[Exharboroughspireite]

dim view, on 22 June 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

I have studied the case very carefully.

Answer this one.....

Out of one hundred women who might agree to drunken sex after a casual meeting, how many would be scared sh1tless if a stranger burst in on the proceedings? 'The vast majority' would be my estimate.

The jury don't have to give their reasons, but I'm suggesting what may be the major reason why Macdonald was acquitted and Evans wasn't.

This is why I have a huge problem with this signing. Morally for me, his actions were vile. This was not a drunken one night stand with a girl he met in a club. This was a young man taking advantage of a vulnerable young woman who was with someone else. From a moral point of view I find his actions deplorable. I would have not have signed him for this reason. I would have opposed the signing of Lee Hughes for example with the same moral code. We also should remember (and I am not implying violence was used in any way shape or form in this case) that in the UK 2 women are killed every week because of domestic violence. By making this signing this implies that our club is ignorant of such issues and the treatment of women in general

The second reason for not signing him > he of course is facing a retrial. He may well be found guilty for a second time. I would not therefore have signed a player who could face only two months of playing for us and I should imagine will be somewhat distracted as October comes along.

The third reason for not signing him > this is an individual that has not played football for 4 years.

I disagree with the signing wholeheartedly

This post has been edited by Exharboroughspireite: 22 June 2016 - 04:14 PM

[sixmilliondollardan]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

My refusal is based solely on not being interested in doing legwork for someone who just makes up lies on a whim, then refuses to acknowledge it.

It really is as simple as that. Take from that whatever you choose.

What lies?

[shaun1866]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 03:27 PM, said:

If you're ever unlucky enough to be charged of a crime you didn't commit I presume you'll ask the prosecution to represent you!?

Truly staggering.

I will give you a bit of an insight into something just like that, I was jailed for a crime I didn't commit I was found guilty at my court case and I took the punishment on the chin because there was nothing else I could do, well when my appeal came through I won my appeal because more evidence had come to light to support my case (that basically backed up what I had said and that I could not have done what I was accused off) I lost my job (not just a job to be honest it was actually a carear I was flying in (literally) I served the jail sentance and my appeal was the week after. Since then I have never had any trust in our judicial system what so ever so when I was caught up in something a few years back I just didn't bother arguing I just went along with it.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

sixmilliondollardan, on 22 June 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

What lies?

I think the fact that you have edited my reply to miss out the parts where i clearly point out that you have lied and misrepresented me speaks for itself.

But I'll humour you one last time.

A) You said McDonald was her date. He wasn't.

B) You said you'd carefully studied the case. You hadn't. See above.

C)You said I'd supplied evidence to back up things I said were facts. I hadn't. See previous.

Other than that. You're a real font of knowledge and reliability...

[BlueRover52]

Exharboroughspireite, on 22 June 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

This is why I have a huge problem with this signing. Morally for me, his actions were vile. This was not a drunken one night stand with a girl he met in a club. This was a young man taking advantage of a vulnerable young woman who was with someone else. From a moral point of view I find his actions deplorable. I would have not have signed him for this reason. I would have opposed the signing of Lee Hughes for example with the same moral code. We also should remember (and I am not implying violence was used in any way shape or form in this case) that in the UK 2 women are killed every week because of domestic violence. By making this signing this implies that our club is ignorant of such issues and the treatment of women in general

The second reason for not signing him > he of course is facing a retrial. He may well be found guilty for a second time. I would not therefore have signed a player who could face only two months of playing for us and I should imagine will be somewhat distracted as October comes along.

The third reason for not signing him > this is an individual that has not played football for 4 years.

I disagree with the signing wholeheartedly

Totally agree with that and would add lack of remorse of his actions to that list.Lord knows what his girlfriend is thinking when she stood by him.

[moondog]

shaun1866, on 22 June 2016 - 04:19 PM, said:

I will give you a bit of an insight into something just like that, I was jailed for a crime I didn't commit I was found guilty at my court case and I took the punishment on the chin because there was nothing else I could do, well when my appeal came through I won my appeal because more evidence had come to light to support my case (that basically backed up what I had said and that I could not have done what I was accused off) I lost my job (not just a job to be honest it was actually a carear I was flying in (literally) I served the jail sentance and my appeal was the week after. Since then I have never had any trust in our judicial system what so ever so when I was caught up in something a few years back I just didn't bother arguing I just went along with it.

