' UPDATED ' BREAKING NEWS " CHED EVANS - HUGE!! "

hope all the ones who slagged the lad will be man enough to say they were wrong - the case is a fooking joke, I hope he gets a career back too, I would have him up front at Cardiff no worries

Any apology will wait until after the retrial. Evans hasn't been proven 'innocent' all that has happened is he has found some evidence which wasn't presented to the jury at the original trial. What this evidence is won't be known until it is presented to a new jury but I suspect it is something which is aimed at blackening the victim's name and making her appear to be an unreliable witness.

Tony, as usual, I agree whole-heartedly and Paul Keevil also makes some great points

It is plainly obvious that Evans' expensively assembled defence team have finally managed to dig something up and have convinced a judge that the case needs a re-trial to examine the 'new' evidence in the proper manner. That is how it should be

Last year there were a record number of sexual assaults and what amazes me is the speed at which some people are so smugly making assumptions of innocence, like as if what he did was "okay" on a lads night out, never mind what he did to his (to date) loyal girlfriend.

No apologies needed from anyone (including Jessica Ennis) at this stage because Evans has not been cleared; simply allowed the opportunity to present his fresh evidence to a new Jury

It's certainly not over for him and the re-trial (not unsubstantiated public opinion) will decide Evans' guilt or otherwise in the months to come

hope all the ones who slagged the lad will be man enough to say they were wrong - the case is a fooking joke, I hope he gets a career back too, I would have him up front at Cardiff no worries

Any apology will wait until after the retrial. Evans hasn't been proven 'innocent' all that has happened is he has found some evidence which wasn't presented to the jury at the original trial. What this evidence is won't be known until it is presented to a new jury but I suspect it is something which is aimed at blackening the victim's name and making her appear to be an unreliable witness.

You have to be proven guilty which is why 3 judges have quashed his last conviction. He is currently an innocent man untill proven otherwise. Just like every other citizen in this country is.

The fact is as it stands he is innocent of his charges. Why you finding the facts so hard to understand??

Under the law you are innocent until proven guilty that is correct. But the Appeal Judges have decreed that he should still stay accused of rape and the new evidence will be presented to a fresh jury. The Appeal Judges are certainly not passing judgement that Evans is innocent. All they are saying is that this 'evidence' was not heard at the original trial.

However, despite this new evidence they have ordered a retrial which they would-not have done unless there was a realistic possibility of a conviction.

hope all the ones who slagged the lad will be man enough to say they were wrong - the case is a fooking joke, I hope he gets a career back too, I would have him up front at Cardiff no worries

Any apology will wait until after the retrial. Evans hasn't been proven 'innocent' all that has happened is he has found some evidence which wasn't presented to the jury at the original trial. What this evidence is won't be known until it is presented to a new jury but I suspect it is something which is aimed at blackening the victim's name and making her appear to be an unreliable witness.

Tony, as usual, I agree whole-heartedly and Paul Keevil also makes some great points

It is plainly obvious that Evans' expensively assembled defence team have finally managed to dig something up and have convinced a judge that the case needs a re-trial to examine the 'new' evidence in the proper manner. That is how it should be

Last year there were a record number of sexual assaults and what amazes me is the speed at which some people are so smugly making assumptions of innocence, like as if what he did was "okay" on a lads night out, never mind what he did to his (to date) loyal girlfriend.

No apologies needed from anyone (including Jessica Ennis) at this stage because Evans has not been cleared; simply allowed the opportunity to present his fresh evidence to a new Jury

It's certainly not over for him and the re-trial (not unsubstantiated public opinion) will decide Evans' guilt or otherwise in the months to come

up to them whether they apologise now or later, delaying the inevitable -

oh, if last year produced a record number of sexual assaults then I can guarantee there were also a record number of innocent people sent to jail - FACT

I thought in this country he cannot be charged again, something about double jepardy ?????

hope all the ones who slagged the lad will be man enough to say they were wrong - the case is a fooking joke, I hope he gets a career back too, I would have him up front at Cardiff no worries

Any apology will wait until after the retrial. Evans hasn't been proven 'innocent' all that has happened is he has found some evidence which wasn't presented to the jury at the original trial. What this evidence is won't be known until it is presented to a new jury but I suspect it is something which is aimed at blackening the victim's name and making her appear to be an unreliable witness.

