Ched Evans submits 'fresh evidence' in attempt to overturn rape conviction
'Huffington Post'
Former Sheffield United and Wales footballer Ched Evans has submitted "fresh evidence" which he hopes will get his rape conviction overturned. A statement on his website says the submissions were made to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) on his behalf on Friday. It is claimed that these details "strengthens" his case.
Evans, 26, was released from prison last year after serving half of his five year sentence for the rape of a 19-year-old woman in a hotel in Rhyl in April 2012. He remains on licence. The statement on his website reads: "The application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission on behalf of Ched Evans was submitted on 15 July 2014 and was given Level 1 priority in September 2014.
"On Friday 23rd January 2015 further detailed submissions - supported by previously unavailable fresh evidence that we believe strengthens Ched's application - were lodged with the Commission."
An earlier appeal against Evans's conviction was rejected by three judges at the Court of Appeal in 2012. Evans has made attempts to restart his career, potentially at Sheffield United and Oldham Athletic, who have both shown an interest, but these have collapsed in the face of a huge public outcry.
Evans, 26, was released from prison last year after serving half of his five year sentence for the rape of a 19-year-old woman in a hotel in Rhyl in April 2012. He remains on licence. The statement on his website reads: "The application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission on behalf of Ched Evans was submitted on 15 July 2014 and was given Level 1 priority in September 2014.
"On Friday 23rd January 2015 further detailed submissions - supported by previously unavailable fresh evidence that we believe strengthens Ched's application - were lodged with the Commission."
An earlier appeal against Evans's conviction was rejected by three judges at the Court of Appeal in 2012. Evans has made attempts to restart his career, potentially at Sheffield United and Oldham Athletic, who have both shown an interest, but these have collapsed in the face of a huge public outcry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/28/ched-evans-submits-fresh-evidence_n_6562992.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
So the Ched Evans case continues on. Will this new evidence amount to anything though?
Scroll to see replies
Reluire
Will this new evidence amount to anything though?
Well what is it?
Original post by Snagprophet
Well what is it?
It hasn't been made public knowledge from what I can tell. At least not yet anyway. They're just saying fresh evidence has been presented which might give him new hope.
Original post by Reluire
It hasn't been made public knowledge from what I can tell. At least not yet anyway. They're just saying fresh evidence has been presented which might give him new hope.
I can't see him being innocent, this 'fresh' evidence just happens to coincide with the fact that no company will sponsor him, a high profile convicted rapist, to advertise their goods.
It's too coincidental. The public outcry would still be the same, nobody would believe it and these companies would still be boycotted lest he could demonstrably prove he is innocent and not just cast doubt on his guilt.
Original post by Reluire
It hasn't been made public knowledge from what I can tell. At least not yet anyway. They're just saying fresh evidence has been presented which might give him new hope.
From what I heard it was like a gangbang/clusterf#%k where she consented to one guy but not to Evens and she might not have been concious. I wonder how his "new evidence" factor into this.
I don't think he was guilty of rape in the first place.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I wonder why it's only been submitted now.
Original post by JohnCrichton89
I can't see him being innocent, this 'fresh' evidence just happens to coincide with the fact that no company will sponsor him, a high profile convicted rapist, to advertise their goods.
It's too coincidental. The public outcry would still be the same, nobody would believe it and these companies would still be boycotted lest he could demonstrably prove he is innocent and not just cast doubt on his guilt.
It's too coincidental. The public outcry would still be the same, nobody would believe it and these companies would still be boycotted lest he could demonstrably prove he is innocent and not just cast doubt on his guilt.
He's not looking for personal sponsorship, just looking to get on with his job after serving his prison sentence for a crime he may or may not have committed
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by JohnCrichton89
The public outcry would still be the same, nobody would believe it
The general public are complete idiots. By the way, on what basis are you saying no-one would believe it? The general public hasn't seen this evidence.
and these companies would still be boycotted not just cast doubt on his guilt
If his conviction is overturned (i.e. he is innocent), there's no doubt he will be hired by a club.
The whole case stinks to high heaven. The woman in question couldn't remember any of the events of the evening (i.e. to consenting to sex with Ched Evans friend or with Ched). There was no evidence she didn't consent, to either, one way or the other,and yet Ched was found guilty and his friend was found innocent.
That verdict is simply inconsistent in and of itself, and points to the weaknesses in the case (the woman didn't make a complaint of rape, that was what the police and CPS concluded based on Ched Evans own testimony)
Anyone who feels comfortable with the Ched Evans conviction is either unaware of the facts of the case, or is a beer short of a sixpack when it comes to legal matters and procedural fairness.
Original post by Wade-
He's not looking for personal sponsorship, just looking to get on with his job after serving his prison sentence for a crime he may or may not have committed
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
He's not destitute, and he is a convicted rapist. If it gets overturned then you cold argue maybe and maybe nots.
He can still play football, he can still work. Companies are well within their rights to not want him sporting their logo given his current status ........ I don't know much about him, but, I would boycott any company willing to put their name on his chest. And so would many others.
He's a high profile convicted rapist !! not exactly a mascot for any brand other than professional pimps.
Original post by young_guns
Anyone who feels comfortable with the Ched Evans conviction is either unaware of the facts of the case, or is a beer short of a sixpack when it comes to legal matters and procedural fairness.
I am aware he is a convicted rapist, what am I missing?
