|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Apr 25, 2017 22:21:29 GMT
She never accused Evans of rape. She went into the police to report a stolen handbag. She then told them her story and they put 2 and 2 together. That's not quite true either. The charges were brought mainly on the basis of the statements made by Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald themselves. It's all in the court transcripts. Neither man denied the events, just the claim that she hadn't consented. In fact, the only way the facts of the case came to be known was through the statements made by the two men. The woman has never accused them of anything. Out of interest, how on earth was McDonald acquitted and Evans convicted? |
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Apr 25, 2017 22:22:55 GMT
She never accused Evans of rape. She went into the police to report a stolen handbag. She then told them her story and they put 2 and 2 together. That's not quite true either. The charges were brought mainly on the basis of the statements made by Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald themselves. It's all in the court transcripts. Neither man denied the events, just the claim that she hadn't consented. In fact, the only way the facts of the case came to be known was through the statements made by the two men. The woman has never accused them of anything. People put 2 and 2 together in every walk of life. She is still at fault for her part in this bullshit. So your telling me she went to the police to claim a missing handbag yet he's gone to jail for rape? Just because of missing handbag? I do not believe that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 23:09:36 GMT
He's paid his dues time after time. He's done his sentence, but committed no crime. Bad mistakes... he's made a few. He's had his share of sand kicked in his face, but he's come through. He deserves million in compensation - not only has he had 3/4 years off his life taken away, he's now still going to be punished by selfish narrow minded people for the rest of his life. Totally unfair and wrong. It's been no bed of roses. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 25, 2017 23:36:16 GMT
That's not quite true either. The charges were brought mainly on the basis of the statements made by Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald themselves. It's all in the court transcripts. Neither man denied the events, just the claim that she hadn't consented. In fact, the only way the facts of the case came to be known was through the statements made by the two men. The woman has never accused them of anything. Out of interest, how on earth was McDonald acquitted and Evans convicted?
Because she could 'remember' consenting to have sex with McDonald but not Evans.
And the CCTV showed that she was absolutely ratted.
If McDonald and Evans had refused to answer the questions they were asked by the police, then Evans wouldn't have ever been prosecuted.
She never, ever claimed that Evans raped her though.
|
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Apr 25, 2017 23:46:06 GMT
Out of interest, how on earth was McDonald acquitted and Evans convicted?
Because she could 'remember' consenting to have sex with McDonald but not Evans.
And the CCTV showed that she was absolutely ratted.
If McDonald and Evans had refused to answer the questions they were asked by the police, then Evans wouldn't have ever been prosecuted.
She never, ever claimed that Evans raped her though.
Perfect example of why 'No comment' - Should always be your answer, if you find yourself in police interview. I wonder what his solicitor was advising him to do. |
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Apr 26, 2017 0:35:33 GMT
Because she could 'remember' consenting to have sex with McDonald but not Evans.
And the CCTV showed that she was absolutely ratted.
If McDonald and Evans had refused to answer the questions they were asked by the police, then Evans wouldn't have ever been prosecuted.
She never, ever claimed that Evans raped her though.
Perfect example of why 'No comment' - Should always be your answer, if you find yourself in police interview. I wonder what his solicitor was advising him to do. But then you have got the old cliche of If your innocent why are you not defending yourself instead of saying 'no comment' |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 26, 2017 0:45:24 GMT
Perfect example of why 'No comment' - Should always be your answer, if you find yourself in police interview. I wonder what his solicitor was advising him to do. But then you have got the old cliche of If your innocent why are you not defending yourself instead of saying 'no comment'
You're massively missing the point mate ... he 'innocently' explained what had happened to the police, believing that he hadn't done anything wrong and then the police prosecuted him with his own testimony, even though the woman in question didn't even accuse him of anything.
If he'd said 'no comment' all the way through, there wouldn't have even been a trial, never mind a prison sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Apr 26, 2017 0:47:10 GMT
But then you have got the old cliche of If your innocent why are you not defending yourself instead of saying 'no comment'
You're massively missing the point mate ... he 'innocently' explained what had happened to the police, believing that he hadn't done anything wrong and then the police prosecuted him with his own testimony, even though the woman in question didn't even accuse him of anything.
If he'd said 'no comment' all the way through, there wouldn't have even been a trial.
I get that - but by saying no comment does that not make you look guilty? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 26, 2017 0:52:04 GMT
You're massively missing the point mate ... he 'innocently' explained what had happened to the police, believing that he hadn't done anything wrong and then the police prosecuted him with his own testimony, even though the woman in question didn't even accuse him of anything.