Tony, as usual, I agree whole-heartedly and Paul Keevil also makes some great points

It is plainly obvious that Evans' expensively assembled defence team have finally managed to dig something up and have convinced a judge that the case needs a re-trial to examine the 'new' evidence in the proper manner. That is how it should be

Last year there were a record number of sexual assaults and what amazes me is the speed at which some people are so smugly making assumptions of innocence, like as if what he did was "okay" on a lads night out, never mind what he did to his (to date) loyal girlfriend.

No apologies needed from anyone (including Jessica Ennis) at this stage because Evans has not been cleared; simply allowed the opportunity to present his fresh evidence to a new Jury

It's certainly not over for him and the re-trial (not unsubstantiated public opinion) will decide Evans' guilt or otherwise in the months to come

Thanks Sven

I really get wound up when I read poster saying the victim 'was up for it' 'what did she expect' etc. I have read the case papers and it was a sordid incident where an arrogant footballer thought he could abuse a drunken girl in a hotel room he paid for. When he finished he absconded down a fire escape and hoped his loyal girlfriend wouldn't find out.

Yet despite all this despicable behaviour Evans portrays himself as a victim and in the pursuit of 'justice' hires expensive lawyers to dig dirt on this poor young lady.

I don't care if she has cried wolf in the past or had twenty thousand ex-lovers Evans needed consent for sexual intercourse and he didn't get it because the victim was too drunk to consent. If there are people who have a difficulty understanding this principle then tough, that's no defence against RAPE.

I thought in this country he cannot be charged again, something about double jepardy ?????

Double Jeopardy was abolished about 10 years ago. In any case the Appeal Courts have always had the authority to order a retrial.

oh, if last year produced a record number of sexual assaults then I can guarantee there were also a record number of innocent people sent to jail - FACT

If you are claiming 'FACT' then can you name your source?

hope all the ones who slagged the lad will be man enough to say they were wrong - the case is a fooking joke, I hope he gets a career back too, I would have him up front at Cardiff no worries

Any apology will wait until after the retrial. Evans hasn't been proven 'innocent' all that has happened is he has found some evidence which wasn't presented to the jury at the original trial. What this evidence is won't be known until it is presented to a new jury but I suspect it is something which is aimed at blackening the victim's name and making her appear to be an unreliable witness.

Tony, as usual, I agree whole-heartedly and Paul Keevil also makes some great points

It is plainly obvious that Evans' expensively assembled defence team have finally managed to dig something up and have convinced a judge that the case needs a re-trial to examine the 'new' evidence in the proper manner. That is how it should be

Last year there were a record number of sexual assaults and what amazes me is the speed at which some people are so smugly making assumptions of innocence, like as if what he did was "okay" on a lads night out, never mind what he did to his (to date) loyal girlfriend.

No apologies needed from anyone (including Jessica Ennis) at this stage because Evans has not been cleared; simply allowed the opportunity to present his fresh evidence to a new Jury

It's certainly not over for him and the re-trial (not unsubstantiated public opinion) will decide Evans' guilt or otherwise in the months to come

Thanks Sven

I really get wound up when I read poster saying the victim 'was up for it' 'what did she expect' etc. I have read the case papers and it was a sordid incident where an arrogant footballer thought he could abuse a drunken girl in a hotel room he paid for. When he finished he absconded down a fire escape and hoped his loyal girlfriend wouldn't find out.

Yet despite all this despicable behaviour Evans portrays himself as a victim and in the pursuit of 'justice' hires expensive lawyers to dig dirt on this poor young lady.

I don't care if she has cried wolf in the past or had twenty thousand ex-lovers Evans needed consent for sexual intercourse and he didn't get it because the victim was too drunk to consent. If there are people who have a difficulty understanding this principle then tough, that's no defence against RAPE.

So why wasn't the othe footballer found guilty of rape as if like you say she was to drunk to consent?? You can't have it both ways tony.

