... terrible previous experience. Edited October 13, 2016 by Stagger Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 When a man and a woman have an extremely bitter divorce (let's say the man has played away and been found out) and the wronged woman vows to "screw him for every penny" - is she also bragging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 So the alleged previous rape allegation she made against a rugby player and that was settled out of court (alleged is for those reading this in the UK only ) was not the 'new' evidence!!! Must admit the info that has been printed overseas did not refer to footage but only to her bragging texts and ..... errr .... ummm.... terrible previous experience. What matters is what happened that specific night in that specific room with that specific person. What would Ched's defence be if he were accused of robbery? Would he argue that his victim had previously given to charities and therefore can't be robbed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 What matters is what happened that specific night in that specific room with that specific person. What would Ched's defence be if he were accused of robbery? Would he argue that his victim had previously given to charities and therefore can't be robbed? Or that they had been robbed before, so a pattern has emerged and therefore it's less believable that it could happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 (edited) I think you need to decide whether you want a cup of tea. https://youtu.be/oQbei5JGiT8 What happens if a person is offered a cup of tea and accepts!They dont change their mind and drink it! They don't pass out after being offered the tea and drink it! They arent forced into drinking tea they don't want and drink the tea! In fact the person who offered the tea is of the belief that they enjoyed the tea on offer! They then fall asleep after the cup of tea and wake up but deny any memory of actually being offered a tea never mind drinking it. This wouldn't be the first time they've been offered tea and couldn't remember it either? The obvious answer is to drink coffee instead but the same issues could still arise Edited October 13, 2016 by palmer1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 What matters is what happened that specific night in that specific room with that specific person. What would Ched's defence be if he were accused of robbery? Would he argue that his victim had previously given to charities and therefore can't be robbed? Indeed it is but as she says in her testimony she cannot remember what happened. That is the prosecutors problem, they have to prove his guilt he does not have to prove his innocence. The prosecution are not able to demonstrate the crime. What happened is not in doubt but the circumstances are. Unfortunately this probably means that he cannot be found guilty without reasonable doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 What if the truth lies in a half a cup of tea each? he kinda thought am a pro footballer and most girls throw themselves under me and she kinda thought I like pro rugby/footballers. Then the last time the pro rugby player paid me off. Or in this instance I really am a slapper but I really didn't know Ched sneaked in after I'd nailed one pro footballer and he was a snake and took me cos he just wanted to. Or was she really totally innocent and both pro footballers took advantage ????? do I give a monkeys now? clearly!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robboman Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 If found totally innocent and compensation followed... I'd dread to think how much of tax payers money that would be! Loss of his earnings (and potential future earnings) being the main one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 When found totally innocent and compensation followed... I'd dread to think how much of tax payers money that would be! Loss of his earnings (and potential future earnings) being the main one FTFY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 What matters is what happened that specific night in that specific room with that specific person. What would Ched's defence be if he were accused of robbery? Would he argue that his victim had previously given to charities and therefore can't be robbed? Can you be more specific? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) If found totally innocent and compensation followed... I'd dread to think how much of tax payers money that would be! Loss of his earnings (and potential future earnings) being the main one He won't get compensation for the jury's original verdict. Compensation is only paid where there is a miscarriage of justice caused by the incompetence or worse of a public body eg the police for fabricating or withholding evidences etc....there is no suggestion of this in this case Edited October 14, 2016 by Magister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horlicks Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 As Magister has said it is the prosecution who has to prove his guilt, and from what I've read over the last few days while his actions are extremely distasteful I don't think you can say 100% that he is guilty of rape. The judge even said in the summing up even if you think he might have done it than you have to give a verdict of not guilty. If found innocent I think he would go after his previous Barrister if he feels he was negligent in defending him in the first trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) As Magister has said it is the prosecution who has to prove his guilt, and from what I've read over the last few days while his actions are extremely distasteful I don't think you can say 100% that he is guilty of rape. The judge even said in the summing up even if you think he might have done it than you have to give a verdict of not guilty. If found innocent I think he would go after his previous Barrister if he feels he was negligent in defending him in the first trial. No, it doesn't have to be 100%...it has to be "beyond reasonable doubt" - so if they think he did, then they should find him Guilty. I'm quite disturbed at the judge's summing up to be honest. He has said some very odd, biased things in his summing up. As well as that above, he says the jury should not to judge morality, yet morality is a part of the basis of Ched Evans' character and likelihood to do what he is accused of. If the jury should not judge the morality as PART (not all) of their verdict, then bringing the victims Ex in to completely character assassinate her is totally out of order and it should also have been directed by the Judge that they disregard it. But it feels like there is enough people involved that are hell bent on obtaining a not Guilty verdict from this one. With regards to compensation awards, there is a cap on it. I think it is £250,000. Edited October 14, 2016 by boundaryblue80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 If there was any chance of a guilty verdict then Chesterfield, or anyone for that matter, wouldn't have signed him, lip service being payed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Not guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Go on Ched! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 what a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Big shock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagger Lee Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Look forward to all those thousands who have stopped going to Oldham because of this being at the game next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Look forward to all those thousands who have stopped going to Oldham because of this being at the game next week. How original, zzzzzzz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Look forward to all those thousands who have stopped going to Oldham because of this being at the game next week. So when Bazza and his stooges tried to sign him...at that time...he wasn't a convicted rapist??? You're a bit dim if you miss that very crucial point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagger Lee Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 So when Bazza and his stooges tried to sign him...at that time...he wasn't a convicted rapist??? You're a bit dim if you miss that very crucial point. at that time...he wasn't a convicted rapist??? - No actually he wasn't a convicted rapist when we tried to sign him but don't let the facts get in the way eh! I'm sure if you educate yourself you will work it out eventually You're a bit dim if you miss that very crucial point. - Not dim but educated. Though made easy by being overseas and reading about her out of court financial settlement with a rugby player from a previous incident and also her bragging texts, all due lack of censorship of the case outside the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfatjoe1 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Look forward to all those thousands who have stopped going to Oldham because of this being at the game next week. Thousands??? We were already in decline. A few dozen who just needed a further excuse, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts