January 12 2022

Ched Evans referral: why the big rush?

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on twitter

Ched Evans referral: why the big rush?

[contextly_auto_sidebar id=”twNVqjBtf8Ivj6YFNj57XcGC7iodmDQ8″]

sam hallam 2On the 6th November 2012, the Court of Appeal refused Chedwyn Evans leave to appeal against his conviction for rape, saying: ‘We can see no possible basis which would justify us to interfere with the verdict of the jury which heard all the evidence and reflected on it following a careful summing up by the judge.’  Evans, convicted of rape in April 2012 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, was released last week having served half his sentence.  A debate remains over whether he should be allowed to return to his former job as a footballer with Sheffield United.

Now, the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) has announced that it will fast-track Evans’ case to investigate whether his conviction will be referred to the Court of Appeal as a possible miscarriage of justice. The CCRC is an independent public body that was brought into being in March 1997 by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. Its 50 caseworkers review possible miscarriages of justice and refer appropriate cases, such as that of Sam Hallam to the appeal courts. The CCRC’s figures show that as of July this year, there are currently 838 cases under review, with 709 waiting – an overwhelming case load, particularly bearing in mind that many of those awaiting a review of their case will still be in prison, and a proportion will be innocent.

This makes the CCRC’s decision in the case of Evans difficult to understand.  Whilst the facts of the case may well fit the commission’s criteria for referral, and even a fast track referral, it is hard to work out what the urgency might be here. The commission’s website says that it aims to allocate all ‘level 2’ cases (see the CCRC’s explanation on criteria here) within eight months of receipt – that is to say allocate, not start to investigate.

Fresh evidence uncovered by a private detective hired by Evans’s girlfriend, Natasha Massey, and her multimillionaire father Karl, was submitted to the CCRC in July, just three months ago. They have also instructed a leading appeals barrister and offered a reward for information.

The CCRC’s news must sit uncomfortably with those still in prison and fighting to have their convictions overturned, that is to say those fighting to do so without the obvious benefit of multimillionaire supporters, private investigators, and the ability to fund an expert barrister.  Some, as in the case of Susan May died without seeing their case return to the Court of Appeal. Others, such as Eddie Gilfoyle, rely on dedicated lawyers and whatever publicity they are lucky enough to get.

It is tempting therefore to think that, whilst the CCRC denies it is swayed by high profile press campaigns, that may be the case here. It is an unpalatable thought that his very public and currently on-hold career as a footballer may have influenced their decision, and even less so that an ability to access expensive legal representation may have bumped his case up the waiting list.

These important cases are more than a ‘just’ a miscarriage of justice for the individual that suffers it, their referrals are necessary to expose serious systemic failures. Isn’t putting them right a more important issue than whether or not a footballer is able to return to his career?

Perhaps it is time for the CCRC to explain their decision, their website does say after all that their vision is to ‘enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system’.

82 responses to “Ched Evans referral: why the big rush?”

  1. Hello Kim,

    I share your concerns in respect of this case, and about rich celeb bods – we have YET to see whether Oscar Pistorius “has suffered enough” in his massive fall from mega-grace, or will still do his allotted 10 years or so… as do mere lesser mortals…. some might urge a doubling of the sentence, for letting so many people down..

    “The CCRC’s figures show that as of July this year, there are currently 838 cases under review, with 709 waiting – an overwhelming case load, particularly bearing in mind that many of those awaiting a review of their case will still be in prison, and a proportion will be innocent.”

    “…. and a proportion will be innocent.”

    I add:

    “…. and a balancing proportion will not.”

    What was it The Bard wrote, so long ago, as adapted:

    “Methinks the Appellant Protesteth too much….”

    Yours, George Gretton …. who sometimes suffers from a jaundiced, world-weary, view of life.. I must make sure that my Anti-Fraud targets have no so much as the shred of a hope of any grounds for appeal whatsoever, if you catch my lengthy drift….

  2. John H says:


  3. Is it possible that he’s jumped in front of other cases because the private detective has actually uncovered some powerful new evidence, whereas “ordinary” appellants have to rely on the CCRC doing that work? If so, then it would be right for his new appeal to be heard before others that are not yet ready. He shouldn’t be penalised just because he, or his supporters, have paid to prepare his case.

  4. Iain Mccallum says:

    It has always seemed a strange one to me. Two young footballers have sex with a drunk young woman, one is convicted, one is not? Mmmm

    • H’mmmmm, Iain…. good point, although I am distant as regards the details.

      But we cannot dismiss the possibility that she fancied one of them, and not the other….or had had enough screwing for the time being ….although establishing clear facts can be a right struggle….in alcohol fuelled and highly sexually charged situations.

      We may or may not gain some enlightenment…

      Yours, George Gretton

    • Mr.McPherson says:

      It’s quite simple. If a woman goes to a party, meets a man and consents to sex with him, does that mean every man at the party gets to sleep with her?

      • John H says:

        The problem for you and others like you Mr Baconfield and which you/they appear to be unable to grasp is that he’s been convicted and until or if his conviction is overturned at he moment he’s still a CONVICTED rapist AND he has admitted creeping into his friends hotel bedroom and having intercourse with a female who was too drunk to consent In addition he admitted making up some cock and bull yarn to hotel staff in order to gain entry AND that fact plus others is why the jury. quite correctly in my view, convicted him

    • John H says:

      Sorry Iain what’s the problem?
      Let me put it this way, the young woman willingly went to bed with one of them in another room and he for obvious reasons was not guilty of rape. On the otherhand Mr Evans sort to bluff his way into his mates separate bedroom and raped the young woman by having sexual intercourse without her giving him consent. That Sir is rape

      • lee says:

        actually he did not creep in, or bluff his way in, he was invited in by the other player as the girl wanted to meet a premiership footballer!

        • Dawn says:

          Lee. Where in the testimony, recent or otherwise, did the defendants say any of this stuff about the victim wanting to meet a premiership footballer?

  5. The above article and comments make me wonder whether justice is in danger of becoming a two-tiered system, with speedy justice the reserve of those with money. The case of James Thompson (www.justiceforjamesthompson.com) was fast-tracked to trial. Since his wrongful conviction James has spent 4 years, 9 months and 22 days in prison and still counting. I am praying that the CCRC will be able to fast-track his case and succeed in ending his dreadful plight.

  6. Kim Evans says:

    Mr. Gretton, I’m afraid I find your comments to be somewhat inappropriate. The facts of the case are at present, as the jury found them to be, and as the verdicts reflected. I remain open minded as to Ched Evans’ application to the CCRC, and will await their findings.

    Mr. Scott, neither should those applicants who cannot afford to hire expensive legal representation or private detectives be penalised. There are many who have compelling new evidence, but remain in prison awaiting their referral.

    • Hello again Kim Evans,

      Thank you for your kind and measured response to my response…

      I mixed up two entirely separate issues; my problem antennae found themselves waving… perhaps I detect more noise than likely substance in what is going on now.

      I have experience of Anti-Fraud targets of mine getting “noisy”, as in bogus Harassment Complaints, that even some more Senior Police Officers obligingly accept and serve on me…

      I am flagging a similar issue in one of my choirs, where us Tenors are even more than usually at a premium. I have asked the Director if he wants noise or notes in pitch, and when appropriately, quiet ones, so that I can hear my won note…? We may be better off fewer; and I may do an exit anyway, if noise is preferred.

      I also will await the findings, and rationales, of the CCRC.

      As ever, I will reserve the right to be more or less impressed.

      Yours, George Gretton

  7. Chris Hall says:

    Ched Evans has had a hard time since his release from prison. Being a ‘celebrity rapist’ has turned public opinion strongly against him. Has powerful new evidence, of a truly exceptional nature, turned up to justify fast tracking? I cannot think of any other explanation.

  8. Peter Baconfield says:

    I think one of the reasons the case is being fast-tracked is because a footballer’s career is a very short one. He will obviously find it a lot easier to get a club if his appeal is successful.

    • John H says:

      Hard time of it really! he’s returning to his day job as if nowt happened and he’ll be paid a lot of money for it. That I respectfully suggest is hardly a “hard time”

    • Hello Chris Hall and Peter Baconfield,

      Thank you for your posts.

      In my view it is important that we treat all the same, irrespective of their celebrity status, or not. Pistorius’s status was also used to muddy waters, to say that he had paid enough of a price by getting his reputation self-shredded. But if you set yourself up as a star, then the loss of that is just it’s own thing, and you can expect to be treated like any other person convicted of unlawful homicide, or whatever it was. And as for the disability stuff…

      If Don Hale is concerned, then that is worth taking into account. I will wait to be impressed or not by whatever “new evidence” has been unearthed, to perhaps expose the previous flaws in the prosecution case.

      I have an analogous situation in a Fraud case of mine. After an NFIB referral, in a very obvious open and shut case, there was found by a DC to be “insufficient” evidence, after a cosy chat with the suspect.

      BOTH suspects have since admitted False Accounting and Dividend Fraud IN WRITING, but the receipt of this cracking extra evidence somehow failed to get recorded on the Guardian Case Management System – but I have since re-submitted all of the new and definitive evidence.. Blood will flow, Dear Enoch… in rivers..

      This is what I wrote on this case on Facebook..

      “On Ched Evans, on Sheffield United FC, and on Chad being, as I write, a convicted rapist who has just emerged from serving the relevant part of his sentence to imprisonment…. he was given a 5 year sentence on conviction for rape.

      As is being discussed on “The Justice Gap”, he is asserting that stonking new evidence is emerging that will allow him to get his conviction quashed. We’ll see. The fact that his footballing career is short, if any of it remains, does not put him apart from any other footballer – it’s mainly a Young Man’s game… They all have to find other work post-football-player career… some within football, others without…

      In the meantime many people associated with Sheffield United FC are DEEPLY concerned that this convicted rapist (at present) is training with the 1st football squad. These good and responsible citizens consider that there is no place in this massive professional sport for a convicted rapist, and as it happens I agree with them.

      [Enter ironic, cynical, jaundiced, world weary mode… the pursuit of frauds and abusers mode..]

      But this is FOOTBALL! Who gives a shit!?

      The Big and Multiple BITER is welcomed into a new TEAM, with OPEN ARMS and a FABULOUS pay deal; because he “scores” so many “goals”, and BITES so many opponents – thus putting them off….

      Feck what young people may make, or fail to make, of his repeated barbaric behaviour – that has now been massively endorsed.

      “BITING IS COOL. OK..”

      If my Hero does it, then it is OK with me… I will do it some time, to show how cool I think that he is…

      So the (Spanish?) football club that he has moved on to has no values; no responsible and caring values at all. Nothing really matters to them save football.

      But then nor did the BBC, re Jimmy So-Vile; RATINGS were FAR MORE IMPORTANT! Star-Status Rools KO…

      Nothing really matters; except that you realised that you had done wrong, made a dreadful and terminal mistake, Freddie Mercury – better than the charlatans and perverts of “Professional Football”


      Yours, George Gretton

  9. Peter Baconfield says:

    The other important point is that the respected author Don Hale, who has “righted” several high profile wrongs in terms of overturning incorrect convictions, has said that there are huge holes in the prosecution case and that “the case should never have come to court in the first place”.

    Mr Hale surely has no axe to grind – so when someone of his stature and experience comes out with that opinion we should all probably take note.

  10. John H says:

    Whatever the merits of his appeal (if granted) my concern is the vilification of the victim which it appears is being orchestrated by his girlfriend & others around him. The consequence of which I understand is that she has been identified to all and sundry and has become a prisoner in her own home which I find utterly disgraceful. As a sidebar I also suspect that even fewer victims of rape will now come forward after seeing what can happen to them

  11. Dilly Dally says:

    All I can do is thank you, for your courage, decency, and for the respect for humanity x People like you keep society functioning x To the rest of you…… you mean a Rapist might deny his crimes :O? Or try to discredit the victim further? :O While of course his fans conveniently keep her out of town, in police protection, ripped from her family barely an adult…. which CONVENIENTLY as I said, allows him back in Sheffield to play professionally x But yeah, poor Evans, and his rich fiancee, they had to laugh in the Mirror Newspapers today, they were so distraught and ruined x In her hometown 😉

  12. Carl says:

    I think the main reason for fast-tracking this case will probably lie somewhere in the realms of “compelling new evidence”. I do however think that we should be mindful of the fact that as a professional footballer, Ched Evans has a career time frame measures in years rather than decades. At 27, he probably has another 5 years before his earning potential falls rapidly.
    Regardless of his guilt or innocence, If we apply the standard time frame to the career of an electrician, Mr Evans’s fast tracked case will still take a disproportionately long time to be reviewed.

    • Peter Baconfield says:

      Exactly Carl – I quite agree.

      Unfortunately for Evans footballers are a very easy target – in the eyes of many they’re nothing more than overpaid idiots. I suspect there’s a lot of jealousy involved (over their status and wages) and so when a footballer gets convicted of anything everyone queues up to have their say. When it’s such a serious crime it’s open season: every women’s group spokeswoman is on the radio several times a day. Of course no sane person condones any kind of violence against women – that goes without saying.

      In reply to John H: how can you possibly know who is orchestrating the social media campaigns against Evans’ allged victim? I would be amazed if those handling the player’s case advised her to do anything other than be supportive of him. Certainly in the interviews she’s given I have never seen or heard anything to suggest anything else.

      I also think there’s a lot of ignorance around. I heard one radio presenter the other day say that Sheffield Utd shouldn’t allow him to train with them and that he should train in a gym. It’s not the same at all – he’s training with his former team-mates because it’s not just about basic fitness – it’s about work with a ball, short sided games, etc, etc. You cannot do that on your own in a gym.