And to the other point in one word answer yes or no.
At this current time ched Evans is an innocent man?

oh, if last year produced a record number of sexual assaults then I can guarantee there were also a record number of innocent people sent to jail - FACT

If you are claiming 'FACT' then can you name your source?

is this a genuine question? the more sexual assaults = the more convictions = the more unsafe convictions
Are you related to the girl with Ched ?? Innocent written all over it since the conviction - I would of been astounded today if it was upheld - and that is 'not after the event' statement either, I can show quite a few of my posts saying it will get quashed, didn't need to be Petrocelli to see that coming - one big stitch up and the lad deserves apologies from the likes of Jess Ennis - simple

oh, if last year produced a record number of sexual assaults then I can guarantee there were also a record number of innocent people sent to jail - FACT

If you are claiming 'FACT' then can you name your source?

is this a genuine question? the more sexual assaults = the more convictions = the more unsafe convictions
Are you related to the girl with Ched ?? Innocent written all over it since the conviction - I would of been astounded today if it was upheld - and that is 'not after the event' statement either, I can show quite a few of my posts saying it will get quashed, didn't need to be Petrocelli to see that coming - one big stitch up and the lad deserves apologies from the likes of Jess Ennis - simple

Totally agree.

whats happens if hes found guilty again does he go back to prison .do you think thegirl will want to go through all this again

Trust me when the jury is allowed to see the new evidence that was presented to the court of appeal Ched will be a free man.

hope all the ones who slagged the lad will be man enough to say they were wrong - the case is a fooking joke, I hope he gets a career back too, I would have him up front at Cardiff no worries

Any apology will wait until after the retrial. Evans hasn't been proven 'innocent' all that has happened is he has found some evidence which wasn't presented to the jury at the original trial. What this evidence is won't be known until it is presented to a new jury but I suspect it is something which is aimed at blackening the victim's name and making her appear to be an unreliable witness.

Tony, as usual, I agree whole-heartedly and Paul Keevil also makes some great points

It is plainly obvious that Evans' expensively assembled defence team have finally managed to dig something up and have convinced a judge that the case needs a re-trial to examine the 'new' evidence in the proper manner. That is how it should be

Last year there were a record number of sexual assaults and what amazes me is the speed at which some people are so smugly making assumptions of innocence, like as if what he did was "okay" on a lads night out, never mind what he did to his (to date) loyal girlfriend.

No apologies needed from anyone (including Jessica Ennis) at this stage because Evans has not been cleared; simply allowed the opportunity to present his fresh evidence to a new Jury

It's certainly not over for him and the re-trial (not unsubstantiated public opinion) will decide Evans' guilt or otherwise in the months to come

Thanks Sven

I really get wound up when I read poster saying the victim 'was up for it' 'what did she expect' etc. I have read the case papers and it was a sordid incident where an arrogant footballer thought he could abuse a drunken girl in a hotel room he paid for. When he finished he absconded down a fire escape and hoped his loyal girlfriend wouldn't find out.

Yet despite all this despicable behaviour Evans portrays himself as a victim and in the pursuit of 'justice' hires expensive lawyers to dig dirt on this poor young lady.

I don't care if she has cried wolf in the past or had twenty thousand ex-lovers Evans needed consent for sexual intercourse and he didn't get it because the victim was too drunk to consent. If there are people who have a difficulty understanding this principle then tough, that's no defence against RAPE.

There were three of them in the hotel room. The two footballers and the girl. Both footballers said she consented and the girl said she couldn't remember. I find it hard to understand how they came to the conclusion that both blokes were lying and that she was too drunk to consent. If you convict someone on the basis that someone said yes but was too drunk to remember then that is dodgy ground.

hope all the ones who slagged the lad will be man enough to say they were wrong - the case is a fooking joke, I hope he gets a career back too, I would have him up front at Cardiff no worries

Any apology will wait until after the retrial. Evans hasn't been proven 'innocent' all that has happened is he has found some evidence which wasn't presented to the jury at the original trial. What this evidence is won't be known until it is presented to a new jury but I suspect it is something which is aimed at blackening the victim's name and making her appear to be an unreliable witness.

Tony, as usual, I agree whole-heartedly and Paul Keevil also makes some great points

It is plainly obvious that Evans' expensively assembled defence team have finally managed to dig something up and have convinced a judge that the case needs a re-trial to examine the 'new' evidence in the proper manner. That is how it should be

Last year there were a record number of sexual assaults and what amazes me is the speed at which some people are so smugly making assumptions of innocence, like as if what he did was "okay" on a lads night out, never mind what he did to his (to date) loyal girlfriend.

