Ched Evans - Case goes to appeal

I used the term unsafe, loosely, not in the legal sense. My point still stands, such cases, whatever the result and in the absence of much extra conclusive evidence, are always going to be somewhat dodgy or "unsafe".

I left a long time ago in the early 90's but I have many friends who are only just reaching retirement from the force and I keep in regular touch. One of them joined the same day at the same station as me and had done exceptionally well (the b******) reaching Chief Constable in Scotland. His name is David Strang and is now the Inspector of Prisons in Scotland and we were speaking socially in the summer about this subject, but not Evans specifically. He believes it was easier getting evidence through in Scotland than in England, with less frustrations about the guilty getting off. Not conclusive I know, but it will always be tough convincing a jury who also listen to the media on how "bad" the police are.

Even where all the evidence is heard, I personally know of at least 3 Crown Court cases where the Jury just chose to believe the defendants rather than the Police (including me on 2 occasions) who were being totally honest.

 

That really doesn't say much for Police forensics now does it? ... finding nothing wouldn't support their case though and 'inconclusive' always sounds better in court.

 

Tbf the police have frequently been known to exaggerate ... happened to me when my mate got arrested on his birthday for kicking over a bollard. I simply got in between him and the police, saying "Here I'll pay the damage, come on it's his birthday", even being careful not to swear ... By the time it got to court my obstruction was the more serious offence and I was told I'm lucky not to have punched the officer to whom I must apologise for my profanity!

 

Well, I am not denying that, m'lud.

Having said that, obstructing the police is often thought of as being more serious than the initial trivial offence.

As an aside, although I was in the Met I found myself giving evidence against a yoof I saw trying car doors in Bushey when I was off completely duty.

The defending solicitor was an old class mate of mine. He was trying to make out it was too dark for me to see what was happening and was flipping winking at me all along. Then he came out with the question.

"Officer, just answer with a simple, yes or no. Is this the first time you have committed purjury?" - to the sound of mild giggling around the court.

He got the bugger off! He tried to make up for it by buying me lunch, but that isn't really the point. ;D

 

Done this loads, without the handbag.

 

It appears that both GF and JB are selectively believing the evidence which supports their own particular view of events.

 

For an explanation of the law in this case, I'd recommend reading this. It might clear some things up for some of the posters on this thread.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

 

Presumably this is a round about way of you conceding that he was wrongly convicted.

 

The article backs what I have been saying for years.

A verdict in court may decide whether someone is guilty in the eyes of the law, but too often, it does not decide if the defendant actually committed the crime.

They are very different things.

 

I wonder if GF defended OJ quite so vigorously after the verdict.

 

OJ - lad

 

I don't even like orange juice

 

An easier explanation is the richer you are the more law you can afford.

 

I'll counter that with the more famous/rich you are the bigger the target.

 

Wonder what Jessica thinks of that?