      As far as the Jess Ennis scenario is concerned: of course she has the right to have her name removed from the stand if she wishes…but that should have absolutely no bearing on whether Sheffield Utd re-employ Evans.

      And what happens if the CCRC find in Evans’ favour? Will Ennis be happy to have her name put back on the stand? Will all the people calling for him to never work again do an about U-turn? Will he get any compensation? Will there be an investigation into the police handling of the original case?

      So many questions – and we can’t really answer most of them until the CCRC review the case and make their decision.

  13. John H says:

    What’s his career got to do with it? If he was that worried about it maybe he should not have got pissed, conned his way into his mates room then raped the girl

  14. John H says:

    Because I understand his girlfriend set up the facebook page with his consent Also his friends have made plenty of public statements condemning and I suggest slandering the victim and he hasn’t rebuked them nor to my knowledge has he/her asked them to stop

    • Peter Baconfield says:

      If you are referring to the “Securing an Immediate Retrial for Ched Evans” Facebook page then there’s nothing on there that makes any derogatory comments whatsoever about the alleged victim.

      I am aware that one of his relations (NOT his girlfriend) was convicted of releasing the alleged victim’s name on social media and was subsequently fined. That is, of course, completely correct in a civilised society. However, you can’t blame Evans for that.

      • John H says:

        Dear Mr Baconfield

        1st I would like to remind you the victim is NOT as you state “alleged” and such a remark should not be made. As according to the jury she IS the victim. However your remark does illustrate your sympathies and your disregard for the law
        As for the campaign vilifying the victim if you really do believe this convicted rapist and/or his friends and supporters are not involved you’re being very naive or just very blinkered.
        Also why hasn’t he at least called for it to stop? Why because it suits whatever agenda he/they are following.
        As things now stand my sympathy’s are with the victim not him

        • Peter Baconfield says:

          We’re all entitled to our opinion – this is such a contentious case that when someone as respected as Don Hale says “it shouldn’t have gone to court in the first place” the alarm bells should probably start ringing…and very loudly.

          A question for you John: If the CCRC finds against Evans and upholds the conviction then I will completely accept that the original verdict was correct.

          If they find in his favour and his conviction is subsequently quashed will you come out and accept that he has been a victim of a miscarriage of justice?

        • Philip Giddings says:

          John H reprimands Peter for disregarding the law and then in the next breath takes his place on the bench of the Hatchett kangaroo court and lynch mob which has pronounced that Ched Evans should be made to pay – by extra-judicial means – for the public naming of his accuser by other people (for which those others have been rightly convicted and heavily fined for contempt of court) – in addition to becoming a lifetime social pariah by virtue of his rape conviction, beyond the punishment that judicial process has already determined.

          BTW whether she is a rape victim or not, to call her his accuser remains factually correct. I will not be threatened or blackmailed against using this term by the aforementioned vigilante mob and PC police which has actively tried to oust other people from their jobs for their insolence in questioning the militant feminist narrative on this case, which has become the dominant media narrative. I for one will not be cowed by the chilling effect they are trying to create, in order to suppress free speech and subvert judicial process and the rule of law.

          Forget rules of evidence and standards of proof – and forget that Ched Evans has the same fundamental human right as Fred West and Peter Sutcliffe and Ian Huntley and every other convict to PROTEST HIS INNOCENCE – the Supreme Court of Charlie Webster and Jean Hatchett has overruled all of this by pronouncing that Ched must be punished for exercising this right, and that CONVENIENCE is the new standard of proof of their own private version of the criminal law. It is, apparently, so CONVENIENT for Ched that someone else, and not him, publicly named his accuser, that he should be made to pay the price.

          I think it’s called vicarious liability. We now have a new precedent for this. That’s the thing about vigilante mobs: they get to make up the law as they go along.

          Forget all the prison officers and probation officers and educators and gym instructors and prison psychologists – PROFESSIONALS – who worked closely with Ched and monitored his attitude and behaviour and progress as a “role model” and mentor for younger prisoners, from the moment he set foot inside a prison to the moment he stepped out of one. Forget the Parole Board and the prison authorities who took full account of all the reports of all the professionals and then determined that Ched was sufficiently reformed and cognisant and mature and SAFE to be released on a licence which imposes NO restrictions on his freedom to play professional football.

          What a monumental waste of taxpayers’ money when all we needed to do was short-circuit the entire process and simply ask Jessica Ennis whether SHE thought Ched was a fit and proper person! ***Homer Simpson facepalm***

          The only reason I would prioritise this case, if I were the CCRC, is because social media-driven, Jesus-or-Barabbas mob justice threatens the very civilised values which David Cameron keeps telling us define us as British; and the success of the mob in destroying any chance of Ched resuming his former career as a professional footballer, by blackmailing a football club into refusing to allow him even to train with the team, sets a dangerous precedent which needs to be challenged urgently.

          However, even if Ched is subsequently exonerated, he will still struggle to overcome his condemnation in the court of shrill and strident mobs who pass for public opinion, who will endeavour to make sure he remains too toxic for football clubs to touch.

          This is precisely what has happened to Clayton MacDonald who was cleared of rape. He has never found his pre-trial form and fitness and now plays for Southport, a non-league club. The club has just told him it can’t afford to pay full-time wages any more, and the players must find other jobs to support themselves. The only problem is, Clayton can’t find another job because employers think HE’S too toxic because “there’s no smoke without fire”.

          Even if they don’t recognize him or remember his name from the rape trial, the CRB system (or whatever it calls itself now)requires him to disclose that he was ACQUITTED by a jury of his peers, which can only be used against him. i.e. The system tears Magna Carta to shreds on the eve of its 800th birthday: guilty until proven innocent, and probably not even then.

          Welcome to tyranny.

  15. Mr.McPherson says:

    Peter Baconfield, if Ched Evans’ conviction is quashed on appeal, then I will accept he has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. However, I reserve the right to continue seeing him as a disgusting individual, and to continue being baffled at how many people think his behaviour was normal. If he was a relative of mine, I’d be ashamed. Even if no crime has been committed, how can this apology for a man ever be seen as a role model?

    • Peter Baconfield says:

      I would have to agree that his behaviour was not “normal” but was it illegal – that’s what the appeal will decide.

      I’ve never really bought into the whole “role model” thing. If people choose to hero worship footballers, pop stars, actors, etc etc then fine but those groups don’t sign a charter to confirm they’re role models. In my view it’s as much down to poor parenting as anything else.

      To refer to him as a “disgusting individual” and “an apology for a man” are clearly subjective judgements and not particularly helpful.

      • “To refer to him as a “disgusting individual” and “an apology for a man” are clearly subjective judgements and not particularly helpful.”

        Wow. What a staggering observation…

        Such statements of sincere expression are prohibited since “unhelpful”?

        Judgements that are individual are only “subjective” are irrelevant?

        Is there also a ban on referring to other abusive behaviour as abusive?

        If so, does Peter NOT comment on child abuse – or does he have no “subjective judgement”?

