Cybereagles

It is OK, I can see that you have backed down from saying that it was the Appeal Court who ruled that the evidence was relevant. (Of course your ego is too huge to allow you to admit it.) What you have not understood is that the jury could have decided the new evidence is irrelevant. They did not, ...

cic old boy, maybe this is your level..

Rizzle Kicks blast Ched Evans rape case as 'f***ing vile' during epic Twitter rant

:lol: :lol: :lol: The CCRC ruled the evidence was relevant enough for it to be referred to the Appeal Court and based on that evidence, which was the grounds for appeal, the Appeal Court quashed the conviction, and then based on that evidence the retrial acquitted the man. But the evidence for you ...

Nigerians and posturing :) I think it is important to have an opinion, and not be apathetic. Equally, don't let your ego prevent you from learning, and changing your opinion. Maybe it is just CE, but I haven't come across that many folk here who strike a balance. The issue in this thread appears to...

Nope, you still haven't got it. If this is going over your head, you won't be able to understand basic principles of law. The CCRC considered the new evidence relevant. The appeal court does not rule that the evidence is relevant. It rules that the test for relevance is for a jury. Had the appeal c...

cic old boy wrote:Post the judgment that you read here and which parts you disagreed with and why. You may convince others. Instead of arguing with yourself or looking for someone to argue with.

cic old boy wrote:I'm still waiting!

:lol: :lol: :lol: So the appeal court considered the new evidence relevant enough to quash the conviction and order a retrial? This clown is tying himself in knots. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Nope, you still haven't got it. If this is going over your head, you won't be able to understand basic princip...

:lol: :lol: So the appeal court admitted evidence that was not relevant? :lol: :lol: For example, as the woman is a waitress, if you worked in the kitchen and provided evidence that she once hit you with a frying pan, would that evidence have been admitted? :shock: you are still confused! :shock: Y...

CIC, unbeknownst to you, you've been sucked into an endless debate even though you said several times on this thread that you weren't interested. :lol: He is only here to clown around. Care to share this with us, alongside the points you disagree with? Post the judgment that you read here and which...

:lol: :lol: :lol: The facts (I love them) 1. A rape conviction 2. An appeal heard on grounds of new evidence not heard during the trial. 3. Appeal allowed ordering a new trial saying the new trial should hear that new evidence. 4. New trial acquits man b/c the new evidence gave the jury reasonable ...

:lol: :lol: :lol: It looks like we are backtracking on "relevance" and trying to cover up with insults. Yes YOU are. :lol: I changed nothing. I simply asked you to READ AGAIN the point I made, and you suddenly come up with "backtracking" after rereading. :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: You...

"Lord help you", you illiterate. :lol: The question of relevance is put to the JURY. The appeal judges did not rule on relevance. And yes, appeal judges can admit evidence which a jury decides is irrelevant. Your problem is that you didn't know the difference between admitting evidence an...

Since the prosecution did not dispute the claim about sexual behaviour made by the defendant in the original trial, new evidence supporting that claim cannot lead to a different jury decision, unless the jury had somehow taken it upon itself to discount the claim for lack of evidence. In that case i...

Can somebody translate this nonsense he has written? :lol: :lol: :lol: The appeal process did not rule on the RELEVANCE of the evidence, clueless one. It ruled on whether the evidence should be ADMITTED. The judge then tells the jury that they may consider the RELEVANCE, IF ANY , of the admitted ev...

OK, you have a comprehension problem. :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: That does not say that the fresh evidence is relevant. It says it should be admitted. Go and get a dictionary! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You should admit irrelevant evidence, which formed the basis of an appeal that was gran...

You don't know my view, you hypocrite. You've already admitted that you don't care what it is, so stop making a fool of yourself by commenting on it. And you are wrong. You don't understand the ruling. The appeal was not granted on the basis that the new evidence was relevant. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lo...

:lol: The appeal was based on the new evidence from 2 witnesses that was not heard at the trial and it was granted. And in your view it was not granted on the basis of that evidence! And it was not relevant even though that was the basis on which the CCRC referred the case to appeal. :lol: :lol: :l...

You are clueless. You clearly have no idea what the appeal judgement said. :lol: :lol: It said the new evidence of 2 witnesses was relevant enough to quash the conviction and ordered a retrial. But you disagreed with appeal verdict and the retrial verdict and haven't read any of the judgments! :lol...

Clueless one, the judgement does not explain why the appeal was allowed, and a retrial called. :lol: That would be included in the appeal judgment. The judgment on the retrial would explain the relevance of all the evidence admitted. You are clueless. You clearly have no idea what the appeal judgem...

cic old boy wrote:I asked you go and read the judgment, not an article.

Clueless one, the judgement does not explain why the appeal was allowed, and a retrial called.

How some people can argue based on their own interpretation of how the law ought to be applied. The Appeal Court has made its ruling. You're here pretending to be lawyers. Fact, the previous ruling has been set aside. I don't know if the CPS will appeal or even pursue a retrial Apparently, they can...

Please stop making a fool of yourself commenting on something that you are confused about and have admitted having no interest in or caring about. I commented on what led to the review of the case, the allowing of the appeal and what led to the acquittal. You didn't have the facts. I presented them...

You've clearly forgotten where this started. Here it is.. http://forum.cybereagles.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=218859&start=92#p4891373 I've got to be frank, the only difficult question for me was whether the woman's drink was spiked, and if that is what caused her behaviour. If not, then peopl...