No apologies needed from anyone (including Jessica Ennis) at this stage because Evans has not been cleared; simply allowed the opportunity to present his fresh evidence to a new Jury

It's certainly not over for him and the re-trial (not unsubstantiated public opinion) will decide Evans' guilt or otherwise in the months to come

Thanks Sven

I really get wound up when I read poster saying the victim 'was up for it' 'what did she expect' etc. I have read the case papers and it was a sordid incident where an arrogant footballer thought he could abuse a drunken girl in a hotel room he paid for. When he finished he absconded down a fire escape and hoped his loyal girlfriend wouldn't find out.

Yet despite all this despicable behaviour Evans portrays himself as a victim and in the pursuit of 'justice' hires expensive lawyers to dig dirt on this poor young lady.

I don't care if she has cried wolf in the past or had twenty thousand ex-lovers Evans needed consent for sexual intercourse and he didn't get it because the victim was too drunk to consent. If there are people who have a difficulty understanding this principle then tough, that's no defence against RAPE.

There were three of them in the hotel room. The two footballers and the girl. Both footballers said she consented and the girl said she couldn't remember. I find it hard to understand how they came to the conclusion that both blokes were lying and that she was too drunk to consent. If you convict someone on the basis that someone said yes but was too drunk to remember then that is dodgy ground.

They said the one lad didn't rape her lol

Guilty or innocent he's still a f*cking knob for cheating on his girlfriend who you wouldn't say deserves to be treated that way. Somebody said they'd have him up front for City - well if your looking for a 20 goal striker don't look at him, never rated him to be honest, was at his level when he got down and dirty!

Guilty or innocent he's still a f*cking knob for cheating on his girlfriend who you wouldn't say deserves to be treated that way. Somebody said they'd have him up front for City - well if your looking for a 20 goal striker don't look at him, never rated him to be honest, was at his level when he got down and dirty!

Well he's innocent there's no doubting that.
I agree bit of a knob for cheating or his girlfriend but she forgiven him so I'm not going to hold it against him.

As you you say somebody said they like him up front for us, and to be honest I'd take him over what we have now if he can get back to his past form. But that's mine and the other guys opinion that we entitled to, just like in your opinion he's a f*cking knob.
Everyone's allowed they personal opinion don't you think Avon??

He should now be free to sign for a club with out the moral brigade getting into a sweat. He has a right to earn a wedge and the one thing our law system always uphold ( well I thought it did) was INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY)
But interesting if he is found guilty again by some miracle have they the power to jail him again ? Considering he served his time the first time ?

He should now be free to sign for a club with out the moral brigade getting into a sweat. He has a right to earn a wedge and the one thing our law system always uphold ( well I thought it did) was INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY)
But interesting if he is found guilty again by some miracle have they the power to jail him again ? Considering he served his time the first time ?

I'm so sure think if he was found guilty and he got longer sentence he have to serve more time but if he got same sentence he's already served it.
It's an odd one for sure.

Hopefully tony blue Williams be around again he seems to know a fair bit. He's read the court papers as well. So hopefully he could enlighten us all.

So why wasn't the othe footballer found guilty of rape as if like you say she was to drunk to consent?? You can't have it both ways tony.

And to the other point in one word answer yes or no.
At this current time ched Evans is an innocent man?

If you read the court papers and understand the law it makes perfect sense why McDonald was found not guilty and Evans was convicted.

McDonald met the girl in the street and agreed to go to his hotel room. This gave McDonald the 'reasonable doubt' defence even if the victim couldn't remember giving consent to sex.

Evans however only became party to this arrangement after receiving a text from McDonald informing him he had a 'girl' in his hotel room. Evans then made his way to the hotel independently and admitted lying to security to gain access to the room. When he entered the room the victim was comatose with drink and McDonald had already finished having sexual intercourse with her.

The law would dictate that at this point the victim was vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed. It wasn't Evans' place to decide whether she wanted sexual intercourse or not as she simply couldn't give a reasoned answer and Evans should have walked away. He didn't he had sex with her.

There cannot be a 'reasonable doubt' defence for Evans because his behaviour before (& after absconding down a fire escape) exhibited intent to have sexual intercourse which he admitted to.

The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual. It is perverse reasoning that because the victim was drunk, in a hotel room and performed sexual intercourse with another person this constituted consent to have sex with anyone else who entered that hotel room whilst she was drunk.

Personally I think McDonald is a lucky man. OK he was rightly found not guilty of rape but he was definitely involved with a conspiracy to the Evans rape and could even he an accomplice because he failed to intervene.