        I suggest that Peter has an unhelpful brain / mind, with polite myopia prevalent.

        How does Peter differentiate the individual and subjective judgements of the Jury Members from any other sincere Judgement?

        George… Wow….

        • Peter Baconfield says:

          Mr Gretton:

          Your post is bizarrely haphazard and seriously lacking in logic.

          Subjective judgements are neither prohibited nor irrelevant – they just have no bearing on guilt or innocence.

          Someone of good character may be guilty of a crime. Someone considered to be lacking in morality may be not guilty of a crime.

          What on earth has child abuse got to do with the price of fish? That crime is obviously abhorrent (as is rape) – but jury members have to reach a verdict based on the strength or otherwise of the evidence.

          One of your previous posts, which included lewd language and irrelevant ramblings about fraud, tells us all we need to know.

          I’m sure there’s a shop near you that sells colouring books so you find something productive to do.

        • Another angle came to mind in this lengthy, and healthy, and sincere debate.

          Consider that another pair of Professional Footballers engage in another analogous series of events, by which one after the other had sex with the a young woman, a “bird” that they had “picked up”, who was somewhat the worse for wear through alcohol, where one had told the other via text about the “bird”, as in the Evans case.

          Now consider that said bird was the sister or cousin of Ched Evans..

          It seems that Ched would find those other colleagues, and ask if they wanted to go out and do a bit more of the same… have a laugh and a chat, and a few beers, and see who else they could get into bed and into… on a serial basis…

          It would be massively hypocritical for Ched Evans to take exception to what the others had done to his sister or cousin.

          As I said before, “Methinks he protesteth too much”.

          He seems to con-veniently ignore the reasonable revulsion experienced by some decent, civilised and caring human beings.

          There may, possibly, have been a miscarriage of Justice, as in the technical details of the case and appeal. We can only wait and see.

          Ched may have been acting within the Law, as Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Man-of-Straw may also have been.

          But at least we know, going forward, who and what these people actually are and, on a practical basis, we can avoid having anything to do with them; in the Court of Healthy Public Opinion they are Condemned for their actions, whatever eventually ensues in a Court of Law.

          Yours, George Gretton

          • Anthony Seymour says:

            George How is it,that ıf someone comments on or crıtısıses the womans morals ın thıs case. They are lambasted and told that they are not allowed to do so. Yet the same people seem to thınk ıt ıs o.k. to comment on and crıtısıse Ched Evans morals. Would you agree wıth me that the people who do thıs are gender bıgots.

  16. jess says:

    I have been debating this issue for the last week in a forum and with friends.

    I am as anti-rape a person as you can get and regard the current sentence tariffs too soft.

    But I cannot understand how the evidence led to the men being charged.

    The fact that one of them was found guilty is perverse in the extreme – the agreed evidence points to innocence of both men.

    Kim- do you know the relevant evidence in this case?

  17. Tony Halsall says:

    AS a layperson who possesses what I think is a modicum of common sense I have been intrigued by this story going all the way back to 2012 and I have followed it from an impartial, albeit questioning viewpoint.

    Can I ask those who may have a better understanding of the law a question aboiut a point of law – because this to me is a bit of a sticking point in my understanding of the case.

    I approach this from the understanding that a woman has the right to say no to a man at any time to engaging in a sexual encounter, even during the encounter. For a man to continue in these circumstances, he would be raping her according to the law. I understand that in this case the allegations made against Evans and the co-defendant were that the woman was too drunk to consent. I am not sure if the issue of drunken consent was ever covered in the case – but in any event it is irrelevant to this point.

    No 1 defendant meets the victim and takes her back to his hotel room and has sex with her. After a period of time defendant no 2 shows up and has sex with the victim. No 2 defendant was found guilty of rape on the grounds that that the victim was too drunk to consent and yet no 1 defendant is found not guilty. Physiologically the victim must have been more drunk at the time of the first sexual encounter than at the time of the second encounter and therefore if defendant 2 was guilty then by default, defendant 1 must be guilty because the woman would have been more intoxicated during encounter number 1 than during encounter number 2.

    Please leave aside the pugnacious nature of the behaviour but concentrating only on the issue that the victim was too drunk to consent and the physiological nature of how the human body processes alcohol.

    I am fascinated by the circusmstances behind this trial and the fall out since his release.

    • Hail, Tony Halsall… Kindred Spirit and Thinker..

      My post in this area didn’t get past Jon…. it was perhaps too graphic…

      I stated my incredulity that player 1 was found NOT GUILTY by the Jury, while player 2 was…. with the SAME incapacitated young woman, within minutes of each other….

      In my view this was based most likely on additional revulsion and disgust about what Evans did….but I will not be specific here, so that my post gets through.

      So let’s not give much weight or credence to those that assert that Evans should be let off because McWhatever his name was found not guilty; that seems to be a red herring, and THE PROBLEM; let’s instead get that first penetrator perpetrator re-tried….so that a miscarriage of Justice may be remedied..

      Yours very sincerely,

      George Gretton

      • Tony Halsall says:

        Can you take the co- defendant back into Court on the same charges if he has already been found not guilty?

        I can’t wait for the CCRC review in this case. I personally think that Evans will end up free and both he and the victim will get a payout from North Wales Police and the CPS.

    • Peter Baconfield says:

      Hi Tony,

      I may be able to help with one of your questions in regard to consent whilst drunk.

      A case in 2007 (the state versus Bree) established that effectively drunken consent to sexual intercourse IS consent in the eyes of the law.

      That doesn’t mean that having sex with someone who is unconscious due to alcohol is legal – it isn’t.

      But it does concern someone who is under the influence of drink (or drugs) who consents to sex and then subsequently regrets their actions and makes a complaint of rape.

      In this instance the Bree case established that as long as their intoxication was self inflicted (i.e. NOT their drink being spiked) it should not be considered as relevant to the issue of consent.

      • Tony Halsall says:

        As I understand, the issue of drunken consent was for some reason not used in this case? The prosecutions case was that she was simply too drunk to consent. Hence the points of my original question about her naturally being more drunk with the co- defendant than she wad when Evans arrived.

  18. John H says:

    Why one and not the other? What’s not to understand The evidence speaks for itself
    She willingly went into the bedroom of one guy whereas the other (by his own admission) conned and crept into his mates room and raped the victim cos she was too drunk to consent

    • Tony Halsall says:

      With respect John H, you are missing the points of law to which I refer.

      A woman always has the right to say no before and during the act. In this case, the verdict was based not on her giving or not giving consent, but on the fact that she was unable to give consent because she was too drunk.

      It is a physiological and medical impossibility to be more drunk after a passage of time because the body is constantly breaking down the alcohol therefore it cannot be possible that the victim was more drunk with Evans than she was with the co-defendant. Logic, backed by physiology means that she would have to be more drunk with the co defendent than she was with Evans, yet it was Evans who was found guilty, not the co-defendent.

