[starsky72]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 11 October 2016 - 07:34 PM, said:

He isn't at any point, irrespective of the outcome, going to show remorse as he has always said he is innocent. He isn't going to change his mind now

For me he'd look even worse if he did now decide to apologise and show remorse (putting aside the big assumption on the result of this retrial)

[trickytrevsfanclub]

tapton-one said:

1476213519[/url]' post='1246781']
Wasn't it the police that charged him with rape? Rather than the woman accuse him of it.

None of the above, it was the Crown Prosecution Service who made the decision to charge him.

[tapton-one]

trickytrevsfanclub, on 11 October 2016 - 08:14 PM, said:

None of the above, it was the Crown Prosecution Service who made the decision to charge him.

What I'm saying is that it wasn't the 'victim' that accused him of the offence.

[Cheshunt Spireite]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 11 October 2016 - 07:34 PM, said:

He isn't at any point, irrespective of the outcome, going to show remorse as he has always said he is innocent. He isn't going to change his mind now

starsky72, on 11 October 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

For me he'd look even worse if he did now decide to apologise and show remorse (putting aside the big assumption on the result of this retrial)

Both very fair comments. Probably being a bit "everyone can be wonderful" but I do believe people can change their long held beliefs once they have an understanding of why what they did is wrong. Distinguishing between true and fake remorse is near on impossible, and I would never completely believe he'll ever feel true guilt about what (allegedly) he did to the girl.

On a footballing side I'm hoping the unidentified witness isn't what he's relying on, because it looks like he's giving pretty flimsy evidence and may well have his statements dismissed by the judge. As a player Evans is a great addition to the club, significantly less so as a person I'd want at anything I care about.

[Mr Mercury]

Cheshunt Spireite, on 11 October 2016 - 08:40 PM, said:

Both very fair comments. Probably being a bit "everyone can be wonderful" but I do believe people can change their long held beliefs once they have an understanding of why what they did is wrong. Distinguishing between true and fake remorse is near on impossible, and I would never completely believe he'll ever feel true guilt about what (allegedly) he did to the girl.

On a footballing side I'm hoping the unidentified witness isn't what he's relying on, because it looks like he's giving pretty flimsy evidence and may well have his statements dismissed by the judge. As a player Evans is a great addition to the club, significantly less so as a person I'd want at anything I care about.

"I'm hoping the un Identified witness isn't what he's relying on, because it looks like he's giving pretty flimsy evidence and may well have his evidence dismissed by the judge"..
Assuming that this is the evidence that the appeal court give so much credence to to quash the initial verdict and order a retrial and you call it flimsy?
Just as with the initial case too many keyboard warriors, and I don't necessarily mean you, or mean offence, but let's, once again, let justice take its course before all assuming we know what we're on about regarding such things as rape cases in Engish law.

[Goku]

Or, discuss the topic if you like as it's a message board and it's interesting to see other people's opinions and over the years I've actually learnt a lot about rape and even a bit about how courts work from this very case.

[Goku]

Character assassination (that's what it seems like to me, anyway) of 'victim' has began. A witness who had sex with her whilst she was drunk two nights before.

I see no relevance.

This post has been edited by Goku: 12 October 2016 - 10:04 AM

[BlueRover52]

Goku, on 12 October 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

Character assassination (that's what it seems like to me, anyway) of 'victim' has began. A witness who had sex with her whilst she was drunk two nights before.

I see no relevance.

No relevance at all.Clutching at straws it seems.

[Town_Fan]

BlueRover52, on 12 October 2016 - 10:14 AM, said:

No relevance at all.Clutching at straws it seems.

I just want to know what the evidence was that got the original conviction quashed.

[Cartman]

Goku, on 12 October 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

Character assassination (that's what it seems like to me, anyway) of 'victim' has began. A witness who had sex with her whilst she was drunk two nights before.

I see no relevance.

I agree

I see the relevance of the guy who said he took her home a few weeks after the Ched events due to what he said (if he's telling the truth)

But don't see why the fact she has gone with others whilst drunk is relevant

She could bang someone every night, still doesn't make it ok to rape her!

[dim view]

Goku, on 12 October 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

Character assassination (that's what it seems like to me, anyway) of 'victim' has began. A witness who had sex with her whilst she was drunk two nights before.

I see no relevance.

How would you establish whether she was prone to lying?

[Zytok]

I'm confused by this bit "He told jurors he would not have performed a sex act on the woman had she not asked him to, but accepted he never spoke to her."
Unless the above is not an accurate version of events then how can you say that you wouldn't have sex unless asked but not speak to someone? If they didn't speak then surely she hasn't asked him to have sex?

[Search & Destroy]

.

This post has been edited by Denny: 12 October 2016 - 12:45 PM
Reason for edit: Removed as we have to be careful about what is posted during the trial.

[Andy Spireite]

Search and Destroy, on 12 October 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:

.

It doesn't matter if she's screwing a different person every night, it shouldn't make a single bit of difference to the Jury, if it's consensual then it's her right to do what she wants, if it's not consensual it's rape.

[Search & Destroy]

Andy Spireite, on 12 October 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

It doesn't matter if she's screwing a different person every night, it shouldn't make a single bit of difference to the Jury, if it's consensual then it's her right to do what she wants, if it's not consensual it's rape.

But the defence must feel it makes a difference to the jury, otherwise why bother.

Keep chipping away at her integrity.

[Bonnyman]

Search and Destroy, on 12 October 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

But the defence must feel it makes a difference to the jury, otherwise why bother.

Keep chipping away at her integrity.

It makes a big difference if she takes blokes home every night and the one night its a pro footballer she decides to make up her drink was spiked and cries rape.

[hilly81]

Bonnyman, on 12 October 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

It makes a big difference if she takes blokes home every night and the one night its a pro footballer she decides to make up her drink was spiked and cries rape.

Must have missed her doing that.

[Search & Destroy]

hilly81, on 12 October 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

Must have missed her doing that.

In the juries head though, reasonable doubt and all that.

Did you see the Robbie Coltrane drama? Last nights final episode had a similar courtroom battle going on.

[Westbars Spireite]

Goku, on 12 October 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

Character assassination (that's what it seems like to me, anyway) of 'victim' has began. A witness who had sex with her whilst she was drunk two nights before.

I see no relevance.

Me neither. The issue isn't that she likes having sex.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Goku, on 12 October 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

Character assassination (that's what it seems like to me, anyway) of 'victim' has began. A witness who had sex with her whilst she was drunk two nights before.

I see no relevance.

Relevance fairly straightforward.

On the night of the 'incident' she hadn't had much to drink. By her own admission.

So the relevance is, if she has drunken sex on a fairly regular basis, why is it only when she shags a pro footballer that she says she has been spiked (she wasn't), then pursues him through the courts?

I'm not sure we need Sherlock Holmes on the case to work that one out.

** Though I'm not sure any of it is relevant really, as we already established (on previous CE thread) that being drunk does not mean you are not capable of consent.

This post has been edited by KevinArnottsGoldenBoot: 12 October 2016 - 12:51 PM