A tad contradictory if you won an appeal

[sixmilliondollardan]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 04:23 PM, said:

I think the fact that you have edited my reply to miss out the parts where i clearly point out that you have lied and misrepresented me speaks for itself.

But I'll humour you one last time.

A) You said McDonald was her date. He wasn't.

B) You said you'd carefully studied the case. You hadn't. See above.

C)You said I'd supplied evidence to back up things I said were facts. I hadn't. See previous.

Other than that. You're a real font of knowledge and reliability...

You are an idiot.

You appear to have mistaken me for someone else. Find any comment I have made where I have stated a). McDonald was her date, or b). I have carefully studied the case.

I raised one point about the Mirror article not having evidence that the judge had incorrectly directed the jury but instead only contained Evans teams claims that was the case.

[calvin plummers socks]

shaun1866, on 22 June 2016 - 04:19 PM, said:

I will give you a bit of an insight into something just like that, I was jailed for a crime I didn't commit I was found guilty at my court case and I took the punishment on the chin because there was nothing else I could do, well when my appeal came through I won my appeal because more evidence had come to light to support my case (that basically backed up what I had said and that I could not have done what I was accused off) I lost my job (not just a job to be honest it was actually a carear I was flying in (literally) I served the jail sentance and my appeal was the week after. Since then I have never had any trust in our judicial system what so ever so when I was caught up in something a few years back I just didn't bother arguing I just went along with it.

Weren't you in the forces?
Thank goodness you weren't taken for questioning by the enemy if it's that easy to get you to fold!

[Tylerdurdencfc]

Having read the so called new evidence provided by the mirror a good lawyer will rip it apart in seconds.

An account from a doorman that she had previously been banned from the venue, irrelevant to the case,

Accounts from I quote ' meeting the victim on nights out in bars and at a house party' again totally irrelevant.

Accounts from previous ex partners, a good lawyer would just argue they are feeling annoyed that they had broken up, will they be brought in as witnesses or character assignations.

Accounts from 14 people in an 18 month investigation after the conviction. Again a good lawyer will argue that the so called private investigation could have influenced people's judgement.


The only way he will get off is through the so called technicality of the judge mis-directing the jury.


If that is the case, how would people feel about it then that conviction was over-turned on a technicality.

[dim view]

sixmilliondollardan, on 22 June 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

You are an idiot.

You appear to have mistaken me for someone else. Find any comment I have made where I have stated a). McDonald was her date, or b). I have carefully studied the case.

I raised one point about the Mirror article not having evidence that the judge had incorrectly directed the jury but instead only contained Evans teams claims that was the case.

Many apologies for my loose use of the word 'date'. They met and agreed to do something together - an arranged social function - which I called a 'date'.

This might help. I posted whilst all the information and summing ups were still on t'internet....

dim view

Posted 28 May 2014 - 03:12 PM

I personally think that Evans's appeal, if he proceeds, will be successful. The judge seems from what I've read to have influenced the jurors into considering that the defendant could have been given additional drugs, even though he had no grounds to do so. This makes the video evidence showing she was clearly not legless in the hotel foyer much weaker

[Misnomer]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 22 June 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

Having read the so called new evidence provided by the mirror a good lawyer will rip it apart in seconds.

An account from a doorman that she had previously been banned from the venue, irrelevant to the case,

Accounts from I quote ' meeting the victim on nights out in bars and at a house party' again totally irrelevant.

Accounts from previous ex partners, a good lawyer would just argue they are feeling annoyed that they had broken up, will they be brought in as witnesses or character assignations.

Accounts from 14 people in an 18 month investigation after the conviction. Again a good lawyer will argue that the so called private investigation could have influenced people's judgement.


The only way he will get off is through the so called technicality of the judge mis-directing the jury.


If that is the case, how would people feel about it then that conviction was over-turned on a technicality.

Exactly how I see it. I have no knowledge of the legal system, just rudimentary stuff; alas, if his conviction was quashed, it means it was unsafe? Were there specific reasons given for it being quashed?

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

sixmilliondollardan, on 22 June 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

You are an idiot.

You appear to have mistaken me for someone else. Find any comment I have made where I have stated a). McDonald was her date, or b). I have carefully studied the case.