      My point being that with irrefutable biological evidence that the liver is consistently breaking down alcohol in the body it cannot be possible for the woman to be more drunk anytime after the co-defendent took her into his room. If she gave drunken consent to the co-defendent and was capable of doing so, she could not have then become incapable of giving consent to Evans after the passage of time, consumption of part of a pizza and her first sexual encounter.

      Therefore both defendants should be guilty or both should be innocent.

      This should not be about their loutish behaviour, but about the law.

  19. jess says:

    I think there is plenty ‘not to understand’.

    People have threesomes, and drunken casual sex with multiple partners quite frequently in the youth culture.

    The hotel CCTV AND toxicology AND the girls testimony AND her friends testimony AND the 2 mens testimony suggest she was perfectly capable of consent.

    There is also the porters testimony when he heard Evans having sex.
    He heard male and female groans and sexual conversation.

    There were also 2 testimonies of the 2 men both agreeing she was a willing and enthusiastic sexual partner. There was no bruising, scratches or any sign of coercion and the girl has no recollection of the episode.

    It seems 3 people of a similar age had fully consensual drunken casual sex.

    It appears she willingly had sex with a tall athletic man she had met a few minutes earlier on the street and then willingly had sex with a tall athletic man who arrived in the hotel room (which he had booked and paid for)

    What part of that is rape?

    I have yet to hear any actual incriminating evidence that justifies a conviction for one of the most serious crimes there is.
    A possibly/probably innocent man was sentenced to 5 years and may yet lose his career.

    Seems an appalling injustice to me – no wonder so many people think he’s innocent.

  20. John H says:

    Jess you may not have heard the evidence but the jury certainly did and they found him guilty

    • Peter Baconfield says:

      Everyone can see the evidence John – it’s on-line word for word.

      The CCRC said earlier this week that they are now actively working on the Evans case although apparently it can take up to 8 months.

      • Chris says:

        Hello Peter,
        You state that the evidence is “on-line word for word.”
        I have found the Appeal court transcript dated 6 Nov 2012, but this does not provide all the evidence.
        Can you provide clarification as to what information you refer to, and share links or directions as to where this can be found please?

        • Lyndsay says:

          Hi Chris,

          Where were you able to come across the full transcript?



          • Chris says:

            Hello Lyndsay,
            No I was not able to locate a copy of the court-transcript, and didn’t receive any reply from the 4 or 5 people who posted here, those claiming they had ‘all’ the detail etc.
            I contacted the courts and the office of the lawyers who represented Ched, and came to the conclusion that the court-transcript is not in fact available in the public domain,
            regards, Chris.

    • Paul Hughes says:

      Don’t you find it strange how a man can be vilified as a ‘convicted rapist’ when there is a) no evidence of non-consent b) no violence used c)no spiking of drinks,intentional plying with alcohol d)no evidence that the girl was incapacitated (as opposed to inebriated)(the cctv footage going into the hotel clearly shows that she had relatively good coordination).A number of women who really been raped (i.e forced against their will) in the normally understood sense (rather than the way it was defined in this case)are horrified that their experience is equated with this accuser’s.

      The worrying message sent out from this case is that any time a woman willingly consumes alcohol and becomes inebriated she loses responsibility (in this case consensual responsibility) for her actions- a very dangerous and bizarre legal precedent I would say which we would not ordinarily accept anywhere else.Additionally, other correspondents are right of course that there is no logical basis to acquit one rather than the other- although one could argue that she may have been marginally more sober with Evans than Clayton due to the breakdown of alcohol over time.People miss the point when they say that she willingly went back with Clayton because by the ruling of the court she was too drunk to be responsible to consent!

  21. jess says:

    Actually, at one point, some jurors (who heard the evidence) originally though that BOTH men were innocent.
    But the judge asked them to go back and reconsider.

    In any case the crime line site has all the court evidence details.
    And its a hum-dinger of a miscarriage.

    I hope the review board overturn the error.
    Having said that, I can see the establishment not wanting to admit their mistake due to the fall out it would cause.
    It reminds me of the Birmingham 6 – they took years to eventually admit the miscarriage there.

    • Chris says:

      Hi Jess,
      You state that the crime-line site “has all the court evidence details”. I know that site holds a copy of the Appeal court transcript dated 6 Nov 2012, which refers to some trial evidence detail, but not ‘all’.
      Can you clarify what further detail is held on the crime line site please,

  22. OpenEnded says:

    Firstly, and covered at the bottom, let us not forget the case of Brian Banks, who lost his whole career in American Football because a young woman lied about being raped, later to admit after he was out of prison and she had received $1million in compensation, they hadn’t even had sex. What this tells us is that it is not impossible for false allegations to be made and go through the legal system.

    In my experience of the legal system, the more work that is done for the authorities, the more likely it is that they will actually act. If a private detective has found compelling new evidence, for example, secret recordings of some nature, then that would obviously be grounds for a swift review.

    I believe there is simply one of two likelihoods.
    1. The courts are seeking to knock Evans down swiftly one more time.
    2. There is compelling new evidence and the work has been done for them. If they were not to act on compelling new evidence of the nature of a recorded “He didn’t do it” statement, or witness testimony, I would be surprised.

    In any case, if they reach their decision faster as a result of the investigation, the swiftness of this case on their books dictates how long others must wait. If they can solve this faster, the better.

    What has to be made clear though is false accusations are made, they do lead to the loss of careers and the loss of reputation. For those that worry that women may not come forward in genuine cases, be assured that even if there is evidence that a woman has lied about a rape allegation in the UK, the police WILL NOT prosecute her. The only way a woman making a false allegation is likely to face recourse in any manner, is when the defendant places an expensive civil case which has very little moral support for in the legal system. It has to be noted that in allegations of rape and false allegations of rape, information neither party wishes to be made public can become public. It is also important to note that people who are the victims of a false allegation may not be “nice” people, they may have plenty of flaws and have done something to annoy the complainant. Whether a crime occurred or not is a separate issue.

    In all parts of the world, false allegation has been used to achieve the same result on the defendant as a rape would on an innocent person. This can be clearly shown by the case of an American Footballer, Brian Banks, who was sent to prison and then after serving his sentence, the lady who accused him sent him a FACEBOOK message wishing him good luck in life, and apologising for lying. She then came to a meeting with Banks and a private detective, admitted they HADN’T EVEN HAD SEX. So far as anyone could work out, she wasn’t actually sure why she made the allegation (she was very young at the time) but she said clearly, “I don’t want to admit publically that it wasn’t true, because then I would have to pay back $1million my mom sued the school for.”

    Though it is not relevant to Evans’s guilt or innocence, it would be interesting to find out what would happen to any persons’ new identity if it had be obtained under false grounds. I would imagine in the case of Evans’ being made innocent, the courts would not act in any way to investigate the complainants use of the law, and would leave any recourse in the hands of a private suit.

    • Hello Open-Ended…. you wrote above….

      “For those that worry that women may not come forward in genuine cases, be assured that even if there is evidence that a woman has lied about a rape allegation in the UK, the police WILL NOT prosecute her.”



