[sixmilliondollardan]

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.

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..

In my first response to you I only quoted the line I was responding to: I didn't include what you thought the judge should have said because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. There has been no further editing of your replies. If it contained neither evidence nor fact I can't imagine why you mentioned the Mirror article.

In summary (this is for you KevinArnottsGoldenBraincell as you have shown you have trouble following things):
- You stated what you think a judge should have said(!)
- You then referred to a Mirror article (for presumably no reason as you, as you say, could in no way have been said to have claimed or insinuated it contained any facts or evidence) which mentioned the trial judge had possibly made errors in his summing up and direction of the jury.
- I pointed out that this claim was made by Evans team and not a reliable source. I also pointed out Evans team had conducted an internet campaign against the girl involved which lead to her name being spread over the internet (including by Evans cousin).
- You, possibly and only in my opinion, got confused because more than one person was talking to you.

In summary of the summary: in my opinion what KevinArnottsGoldenBeanbag should have said to the message board is in 'I'm of low intelligence and get confused easily when people with different names type stuff at me'. There are posts on here showing possible failings in his ability to follow who one person is from another.

[Price]

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.

No one on this board knows whether he committed the crime or not as none of us were there. There seems to be a lot of people assuming he is innocent or will be found innocent but why don't we all leave it to the jury to decide?

And those calling the alleged victim names should be ashamed of themselves.

[Tylerdurdencfc]

moondog, on 22 June 2016 - 05:18 PM, said:

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

Isn't it the criminal case review that submits a referral to the court of appeal based on an appeals lawyer presenting new evidence or finding faults with the trial, therefore you don't defend a referral to the appeal court. The judges look at the appeals lawyers brief and decide whether to quash the decision and award a re-trial.

Whilst I've written that it should be a solicitor anyway lol.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

pubview, on 22 June 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

No one on this board knows whether he committed the crime or not as none of us were there. There seems to be a lot of people assuming he is innocent or will be found innocent but why don't we all leave it to the jury to decide?

And those calling the alleged victim names should be ashamed of themselves.

Excellent post.

[moondog]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 22 June 2016 - 05:46 PM, said:

Isn't it the criminal case review that submits a referral to the court of appeal based on an appeals lawyer presenting new evidence or finding faults with the trial, therefore you don't defend a referral to the appeal court. The judges look at the appeals lawyers brief and decide whether to quash the decision and award a re-trial.

Whilst I've written that it should be a solicitor anyway lol.

I don't think so as argument was heard by both sides over two days before a reserved judgment quashing the conviction was given



https://www.crimelin...chedwyn-evans-1

[Goku]

pubview, on 22 June 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

No one on this board knows whether he committed the crime or not as none of us were there. There seems to be a lot of people assuming he is innocent or will be found innocent but why don't we all leave it to the jury to decide?

And those calling the alleged victim names should be ashamed of themselves.

Indeed

[Guest_freelander2_*]

Will Evans' team consider it a bonus that a family club like Chesterfield, who are actively involved in the local community, has offered him a contract prior to his re-trial?

This post has been edited by freelander2: 22 June 2016 - 06:01 PM

[Westbars Spireite]

freelander2, on 22 June 2016 - 06:01 PM, said:

Will Evans' team consider it a bonus that a family club like Chesterfield, who are actively involved in the local community, have offered him a contract prior to his re-trial?

It can't hurt.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

sixmilliondollardan, on 22 June 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

In my first response to you I only quoted the line I was responding to: I didn't include what you thought the judge should have said because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. There has been no further editing of your replies. If it contained neither evidence nor fact I can't imagine why you mentioned the Mirror article.

In summary (this is for you KevinArnottsGoldenBraincell as you have shown you have trouble following things):
- You stated what you think a judge should have said(!)
- You then referred to a Mirror article (for presumably no reason as you, as you say, could in no way have been said to have claimed or insinuated it contained any facts or evidence) which mentioned the trial judge had possibly made errors in his summing up and direction of the jury.
- I pointed out that this claim was made by Evans team and not a reliable source. I also pointed out Evans team had conducted an internet campaign against the girl involved which lead to her name being spread over the internet (including by Evans cousin).
- You, possibly and only in my opinion, got confused because more than one person was talking to you.