There were three of them in the hotel room. The two footballers and the girl. Both footballers said she consented and the girl said she couldn't remember. I find it hard to understand how they came to the conclusion that both blokes were lying and that she was too drunk to consent. If you convict someone on the basis that someone said yes but was too drunk to remember then that is dodgy ground.

Please see my answer above. McDonald had a reasonable doubt defence as the victim agreed to accompany him (& him alone) to the hotel room. In a case of his word against the victims this would be enough to raise doubt and thus a defence.

Evans on the other hand made his way to the hotel room without the knowledge of the victim, tricked his way passed security and found a comatose woman who had just finished sexual intercourse with McDonald.

Evans' defence is because she was drunk, in a hotel room and had sex with his mate this constituted consent. Of course he wishes to forget his behaviour in self inviting himself into the room, tricking security, having sex with a severely drunken woman and then leaving via a fire escape.

Yet some people argue Evans was 'stitched up'. It is really frightening to think these people walk our streets.

He should now be free to sign for a club with out the moral brigade getting into a sweat. He has a right to earn a wedge and the one thing our law system always uphold ( well I thought it did) was INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY)
But interesting if he is found guilty again by some miracle have they the power to jail him again ? Considering he served his time the first time ?

Evans is still accused of rape which means the CPS will have to prove that he is guilty before a fresh jury. So technically he is currently innocent but that is subject to his new trial.

As for allowing him to play football are you really asking for another Adam Johnson situation?

If found guilty at his new trial in theory the Judge could impose a longer sentence which could mean him returning to jail.

However, that would be highly unlikely and he would probably just see out the rest of his sentence on licence.

So why wasn't the othe footballer found guilty of rape as if like you say she was to drunk to consent?? You can't have it both ways tony.

And to the other point in one word answer yes or no.
At this current time ched Evans is an innocent man?

If you read the court papers and understand the law it makes perfect sense why McDonald was found not guilty and Evans was convicted.

McDonald met the girl in the street and agreed to go to his hotel room. This gave McDonald the 'reasonable doubt' defence even if the victim couldn't remember giving consent to sex.

Evans however only became party to this arrangement after receiving a text from McDonald informing him he had a 'girl' in his hotel room. Evans then made his way to the hotel independently and admitted lying to security to gain access to the room. When he entered the room the victim was comatose with drink and McDonald had already finished having sexual intercourse with her.

The law would dictate that at this point the victim was vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed. It wasn't Evans' place to decide whether she wanted sexual intercourse or not as she simply couldn't give a reasoned answer and Evans should have walked away. He didn't he had sex with her.

There cannot be a 'reasonable doubt' defence for Evans because his behaviour before (& after absconding down a fire escape) exhibited intent to have sexual intercourse which he admitted to.

The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual. It is perverse reasoning that because the victim was drunk, in a hotel room and performed sexual intercourse with another person this constituted consent to have sex with anyone else who entered that hotel room whilst she was drunk.

Personally I think McDonald is a lucky man. OK he was rightly found not guilty of rape but he was definitely involved with a conspiracy to the Evans rape and could even he an accomplice because he failed to intervene.

Thanks you answer tony very interesting. And some good points.

How do you get hold of the court paper can I get them??
Are you in the legal profession??
As I asked earlier as it stands now is ched Evans an innocent man??

So this new evidence that's come to light must be very significant for 3 judges to quash the verdict of the trial, as they actions aren't taken very lightly at all.

Now you said macdonald was lucky to get off with no charges then it seems even more likely to me it's some kind of personal witch hunt against ched. Who knows??

But when people and myself have been "comatosed" they always sleep for hours and certainly don't just wake up with now enough wits about them to leave and then return when they forgotten something especially to the place of an alleged sexual crime they just been a victim of.
You say ched absconded through the fire exit that implies guilt I would say he exited through a fire exit. I do it all the time if it saves me time from going out the front door. Mostly at places I'm unlikely to return to, I know I shouldn't but if I've spent money in an establishment I leave out of which door I want.

Thanks again for taking time for a very interesting response tony.

So why wasn't the othe footballer found guilty of rape as if like you say she was to drunk to consent?? You can't have it both ways tony.

And to the other point in one word answer yes or no.
At this current time ched Evans is an innocent man?