      When a woman or man has a genuine and sincere case, let that person come forward and assert his or her truth. Justice is imperfect, but she or he will have done their duty.

      If a woman is known to have made a fallacious rape allegation in the UK, then let the book be thrown at her. Let her be hung, drawn and quartered, in public.

      If we are to take allegations of the heinous crime of rape seriously, then we have to take equally seriously any GROSS ABUSE of people taking rape seriously.

      There is as little excuse for a woman to lie about rape as there is for a man to perpetrate that vile crime. They are on a par.

      Yours, Mr Incensed…

  23. Brian Poole says:

    Meanwhile the value of the potential payout by the gutter press to the accuser for her story , including photos, increases all the time. £300,000. Any offers?

    • Brian, can you explain the relevance of your post about press payouts to the fundamental issues of justice around this case?

      Can we just keep our eyes on one ball at one time?

      • Peter Baconfield says:

        It’s pretty obvious what the inference is – that the “victim” was taking an opportunity to make money out of the situation.

        I obviously have no idea whether this is the case but you do have to wonder what the “when I win big” text messages she sent to friends meant.

  24. anthony seymour says:

    The postings on this site shows clearly that the public do not know the facts of this case. Clayton McDonald and Ched Evans were not on trial for having sex with a woman without her consent. The only evidence of consent put before the jury about consent was from the two men and that was that she gave consent to Ched Evans. They disagreed on who asked her but they both agreed that she consented. The woman said that she didn’t remember and that is why the men were charged with having sex with a woman who was not in a fit condition to give consent.(This appears to be a legal advice site so Kim Evans should have known and pointed this out to the contributors) This is important because the verdict is an unsafe verdict. The verdict is unsafe because no rationally thinking jury could come to this verdict. It’s an unsafe verdict because the jury found that Clayton McDonald who had sex with woman first was not guilty of having sex with her while she was too drunk to give her consent and found Ched Evans who had sex with her directly after Clayton McDonald, guilty of having sex with with her while she was too drunk to give her consent. There was no evidence or even suggestion of her taking drink in between having sex with both men. This is an illogical and so unsafe verdict and so it should be overturned. I personally believe , but I don’t say I know that the jury found Ched Evans guilty because they disapproved of his conduct. But you don’t put a person in jail for two and a half years and ruin their career because you disapprove of their conduct. Not in a just society anyway.

    • Or Clayton Macdonald also found guilty.

    • Ian says:

      Having heard the evidence, including from people who didn’t want to stick their penis in her, the jury’s (unanimous) verdicts make it clear that they thought that she was too drunk to consent to having sex with ANYONE at 4am that night.

      However, a reasonable belief in consent is a defence. McDonald had actually talked to her first, and she had gone to the hotel with him.

      Evans later turned up uninvited, unexpected, and unwanted. Although he says she was repeatedly “calling out” for sex with him no-one in a position to hear that – the brother and the mate trying to film it all from outside the window (without her or McDonald’s consent) or the night porter outside the door who could hear that sex was happening – heard that.

      Evans also says she was asked if she wanted to have sex with him… but both he and McDonald gave evidence on oath that they didn’t ask her. (Who did then?)

      With all that, it’s not surprising that the jury thought that McDonald MAY have had a reasonable belief in her consent and so acquitted him, but decided that Evans – beyond a reasonable doubt – did not.

      From the website, his renewed appeal is mostly based on regretting that he was heard to make various admissions in a conversation with McDonald which stopped him lying later, being annoyed that the police didn’t do the defence’s job for them, and going ‘.. but she’s a slag!’

  25. Matt K says:

    Finally nice to see an online discussion raising valid judgement’s on such a divisive case. I’m of the opinion that the CCRC have fast tracked this case as there must be, as others have said, ”compelling new evidence’. In accordance with their guidelines, they are perfectly within their rights to do this.

    Let’s not be fooled here, this is one of the most ambiguous cases I have come across in a long time. Myself, and many of my colleagues within the legal proffession agree that this was particularly poor outcome for the defence. I’d go as far as saying this conviction totally stinks. The only reason I can fathom for any jury returning a guilty verdict for Ched Evans in this case, is the equally baffling directives given to them by the judge before being sent to deliberate.

    Anyone claiming that ‘I haven’t heard all the evidence, so what do I know?’, is frankly wrong. Court transcripts provide all the evidence presented in court during the trial. There is no concealed evidence here. A truly shocking miscarriage of justice, which I hope is quashed in due course.



    • Thanks, Matthew, for your properly and professionally informed input.

      If Chad Evans is cleared, then I will acknowledge that he we be legitimately free to carry on with his footballing career.

      But I hope that nobody will retain any belief that his friend’s and his own behaviour were anything other than scummy. In general parlance they “took advantage” of their own status, and of the young woman’s inebriated state, not that that is a crime within UK Legislation.

      The Judge in this case departed from a predecessor’s “Caveat Emptor” injunction to the general public – mind your own back when doing business – because the Law won’t. He tried to challenge at least Evans for not acting fairly and responsibly to a somewhat vulnerable young woman, that he instead simply took advantage of to gratify himself, in his sexual desire and his vanity.

      So, if the conviction is quashed, women, then know if you get drunk, you have only yourself to blame for any unfortunate consequences. Don’t rely on anybody else to mind your back for you. Decent Society isn’t like that.

      Yours, George

    • Chris says:

      Hi Matthew,
      You imply you’ve read the trial-transcripts that “provide all the evidence presented in court”.
      I’m presuming you are not referring to the Appeal court transcript dated 6 Nov 2012?
      Could you please share a link or directions as to where the actual trial-transcripts can be found please?

  26. andrew clinton says:

    I have read the transcript and I sincerely hope Ched is found innocent.I very much doubt it though as the people responsible will be hauled over the coals for it whereas if they refuse his appeal nothing will change and he will be in the same crap he’s in now.
    Plus I want to be able to see the 160000 + “genuine” people and Charlie ‘hypocrite’ Webster who petitioned for sheffield united not to re-sign him apologize which would be awesome.

    • Chris says:

      Hi Andrew – you say you’ve read ‘the transcript’.
      Are you referring to the transcript of the original trial at which Ched was convicted, or the transcript of the Appeal court decision dated 6 Nov 2012?
      If the former, can you please share a link or directions as to where this transcript can be found please?

  27. anna says:

    The jury heard all the evidence including from the four men who witnessed the attack, staff, medical experts etc. They were told by the judge that drunken consent was still consent. The jury came to the conclusion that the woman was incapable of consenting, but McDonald may have believed she consented and Evans did not believe she consented. Evans and mcdonald gave conflicting evidence about her consent to Evans and its unlikely that a jury believed it didn’t matter that they gave contradictory versions of events. McDonald said he thought Evans got consent himself whereas Evans claimed McDonald got consent for him. Both admit Evans let himself into the room uninvited and that the only communication there had been was McDonald texting evans that he had got a bird. Yet Evans admits conning a key out of staff with the intention of having sex with the woman mcdonald had taken there. A woman whom he found in a semi conscious state. Its unsurprising that the jury believed that he had no grounds for believing she consented.