If he'd said 'no comment' all the way through, there wouldn't have even been a trial.
I get that - but by saying no comment does that not make you look guilty?
Yeah but surely better to 'look' guilty than give the police the opportunity to use your own testimony against you.
If Evans had said 'no comment' all the way through, he wouldn't have gone to jail, indeed there probably wouldn't even have been a trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 26, 2017 4:45:07 GMT
That's not quite true either. The charges were brought mainly on the basis of the statements made by Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald themselves. It's all in the court transcripts. Neither man denied the events, just the claim that she hadn't consented. In fact, the only way the facts of the case came to be known was through the statements made by the two men. The woman has never accused them of anything. People put 2 and 2 together in every walk of life. She is still at fault for her part in this bullshit. So your telling me she went to the police to claim a missing handbag yet he's gone to jail for rape? Just because of missing handbag? I do not believe that. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 26, 2017 5:50:49 GMT
That's not quite true either. The charges were brought mainly on the basis of the statements made by Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald themselves. It's all in the court transcripts. Neither man denied the events, just the claim that she hadn't consented. In fact, the only way the facts of the case came to be known was through the statements made by the two men. The woman has never accused them of anything. People put 2 and 2 together in every walk of life. She is still at fault for her part in this bullshit. So your telling me she went to the police to claim a missing handbag yet he's gone to jail for rape? Just because of missing handbag? I do not believe that. she went in to report a missing handbag. |
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Apr 26, 2017 7:36:12 GMT
But then you have got the old cliche of If your innocent why are you not defending yourself instead of saying 'no comment'
You're massively missing the point mate ... he 'innocently' explained what had happened to the police, believing that he hadn't done anything wrong and then the police prosecuted him with his own testimony, even though the woman in question didn't even accuse him of anything.
If he'd said 'no comment' all the way through, there wouldn't have even been a trial, never mind a prison sentence.
Exactly. Regardless of what the police try to convince you of in interview, it is your lawful right to remain silent when questioned. Yes the courts can draw their own conclusions as to why you did not give your side of the story at the earliest opportunity, but that's assuming it gets to court without you opening your mouth, and if it does, I would rather take a chance of explaining to a jury why I did not comment in police interview, rather than being pressured into speaking by the police. Evans solicitor could of read a prepared statement in interview, basically saying his client has no comment to make at this stage. |
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Apr 26, 2017 7:47:46 GMT
You're massively missing the point mate ... he 'innocently' explained what had happened to the police, believing that he hadn't done anything wrong and then the police prosecuted him with his own testimony, even though the woman in question didn't even accuse him of anything.
If he'd said 'no comment' all the way through, there wouldn't have even been a trial.
I get that - but by saying no comment does that not make you look guilty? The police would like you to believe going no comment makes you look guilty, but it doesn't, it's your legal right, to say nothing at all. They interview you under caution, and the very first thing they say to you is "You do not have to saying anything" and that part of the caution is the only relevant sentence, the rest "But it may harm your defense, if you do not mention when questioned, something which you may later rely on in court" is just their way if try to induce you to talk to them. |
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Apr 26, 2017 10:08:10 GMT
Out of interest, how on earth was McDonald acquitted and Evans convicted?
Because she could 'remember' consenting to have sex with McDonald but not Evans.
Not quite correct, she's always stuck to her account of not being able to remember anything. Nobody knows exactly why the Jury Aquitted Mcdonald except for the Jury but the common choice of reason is that Mcdonald chatting to her at the taxi rank, getting a taxi with her and turning up at a hotel was a reasonable enough "courtship" for him to feel he had consent. Or to put it another way she had enough time between getting the taxi and arriving in the hotel room to change her mind and leave. Evans turning up unannounced and asking a quick "Can I join in" wasn't good enough consent. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 26, 2017 10:21:59 GMT
Because she could 'remember' consenting to have sex with McDonald but not Evans.
Not quite correct, she's always stuck to her account of not being able to remember anything. Nobody knows exactly why the Jury Aquitted Mcdonald except for the Jury but the common choice of reason is that Mcdonald chatting to her at the taxi rank, getting a taxi with her and turning up at a hotel was a reasonable enough "courtship" for him to feel he had consent. Or to put it another way she had enough time between getting the taxi and arriving in the hotel room to change her mind and leave. Evans turning up unannounced and asking a quick "Can I join in" wasn't good enough consent. Yes fair do's mate. |
|
