Ched Evans - should he play football again?

Memento Mori wrote:

Ironhide wrote:I think the lesson to be learned here is don't have drunken one night stands.

I think the lesson to be learned here is don't go into a hotel room where your friend is having sex with a drunk woman and then start having sex with the drunk woman and then flee from the scene.

Photek wrote:Does this make me now an 'innocent person' apologist now?

Blue Eyes wrote:

Photek wrote:Does this make me now an 'innocent person' apologist now?

I don't think he's definitely innocent is he? Difficult to prove is all.

Memento Mori wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:

Photek wrote:Does this make me now an 'innocent person' apologist now?

I don't think he's definitely innocent is he? Difficult to prove is all.

Hmm.

Blue Eyes wrote:

Photek wrote:Does this make me now an 'innocent person' apologist now?

I don't think he's definitely innocent is he? Difficult to prove is all.

In rape trials, defence lawyers are banned from cross-examining an alleged victim about their sexual behaviour or history to protect them from humiliating treatment.
But there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal said Mr Evans' case was one of those very rare exceptions.
It said that two other men who had sex with the woman had described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were virtually indistinguishable from Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.
One of the encounters occurred days before the alleged rape - and the other in the days that followed.
On each occasion the woman had been drinking heavily and the sex occurred in a very specific way - including the words she used to encourage her partner.
Each time she woke up saying she had no memory of what had happened

Lady Justice Hallett, one of the country's top judges, said that these events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent

Memento Mori wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:

Photek wrote:Does this make me now an 'innocent person' apologist now?

I don't think he's definitely innocent is he? Difficult to prove is all.

Hmm.

Photek wrote:I think I'm deserved an apology from certain forumites. I endured a torrid time/bullying for suggesting he may not be guilty.

Hexx wrote:The word 'offered' implies it wasn't paid ultimately? Is that right?

Hexx wrote:Didn't think you were sir - my question was just did he take/accept the reward/bribe?

I'd assume not as they would put paid in headline but haven't seen it covered anywhere

Albear wrote:

In rape trials, defence lawyers are banned from cross-examining an alleged victim about their sexual behaviour or history to protect them from humiliating treatment.
But there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal said Mr Evans' case was one of those very rare exceptions.
It said that two other men who had sex with the woman had described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were virtually indistinguishable from Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.
One of the encounters occurred days before the alleged rape - and the other in the days that followed.
On each occasion the woman had been drinking heavily and the sex occurred in a very specific way - including the words she used to encourage her partner.
Each time she woke up saying she had no memory of what had happened

Lady Justice Hallett, one of the country's top judges, said that these events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent

From bbc.