    • Anthony Seymour says:

      Anna’s comment illustrates perfectly the problem this case. Clayton McDonald and Ched Evans were not charged with having sex with the woman without her permission They were charged with having sex with a woman while she was in an unfit state to give her permission. This is important.Because the jury by law, could only find them guilty of the offence they were charged with. To make it simple, the jury was asked to decide and so could only decide on whether the woman was in a fit state to give her consent, when she had sex with the two men. If they found them guilty of anything else ,then it was an unlawful verdict and should have been overturned.What Anna fails completely to understand is that even if the jury believed that Clayton McDonald thought that the woman had given her permission and more importantly even if she’d given written permission to the two men to have sex with her and the jury came to the conclusion that the woman was not in a fit state to give her permission. then the jury was bound by law to find them both guilty. The judge would have given them direction on this and if he didn’t that in itself would have made it an unsafe verdict and so again it should have been overturned. Anna is mistaken when she says that Ched Evans admits conning the from the staff with the intention of having sex with the woman—— A woman that he found in a semi conscious state. What Ched Evans actually said was that he had gone to the hotel to ask the woman who was there with Clayton if she knew another girl who had made a complaint of assault against another friend of theirs.He had also asked the taxi driver to wait for him. He also said that found her with a lively disposition not semi conscious as Anna stated. Also the two men disagreed on who asked the woman could Ched Evans join in but they both agreed that she’d been asked and on what she said in reply. . Anyway this is all pedestrian. The jury was asked to decide if the woman was in a fit state to give consent to the two men to have sex with her and they came to the only verdict that was unjust unsafe and incomprehensible and that was that she was in a fit state to give consent to Clayton McDonald who had sex with her first and not in a fit state to give consent to give consent to Ched Evans who had sex with the woman after him. With no evidence that she had taken any drink in between and that this verdict was allowed to stand. Anthony Seymour

  28. jess says:

    I quite agree Seymour.

    The evidence that the girl was fit to consent seems overwhelming.

    The hotel CCTV, the toxicology, the women’s own testimony, her friends testimony, the mens testimony, the porter overhearing the women making sexual sounds when having sex with Evans…

    I mean, how much evidence must you have to prove ‘ability to consent’???

    This case is unusual in that is HAS SO MUCH evidence indicating consent and ability to provide consent.

    I don’t understand how it even got to the jury stage- surely the evidence automatically indicates reasonable doubt- hell it positively exonerates both men doesnt it?

    • Chris says:

      Hello all,
      My interest in the Ched Evans case was initiated by a discussion with a friend last Friday, someone who had a very strong view on the matter. So I’ve spent some time since then trawling the web in search of as much detail as possible, to see if I can determine a clear rational unbiased view on the case.

      The two key sources of information I’ve managed to find so far, are the Ched Evans supporters web-site, and the document issued by the Royal Courts of Justice on 6 Nov 2012 detailing their explanation as to why they refused Ched Evans’ renewed application for leave to appeal against his conviction (the report can be found here: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans).

      The comments and discussions posted here in response to Kim Evans article have also been helpful. I notice a few posts that make reference to there being further trial detail and evidence available in the public domain:

      Peter Baconfield: 5 Dec 14, 2:29 pm: “Everyone can see the evidence John – it’s on-line word for word.”

      Jess: 7 Dec 14, 3:23 am: “In any case the crime line site has all the court evidence details.”

      Matt K: 9 Jan 15, 2:13 pm: “Anyone claiming that ‘I haven’t heard all the evidence, so what do I know?’, is frankly wrong. Court transcripts provide all the evidence presented in court during the trial. There is no concealed evidence here.”

      Andrew Clinton: 10 Jan 15, 9:07 pm: “I have read the transcript and I sincerely hope Ched is found innocent.”

      Could the four people referenced above please provide clarification for the information they refer to, and share links or directions as to where this can be found please?

      Jess – before I register on the ‘Crime Line’ site, can you clarify what information they hold please? To register on that site, I have to give my address and tele-number so would rather only do that once I know there is detail worth registering for.

      With regard to the Appeal Court document I mentioned (dated 6 Nov 12) I’m a little surprised the detail in this 9 page report hasn’t been referred to in the posts and discussions so far.
      One aspect it clearly clarifies, is how one of the accused could be acquitted while the other was convicted.
      The circumstances and details of how Clayton and Ched each met the complainant are clearly very different (she approached Clayton, she got in a taxi with him, walked into the hotel with him) and so the jury presumably concluded that Clayton “may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him” whether she had or hadn’t.
      However, what I find most unsettling about Ched’s conviction is the weight of doubt that the complainant was so intoxicated she couldn’t possibly have given consent.
      Yes the taxi driver and the hotel receptionist both said she appeared very drunk and unsteady, and the CCTV outside the kebab shop apparently shows her very wobbly on her feet, but: she herself told the police she was “tipsy but not out of control”; the CCTV footage at the hotel shows her able to walk in and out of the hotel ok; she was able to crouch down to lift the pizza box from the pavement without falling over; the night porter heard her actively engaged in sex; the blood tests indicated she was likely to be only 2.5 times over the driving limit at the time Ched had sex with her.
      On balance then, surely just this evidence alone provides enough doubt to the conclusion she couldn’t possibly have been capable of giving consent?
      Defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
      Based on what I’ve seen so far, if I’d been part of that jury, I just can’t see how I could be sure to convict Ched.

  29. Gary says:

    Perhaps the question should not be why the big rush but why does it take so long?

  30. Ahhh, Chris, you also care to read the words for yourself… you are a facts and hard evidence person…

    I look forward to your reading them, and assessing them, and feeding back.

    And Wow, so many of my posts in this thread didn’t make it past Moderation…

    They were perhaps to fruity… sensual….

    Yours, George Gretton

    • Jon Robins says:

      George, it the ones where you refer to your own cases that don’t make it past moderation.

      • Ahhhh, Jon; I have at last got the point…

        I’ll review which got stuck, and see if there is any value in tidying them up and re-offering….

        And I’ll take the opportunity to note something that is not case-specific, but fabulous…

        I recently met Michael Woodford, Giant of Integrity and Sheer Life at Olympus in Japan, and he gave a wondrous, and very moving account of the early stages of his story as CEO there, up to the point at which he was fired, by people who ALL later resigned, and were also, in many cases, arrested, around that $2,000,000,000 (Two billion dollar) Fraud attempt.

        I know what it’s life to have to fight, and fight, and fight, for what one knows is right, honest, and just; and I drew great encouragement and extra resolve from our encounter.

        Yours, George

      • Hello Jon Robins,

        I have checked out my posts that got stuck in moderation.