In summary of the summary: in my opinion what KevinArnottsGoldenBeanbag should have said to the message board is in 'I'm of low intelligence and get confused easily when people with different names type stuff at me'. There are posts on here showing possible failings in his ability to follow who one person is from another.

You edited my post. You have to go out of your way to do it. Which makes you a disingenuous idiot.

My confusion was based on replying to at least three people, including you, who know nothing about the case, and were talking out of their backsides.

I couldn't give a rats ass for keyboard warriors calling names behind the comfort of a screen, but I'll bet 50 notes you wouldn't have the cojones to speak like that to my face, or anyone elses for that matter.

If you want to test my theory, I'm happy to meet up for a chat before the first home match of the season.

[Misnomer]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

You edited my post. You have to go out of your way to do it. Which makes you a disingenuous idiot.

My confusion was based on replying to at least three people, including you, who know nothing about the case, and were talking out of their backsides.

I couldn't give a rats ass for keyboard warriors calling names behind the comfort of a screen, but I'll bet 50 notes you wouldn't have the cojones to speak like that to my face, or anyone elses for that matter.

If you want to test my theory, I'm happy to meet up for a chat before the first home match of the season.

Calm down, mate. Seriously, it's just discussion, and bordering on aggressive/threatening behaviour because of disagreement.

[Stoptalkingbol]

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.

[Goku]

Stoptalkingbol, on 22 June 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.

Bring on the fighting dwarves

[brockwell-spireite]

Goku, on 22 June 2016 - 06:27 PM, said:

Bring on the fighting dwarves

And here was me thinking you all got on...

[Rudeboy spireite]

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

Great post that sums it all up

[Stoptalkingbol]

Goku, on 22 June 2016 - 06:27 PM, said:

Bring on the fighting dwarves

Half recall one having to keep doing a worm to the nearest object so he could keep pulling himself back up to his feet after continually getting banged out by a slightly bigger dwarf.

Great telly.

[sixmilliondollardan]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

You edited my post. You have to go out of your way to do it. Which makes you a disingenuous idiot.

My confusion was based on replying to at least three people, including you, who know nothing about the case, and were talking out of their backsides.

I couldn't give a rats ass for keyboard warriors calling names behind the comfort of a screen, but I'll bet 50 notes you wouldn't have the cojones to speak like that to my face, or anyone elses for that matter.

If you want to test my theory, I'm happy to meet up for a chat before the first home match of the season.

It's interesting that you mention editing. At 4:09 you posted in full:

Quote

'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.'

At 4:11 I responded

Quote

'What lies?

At 4:14 you edited your 4:09 post to read

Quote

'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.
"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.'

And at 4:23 you accused me of editing your response!

[calvin plummers socks]

Guys calm down- it's really not worth fighting over scum like Evans

[sixmilliondollardan]

calvin plummers socks, on 22 June 2016 - 07:19 PM, said:

Guys calm down- it's really not worth fighting over scum like Evans

Fair point well made.

[Phil V 72]

calvin plummers socks, on 22 June 2016 - 07:19 PM, said:

Guys calm down- it's really not worth fighting over scum like Evans

It's just brilliant ain't it? In-fighting and divisions after just 48 hrs - people choosing sides, calling that girl horrible names. All brought on wilfully by those running the club.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

Phil V 72, on 22 June 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

It's just brilliant ain't it? In-fighting and divisions after just 48 hrs - people choosing sides, calling that girl horrible names. All brought on wilfully by those running the club.

TBF the girl and Ched both came in for some stick on here, long before he signed, it just now has a lot more relevance to us as a club.

It shouldn't detract the focus from the PPP stuff though, as that is likely to be still impacting the club long after Ched has gone