I raised one point about the Mirror article not having evidence that the judge had incorrectly directed the jury but instead only contained Evans teams claims that was the case.

Indeed. I mistook you for dim view. Whose view was, unsurprisingly.. dim.

So apologies for the first lies you didn't tell.

The lies you did tell were about me saying I had claimed evidence and fact in relation to two incidences. I had done neither. That was clear, I explained as much and you edited my reply when quoting it in order to continue trying to misrepresent me.

This is what you went out of your way to edit when replying... ""In my opinion, the judge should have told the jury that unless they could be sure that the woman in question hadn't consented, that they should find Evans not guilty, given that there was no perceivable change in circumstance between her liaison with McDonald and that of Evans. There are some links on here to the Mirror mentioning possible failings in his summing up and direction of the jury."

Note I said 'In my opinion' and pointed to 'possible failings'

You really ought to read, think and deliberate before you go around making stuff up. I have not claimed either evidence or fact. Which is why i won't waste any more time debating with you, it would be like a broken pencil.. pointless. "

That makes me someone who made a mistake and apologised. And you an idiot who tries to airbrush stuff to make himself look good..

This post has been edited by KevinArnottsGoldenBoot: 22 June 2016 - 04:52 PM

[Johnnyspireite7]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

Indeed. I mistook you for dim view. Whose view was, unsurprisingly.. dim.

So apologies for the first lies you didn't tell.

The lies you did tell were about me saying I had claimed evidence and fact in relation to two incidences. I had done neither. That was clear, I explained as much and you edited my reply when quoting it in order to continue trying to misrepresent me.

That makes me some one who made a mistake and apologised. And you an idiot.

Unlike Ched Evans!

[dim view]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

Indeed. I mistook you for dim view. Whose view was, unsurprisingly.. dim.

This is what you went out of your way to edit when replying... ""In my opinion, the judge should have told the jury that unless they could be sure that the woman in question hadn't consented, that they should find Evans not guilty, given that there was no perceivable change in circumstance between her liaison with McDonald and that of Evans. There are some links on here to the Mirror mentioning possible failings in his summing up and direction of the jury."

Note I said 'In my opinion' and pointed to 'possible failings'

Nowt personal but you are allowed to change your mind when it is pointed out to you that there is in fact an enormous perceivable change in circumstances between her liaison with Macdonald and that of Evans. Ignore them if you like, but facts are facts.

[bifocart]

[quote name='Bowzer spirey' timestamp='1466524082' post='1219212']
I don't believe they've thought that deep into it. Probably mates doing mates a favour. We will help you back into the game, you get us up league table.


I dont think they have thought deep into at all youth, that's the trouble.

[moondog]

Misnomer, on 22 June 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

Exactly how I see it. I have no knowledge of the legal system, just rudimentary stuff; alas, if his conviction was quashed, it means it was unsafe? Were there specific reasons given for it being quashed?

Yes, the new unreported evidence

[Misnomer]

moondog, on 22 June 2016 - 05:12 PM, said:

Yes, the new unreported evidence

Ahh; once again, many thanks.

[moondog]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 22 June 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

Having read the so called new evidence provided by the mirror a good lawyer will rip it apart in seconds.

An account from a doorman that she had previously been banned from the venue, irrelevant to the case,

Accounts from I quote ' meeting the victim on nights out in bars and at a house party' again totally irrelevant.

Accounts from previous ex partners, a good lawyer would just argue they are feeling annoyed that they had broken up, will they be brought in as witnesses or character assignations.

Accounts from 14 people in an 18 month investigation after the conviction. Again a good lawyer will argue that the so called private investigation could have influenced people's judgement.


The only way he will get off is through the so called technicality of the judge mis-directing the jury.


If that is the case, how would people feel about it then that conviction was over-turned on a technicality.

Well a good lawyer failed to convince a judge not to quash the conviction on whatever the new evidence is

[dim view]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 22 June 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

Having read the so called new evidence provided by the mirror a good lawyer will rip it apart in seconds.


The only way he will get off is through the so called technicality of the judge mis-directing the jury.


If that is the case, how would people feel about it then that conviction was over-turned on a technicality.

That can't be the reason. Technicalities, including the incompetence of the judge, were brought up at previous appeals and they failed.

[Cactoise]

I won't be going ever again



Ps I will really but I am craving attention