If you read the court papers and understand the law it makes perfect sense why McDonald was found not guilty and Evans was convicted.

McDonald met the girl in the street and agreed to go to his hotel room. This gave McDonald the 'reasonable doubt' defence even if the victim couldn't remember giving consent to sex.

Evans however only became party to this arrangement after receiving a text from McDonald informing him he had a 'girl' in his hotel room. Evans then made his way to the hotel independently and admitted lying to security to gain access to the room. When he entered the room the victim was comatose with drink and McDonald had already finished having sexual intercourse with her.

The law would dictate that at this point the victim was vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed. It wasn't Evans' place to decide whether she wanted sexual intercourse or not as she simply couldn't give a reasoned answer and Evans should have walked away. He didn't he had sex with her.

There cannot be a 'reasonable doubt' defence for Evans because his behaviour before (& after absconding down a fire escape) exhibited intent to have sexual intercourse which he admitted to.

The problem here for people like you is you can't accept that Evans had a personal responsibility to look after a vulnerable individual. It is perverse reasoning that because the victim was drunk, in a hotel room and performed sexual intercourse with another person this constituted consent to have sex with anyone else who entered that hotel room whilst she was drunk.

Personally I think McDonald is a lucky man. OK he was rightly found not guilty of rape but he was definitely involved with a conspiracy to the Evans rape and could even he an accomplice because he failed to intervene.

Thanks you answer tony very interesting. And some good points.

How do you get hold of the court paper can I get them??
Are you in the legal profession??
As I asked earlier as it stands now is ched Evans an innocent man??

So this new evidence that's come to light must be very significant for 3 judges to quash the verdict of the trial, as they actions aren't taken very lightly at all.

Now you said macdonald was lucky to get off with no charges then it seems even more likely to me it's some kind of personal witch hunt against ched. Who knows??

But when people and myself have been "comatosed" they always sleep for hours and certainly don't just wake up with now enough wits about them to leave and then return when they forgotten something especially to the place of an alleged sexual crime they just been a victim of.
You say ched absconded through the fire exit that implies guilt I would say he exited through a fire exit. I do it all the time if it saves me time from going out the front door. Mostly at places I'm unlikely to return to, I know I shouldn't but if I've spent money in an establishment I leave out of which door I want.

Thanks again for taking time for a very interesting response tony.

Just Google Ched Evans court papers and you will get enough to go on.

I'm not legally trained although I take an interest in the law. I have worked as a volunteer for the Citizen's Advice and I have taken cases to court where I have both won and lost.

Often the legal profession will confuse things with terminology but basically it is common sense with guide lines/tests/thresholds which have to be reached. Once you get your head around it some of the more confusing decisions make sense. When I first heard of the Ched Evans case I was curious to find out how one person could be guilty and the other innocent.

When you read the full evidence and what happened and apply it to the law (the tests/thresholds/guide lines) it becomes clear how the jury came to it's decision.

To answer your questions you need to stop concentrating on the victim and look at Evans' behaviour. No one at the trial was questioning that the victim was severely drunk. I think you will find that those incidents you refer to happened before she went to the hotel room. Also the security guard on duty that night confirmed she was very drunk and unsteady on her feet.

Hotel guests very rarely leave via the fire escape unless they are avoiding paying the bill Not sure where you have stayed but most usually have big signs saying only to be used in the event of a fire At the very least it was abnormal behaviour and someone with nothing to hide would have simply left the hotel in the correct manner. Surely it is more than a coincidence that Evans left this way when an accusation of rape subsequently happened. Also this is without mentioning he tricked security and travelled independently to the hotel.

My understanding is Evans has admissible evidence which was not available at the original trial. The Appeal Judges have deemed it should have been heard and have ordered a retrial so a Jury can consider it's impact. What the Appeal Judges have definitely not done is make a finding Evans is innocent or guilty for that matter.

However, by ordering a retrial (rather than an acquittal) the have indicated that there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction subject to a jury hearing all the evidence including this 'new' evidence.

By the time the legal system has finished with him his career will be over anyway. That's justice for you.

Very interesting. I started to study law when I was younger but never finished the course much to my deep regret now. Lol.

I still belive when 3 experienced judges quash a conviction they do so on very good evidence. I would struggle to see now how any retrial would convict if this evidence is now included.