        October 20, 2014 at 10.48 am Case rant

        November 21, 2014, at 5.21 pm Nothing to do with any case of mine

        November 22, 2014, at 8.55 pm Nothing to do with any case of mine

        November 22, 2014, at 9.00 pm Nothing to do with any case of mine

        December 29, 2014, at 7.24 am Nothing to do with any case of mine

        December 10, 2014, at 7.24 pm Not a case; an example set in context

        If the moderator of the Group cannot tell the Truth, then I’m out of it. Justice is supposed to have roots in Truth.

        If you don’t publish this, and also give an decent explanation for the visible discrepancy between what you posted about your moderation of me, and what you actually did, then I’m out of here.

        I’m wasting my time – if you also have gone over to the Dark side of plain lying.

        I avoid wasting my time on lost causes – I can more usefully devote my energies to activities that Police Officers try to suppress.


  31. Nick Murray says:

    In line with what Chris was saying, I have also struggled to find the transcript of the trial online.
    Ched’s website refers to that information being available, but they can’t provide a link and refuse to answer questions about how to find said transcript.

    If the full transcript would exonerate Ched in the public’s eyes, wouldn’t they want to publicise it more ?

  32. “Adam Johnson arrested on suspicion of sex with girl, 15.”

    Adam is a Sunderland and England footballer.

    It this case progresses, and her age has been correctly nailed down at 15, then at least there is no room for manoeuvre on the “consent” front.

    The girl, if she is indeed 15, is deemed by Law to have been incapable of giving consent.

    We can only wait and see what emerges this time.

    It may be that we have a Culture problem here, amongst overpaid footballers.

    Yours, potentially disgusted,


  33. Thank you for your good grace and courtesy, Jon… in posting my grumble…

    I’ll now not have a paddy and throw all, or at least some, of my toys out of my pram; although I am in an acute pram-overload situation – I have far too many project-toys in my pram at present.

    I thought that I might be about to clear some space, but I ain’t in this case.

    Thank you… (?)

    Yours, George

  34. Ahhhhh, ‘astings.. (Nick Murray in this case)..

    Ca sent du poisson, quoi (translation: this smells rancid ) … Ched and his Team of Professional Footballers REFER to EVIDENCE, that mysteriously cannot then be FOUND…located … so that others can also examine it, alors….

    Indeed, how this is mauvais (bad) for the presentation of the case, from the point of view of Chad Rangers?

    They seem to be scoring a number of own-goals in their match against Fact and Truth Seeker Wanderers…

    Surely, Shirley, they would desire greatly to publish such magnificent and triumphant EVIDENCE with fanfares of High Trumpets .. you know those diddy D and E ones.. that Georg Freddie Handel employs so well, in “Let The Trumpet Sound”…

    What would my Dear Friend and Colleague Sherlock Holmes deduce, and communicate to his Watson….?

    “I am forming a suspicion that the claimed evidence does not actually exist, Watson. There may be a fish-smelly false trail being laid here, using a red herring.”

    And I note – AND NOTE THAT THIS IS A GENREALISATION, AND NOT CASE-SPECIFIC, JON – that it is my experience that the targets of my suspects of criminal activates often find themselves in this predicament, of finding that they cannot substantiate their WORDS with SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

    Then then smile smugly, and say “better luck next time, Mr Gretton, Sir; or “Mrs Hodge”.

    I am not a diplomat, as IS Margaret Hodge, MP, so I loudly mutter, into a microphone, words such as “What a load of bollocks”.

    But I note that that is then deemed:

    “disrespectful”, and even

    by other, more polite, Members of the Midlands “Fraud” Forum.

    But why should I be polite to criminals?

    Has the world gone mad with “Political Rectitude”?

    Can I no longer call a spade a spade, rather than “an occasional garden digging implement.. that is not to be confused with a shovel, that has other purposes…, including shovelling manure?

    She is far more polite – she just calls them liars.

    She’s a Kindred Spirit, that Maggie, Rod Stewart – she has a great gift for cutting through the bovine faeces.. that so many try to shovel in her direction…

    Yours, George

  35. Hello Dear Anthony Seymour;

    As you and others may have identified, I can be somewhat blunt, crude, profane, and even obscene (horrified gasp) in clearly expressing sincerely held views – that helps test them, since others respond in turn, sometimes with equal vigour and passion, which is great.

    For “gender bigots”, those who both DO and DON’T tar everybody with the SAME brush, but are somewhat selective in their brushwork (all women are immaculate, as was Mary; but I think that a male sperm is needed to fertilise a woman’s ovum), I also employ a word in language that is suggested by “forkwets” …

    I do my best to treat people as individuals, and not pre-apply sub-texts – such as “all women are good” and “all men are bad”, or, alternatively, “all men are good” and “all women are bad”.

    And I even have the outrageous temerity to suggest that ONE INDIVIDUAL can, in respect of one episode, do something that I characterise as “bad”- (Hey, Old Chap, we can’t have you slagging people off; if we condone that, you might end up calling ME a Cad; we can’t have that!) – and then, in respect of another episode, I say in contrast; “Wow, that was honest and gracious; I warm to what you have just said.”

    I try to be terribly discriminating… a “Black and White” Man at a microscopic level, rather than a broad-brusher..

    Yours, George

  36. Mind how you interpret my use of the word “broad” in “broad-brusher”. // The overt use is analogous with “wide”, but a separate suggestion may have slipped in underneath, Sigmund, as an the use of the word “Dame”, in a sarcastic sense…. as in US sing and dance routines..

    I DENY that I brush up against broads… but of course that DOENSN’T MEAN that I don’t actually do so..

    I MUST make some coffee and have some breakfast. I seem to be a bit light-headed…

  37. Kim, further to my comment of October 21, 2014 when I mentioned another CCRC applicant James Thompson, at that time being 4 years, 9 months and 22 days in prison. James still remains imprisoned and the CCRC has only recently confirmed that they will investigate James’ case. Todate James has been deprived of his freedom 6 years, 0 months and 12 days. After 2 years of consideration we’ve no idea how long their investigation will take, yet Ched Evans’ case was submitted to Court of Appeal by the CCRC within 10 months. The situation of the CCRC begs many questions, one being is austerity affecting some applicants right to justice? Referring to your last paragraph our experience makes it difficult to have confidence in the Criminal Justice system.

  38. jess says:

    Dear All,
    Now that Evans has now had his conviction quashed and is currently an ‘innocent man’ has anyone got any comments?

    Personally I thought the previous evidence demonstrated innocence anyway.
    If there is further evidence supporting the defence, surely there is no point in a re-trial?

  39. Ian says:

    Yes: the vast bulk of the evidence against him comes from his own mouth and what MacDonald, plus Evans’ brother and his mate did not say. All that remains.

    The test is whether if, had the original jury had known about the new evidence, there’s a reasonable chance that they might have come to a different verdict.

    The Court of Appeal have decided that it was. Had they decided it demonstrated his innocence, they would not have sent the case back for a retrial and if the CPS thought it reduced the chances of a conviction to below 50%, they would not have asked for one.

Related Posts