Sincerely, I no nothing other than that. I don't have the utmost confidence in our legal system, but still. He's a convicted rapist, it should be understandable that no companies want him sporting their logo. That's why he cant work where he wants, he can still work if he chooses. He isn't poor. He aint a man of the people, he's a privileged idiot.
Original post by JohnCrichton89
He's not destitute, and he is a convicted rapist. If it gets overturned then you cold argue maybe and maybe nots.
He can still play football, he can still work. Companies are well within their rights to not want him sporting their logo given his current status ........ I don't know much about him, but, I would boycott any company willing to put their name on his chest. And so would many others.
He's a high profile convicted rapist !! not exactly a mascot for any brand other than professional pimps.
He can still play football, he can still work. Companies are well within their rights to not want him sporting their logo given his current status ........ I don't know much about him, but, I would boycott any company willing to put their name on his chest. And so would many others.
He's a high profile convicted rapist !! not exactly a mascot for any brand other than professional pimps.
He can't, teams won't sign him because idiots threatened the lives of the board members and their families. A court, the body responsible for issuing justice has given him a sentence of five years with a mandatory sentence of two and half which he has and is currently still serving. The justice system did not include provisions in his punishment to rule him out of playing football so why do normal, everyday people think it's their responsibility to administer their own punishment?
So have you boycotted sky for showing Mike Tyson fights? Have you boycotted canal movies for making films with Roman Polanski? How about Jodie Foster or Kate Winslet films for the same reason? How about Tupac Shakur's music or MTV for showing his music videos? I can keep going with more celebrities who have been convicted of rape or other sexual offences who have still been allowed to have successful careers. Claiming you'd boycott any company that associates itself with Ched Evans in any way but then not boycotting all of the things I've mentioned above is incredibly hypocritical
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Wade-
Did that actually happen though? Isn't there some debate about whether or not that was just a fib.
Whether she verbally consented doesn't really matter.
In her state she didn't have the competency/capacity to consent.
It's like a small child consenting to medical treatment. That child does not have the mental capacity to understand what he has just asked, and thus the doctor will not do it based on that.
She was too drunk to say yes to sex, C.Evans as the one with responsibility (due to his lesser level of drunkness) should have declined any intimate contact with her based on that. He did not. In the eyes of the law it is rape.
In her state she didn't have the competency/capacity to consent.
It's like a small child consenting to medical treatment. That child does not have the mental capacity to understand what he has just asked, and thus the doctor will not do it based on that.
She was too drunk to say yes to sex, C.Evans as the one with responsibility (due to his lesser level of drunkness) should have declined any intimate contact with her based on that. He did not. In the eyes of the law it is rape.
Original post by young_guns
The whole case stinks to high heaven. The woman in question couldn't remember any of the events of the evening (i.e. to consenting to sex with Ched Evans friend or with Ched). There was no evidence she didn't consent, to either, one way or the other,and yet Ched was found guilty and his friend was found innocent.
That verdict is simply inconsistent in and of itself, and points to the weaknesses in the case (the woman didn't make a complaint of rape, that was what the police and CPS concluded based on Ched Evans own testimony)
The whole case stinks to high heaven. The woman in question couldn't remember any of the events of the evening (i.e. to consenting to sex with Ched Evans friend or with Ched). There was no evidence she didn't consent, to either, one way or the other,and yet Ched was found guilty and his friend was found innocent.
That verdict is simply inconsistent in and of itself, and points to the weaknesses in the case (the woman didn't make a complaint of rape, that was what the police and CPS concluded based on Ched Evans own testimony)
The fact that she agreed to go back with Clayton Mcdonald whereas Ched Evans just turned up in the room makes quite a bit of difference.
Original post by young_guns
The woman in question couldn't remember any of the events of the evening (i.e. to consenting to sex with Ched Evans friend or with Ched). There was no evidence she didn't consent, to either, one way or the other,and yet Ched was found guilty and his friend was found innocent.
If I were on the jury, I'd be thinking the fact that the woman was so drunk that she can't remember the events would be prima facie evidence that, if sex went ahead, it would have been in the face of either no consent at all or consent given while incapable. Either way it is rape.
Original post by thunder_chunky
Did that actually happen though? Isn't there some debate about whether or not that was just a fib.
There might be, I'm not really sure
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Wade-
With respect, the first time you posted, you asserted it was a fact. Asked to justify that fact. you say you are not really sure.
Original post by nulli tertius
With respect, the first time you posted, you asserted it was a fact. Asked to justify that fact. you say you are not really sure.
At the time I said it I had no doubt it was fact, now someone has challenged it and they could potentially be right. Regardless of that point the rest of what I said to that poster still stands
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
- Prime - law work experience!!!
- Excluded from university, HEEEELLLPPPPP
- Students accused of rape at university bringing lawyers to hearings
- Fare evasion - prosecution
- 🚔 Q&A: Questions on policing as a career: Ask us anything!
- What happens if you fail your KCL retake exams?
- Admissions
- Will KCL accept my mitigating circumstances?
- Means-tested maintanance loan with parents living overseas
- Can someone please grade this for me?
- Compelling personal reasons (2nd application)
- Enhanced disclosure check for nursing degree
- Failed first year,waiting for appeal result should I change course?
- Second attempt at a masters?
- Distance Learning due to disability
- Repeating second year
- Should I choose my UCL accommodation or commute
- University Discrepancies & OIA Review Process
- Withdraw
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
