Go to first unread
Back
to top
Ched Evans submits 'fresh evidence' in attempt to overturn rape conviction
Watch
(Original post by 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.
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.
So the Ched Evans case continues on. Will this new evidence amount to anything though?
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by Reluire)
Will this new evidence amount to anything though?
Will this new evidence amount to anything though?
0
reply
(Original post by Snagprophet)
Well what is it?
Well what is it?
0
reply
Report
#4
(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.
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.
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.
1
reply
Report
#5
(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.
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.
0
reply
Report
#8
(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.
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.
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by JohnCrichton89)
The public outcry would still be the same, nobody would believe it
The public outcry would still be the same, nobody would believe it
and these companies would still be boycotted not just cast doubt on his guilt
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)
1
reply
Report
#10
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.
3
reply
Report
#11
(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
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
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.
0
reply
Report
#12
(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.
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.
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.
1
reply
Report
#13
(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'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.
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
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by Wade-)
He can't, teams won't sign him because idiots threatened the lives of the board members and their families.
He can't, teams won't sign him because idiots threatened the lives of the board members and their families.
0
reply
Report
#15
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.
1
reply
Report
#16
(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)
0
reply
Report
#17
(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.
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.
2
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Did that actually happen though? Isn't there some debate about whether or not that was just a fib.
Did that actually happen though? Isn't there some debate about whether or not that was just a fib.
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Report
#19
2
reply
Report
#20
(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.
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.
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