I don't know what the evidence is and this is purely speculation but I read that there were some friends outside the window recording it. Were these recordings ever shown in first trail?
If not and have now come to light they may contain footage of her consenting beyond redo able doubt to sex acts. I.e not comatosed but activity participating. Who knows we shall wait and see.

Tony. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of court papers. Are these the one you have read??
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-che ... dwyn-evans

I've read them now and even more sure that his conviction was incorrect and can see more clearly why they quashed the original verdict.

There were three of them in the hotel room. The two footballers and the girl. Both footballers said she consented and the girl said she couldn't remember. I find it hard to understand how they came to the conclusion that both blokes were lying and that she was too drunk to consent. If you convict someone on the basis that someone said yes but was too drunk to remember then that is dodgy ground.

Please see my answer above. McDonald had a reasonable doubt defence as the victim agreed to accompany him (& him alone) to the hotel room. In a case of his word against the victims this would be enough to raise doubt and thus a defence.

Evans on the other hand made his way to the hotel room without the knowledge of the victim, tricked his way passed security and found a comatose woman who had just finished sexual intercourse with McDonald.

Evans' defence is because she was drunk, in a hotel room and had sex with his mate this constituted consent. Of course he wishes to forget his behaviour in self inviting himself into the room, tricking security, having sex with a severely drunken woman and then leaving via a fire escape.

Yet some people argue Evans was 'stitched up'. It is really frightening to think these people walk our streets.

It says in the court papers that Evans defence was - "His case was that she had consented. This was the case he advanced at trial." Not that she was drunk, in a hotel room and had sex with his mate this constituted consent.

I haven't read any mention of a 'comatose' woman in the court papers either.

I understand the difference between McDonald being found not guilty and Evans guilty but struggle to understand how they came to the conclusion that Evans was guilty when the victim could not remember anything and two other people present gave statements that she consented.

An expert gave evidence that in his belief that given the alcohol consumed she would have not suffered memory loss.

Also in paper by expert that memory loss does not mean there wasn't the ability to be in control of ones actions.

There was no alcohol found in her system as it probably already passed which would indicate a lower level of alcohol. Also this girl tested positive for multiple drugs in her system.

yeah i dont know where this "found her in a comatose state" has come from. as far as im aware she asked him to go down on her didnt she?

There were three of them in the hotel room. The two footballers and the girl. Both footballers said she consented and the girl said she couldn't remember. I find it hard to understand how they came to the conclusion that both blokes were lying and that she was too drunk to consent. If you convict someone on the basis that someone said yes but was too drunk to remember then that is dodgy ground.

Please see my answer above. McDonald had a reasonable doubt defence as the victim agreed to accompany him (& him alone) to the hotel room. In a case of his word against the victims this would be enough to raise doubt and thus a defence.

Evans on the other hand made his way to the hotel room without the knowledge of the victim, tricked his way passed security and found a comatose woman who had just finished sexual intercourse with McDonald.

Evans' defence is because she was drunk, in a hotel room and had sex with his mate this constituted consent. Of course he wishes to forget his behaviour in self inviting himself into the room, tricking security, having sex with a severely drunken woman and then leaving via a fire escape.

Yet some people argue Evans was 'stitched up'. It is really frightening to think these people walk our streets.

It says in the court papers that Evans defence was - "His case was that she had consented. This was the case he advanced at trial." Not that she was drunk, in a hotel room and had sex with his mate this constituted consent.

I haven't read any mention of a 'comatose' woman in the court papers either.

I understand the difference between McDonald being found not guilty and Evans guilty but struggle to understand how they came to the conclusion that Evans was guilty when the victim could not remember anything and two other people present gave statements that she consented.

The victims version (which you completely ignore) is that she had no memory of the incident which would from her perspective would be a comatose state. Indeed she urinated the bed which is direct evidence of how drunk she was.

The Judge agreed when he came to pass sentence he said: ".... the complainant was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you (Ched Evans), when you arrived, must have realised that."

The reasoning behind the decision is clear and is laid out in those court papers. McDonald met the victim away from the hotel and agreed to go with him. In his case he had reasonable doubt defence.

If Evans had been present when they went to the hotel he would have had the same reasonable doubt defence. Instead he travelled independently lied to gain access and despite being in a long term relationship he took advantage of a drunken woman and then left via the fire escape

The fact is 12 jurors and the Trial Judge were convinced on hearing all the evidence that Evans was guilty of rape and I fully agree