Footballer jailed 5 years for Rape

[sinequanon]

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.

I don't know your view. I just read what you wrote, which in your deranged world may be different from your view!

The appeal Confusion break bone!

The Court of Appeal, having considered other case law, agreed that in these unusual circumstances the fresh evidence ought to be admitted, and that X should be questioned on what the new witnesses had to say.

Link already provided above.

OK, you have a comprehension problem.

That does not say that the fresh evidence is relevant. It says it should be admitted.

Go and get a dictionary!

[cic old boy]

OK, you have a comprehension problem.

That does not say that the fresh evidence is relevant. It says it should be admitted.

Go and get a dictionary!

You should admit irrelevant evidence, which formed the basis of an appeal that was granted. Oh dear!!! This must be Saturday Night Live with "comedy" of Daura Dullard proportions.

[sinequanon]

OK, you have a comprehension problem.

That does not say that the fresh evidence is relevant. It says it should be admitted.

Go and get a dictionary!

You should admit irrelevant evidence, which formed the basis of an appeal that was granted. Oh dear!!! This must be Saturday Night Live with "comedy" of Daura Dullard proportions.

Can somebody translate this nonsense he has written?

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 evidence.

See how foolish your illiterate rhetoric is?

Instead of reading two lines of the daily mail, clowning about with your lack of interest and lack of caring about the details, while telling everyone else to go and read, go and get serious and read up yourself, to dispel your gross ignorance.

[cic old boy]

Can somebody translate this nonsense he has written?

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 evidence.

See how foolish your illiterate rhetoric is?

Instead of reading two lines of the daily mail, clowning about with your lack of interest and lack of caring about the details, while telling everyone else to go and read, go and get serious and read up yourself, to dispel your gross ignorance.

The right to appeal was not allowed when he was 1st sentenced. Then new evidence led to an appeal and the appeal ruled on the basis of that new evidence for there to be a retrial in which the new evidence should be admitted. But that evidence is not "relevant"!!!! Lord help us!!

Mr Attention to Detail, where did you see the Daily Mail here??

For the umpteenth time, I asked you to read the judgment so that you can disagree with it cogently. Why? B/c the judgment (appeal and retrial) should/would include all the reasoning and law behind the conclusions. Good advice, if I must say so myself.

[sinequanon]

Can somebody translate this nonsense he has written?

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 evidence.

See how foolish your illiterate rhetoric is?

Instead of reading two lines of the daily mail, clowning about with your lack of interest and lack of caring about the details, while telling everyone else to go and read, go and get serious and read up yourself, to dispel your gross ignorance.

The right to appeal was not allowed when he was 1st sentenced. Then new evidence led to an appeal and the appeal ruled on the basis of that new evidence for there to be a retrial in which the new evidence should be admitted. But that evidence is not "relevant"!!!! Lord help us!!

"Lord help you", you illiterate.

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 and ruling on its relevance. You know now, but..

You can keep acting dumb. It only makes you look like a hypocrite.

Mr Attention to Detail, where did you see the Daily Mail here??

For the umpteenth time, I asked you to read the judgment so that you can disagree with it cogently. Why? B/c the judgment (appeal and retrial) should/would include all the reasoning and law behind the conclusions. Good advice, if I must say so myself.

You are the one who hasn't read the appeal judgement. I have.

I have given a cogent disagreement, but a clown like you cannot even begin to follow it. You haven't even read the judgement, so you are clueless about the whole argument. You couldn't explain the appeal decision, you didn't care and you weren't interested in any counter-argument, only your FAITH in the system.

[sinequanon]

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 it would be a miscarriage of the jury process. The new evidence should make no difference.

[cic old boy]

"Lord help you", you illiterate.

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 and ruling on its relevance. You know now, but..

You can keep acting dumb. It only makes you look like a hypocrite.

You are the one who hasn't read the appeal judgement. I have.

I have given a cogent disagreement, but a clown like you cannot even begin to follow it. You haven't even read the judgement, so you are clueless about the whole argument. You couldn't explain the appeal decision, you didn't care and you weren't interested in any counter-argument, only your FAITH in the system.

So an appeal was allowed on the basis of new evidence that the appeal judges did not consider relevant to the case???

I know the facts about the case - which you didn't know (until I helped you with newspaper reports). The guy was found guilty. New evidence that was RELEVANT to the case came up after conviction and this was put b/4 the appeal court. The appeal on the basis of that RELEVANT evidence ruled that the conviction was not safe and a retrial was ordered. The retrial and acquittal hinged on that new evidence. Which you don't think is relevant!

You don't agree with the judgment, that you clearly haven't read. I never claimed to have either read the appeal or the retrial judgment. You lied that you did. I asked you to read those judgments so that your irrelevant argument would make sense. You are like people here that say someone played well without watching a match.

I don't have "faith" in anything. I deal with facts. And I'm not interested in your ignorant opinion.

[sinequanon]

"Lord help you", you illiterate.

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 and ruling on its relevance. You know now, but..

You can keep acting dumb. It only makes you look like a hypocrite.

You are the one who hasn't read the appeal judgement. I have.

I have given a cogent disagreement, but a clown like you cannot even begin to follow it. You haven't even read the judgement, so you are clueless about the whole argument. You couldn't explain the appeal decision, you didn't care and you weren't interested in any counter-argument, only your FAITH in the system.

So an appeal was allowed on the basis of new evidence that the appeal judges did not consider relevant to the case???

Read again or be dumb, the choice is yours.

I know that you can't accept being wrong, but you are.

I never claimed to have either read the appeal or the retrial judgment. You lied that you did.

What a hypocrite! This is why you have no idea that I have already read the full transcript of the appeal judgment and the every single newspaper report that you think you are providing.

You don't know the details, so you have no idea what I am referring to.

And it shows in your confusion over what the appeal court ruled on.

Go and read up and stop making an #$% of yourself.

I don't have "faith" in anything. I deal with facts. And I'm not interested in your ignorant opinion.

Go and read up and stop making an #$% of yourself. All your guesswork and faith is now hurting your ginormous ego.

[cic old boy]

It looks like we are backtracking on "relevance" and trying to cover up with insults.

I didn't claim I have read the appeal judgment. I haven't read it. I know what the decision was and the facts of the case. The facts shows the "relevance" of the new evidence.

I have already read the full transcript of the appeal judgment

Care to share this with us, alongside the points you disagree with?

[sinequanon]

It looks like we are backtracking on "relevance" and trying to cover up with insults.

Yes YOU are.

I changed nothing. I simply asked you to READ AGAIN the point I made, and you suddenly come up with "backtracking" after rereading.

You deserve the insults for being stupid.

I didn't claim I have read the appeal judgment. I haven't read it. I know what the decision was and the facts of the case. The facts shows the "relevance" of the new evidence.

I have already read the full transcript of the appeal judgment

Care to share this with us, alongside the points you disagree with?

Clown.



He has been gassing about what he calls "the facts", and he hasn't read the appeal judgement transcript.

He also said that he doesn't care and isn't interested in it.

And he was shouting at everybody to go and read it, to challenge his "facts".

This is what the hypocrite said..

For the umpteenth time, I asked you to read the judgment so that you can disagree with it cogently. Why? B/c the judgment (appeal and retrial) should/would include all the reasoning and law behind the conclusions. Good advice, if I must say so myself.

He hasn't read it, himself, but "knows all the facts"!

Now he is begging me for a link to the transcript after spewing his half-baked nonsense.

[Ekorian]

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.

[cic old boy]

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 doubt that man raped the woman.
5. Clown on CE says the new evidence is not "relevant".
6. CIC asked clown to read the judgment b/c judgments include all the reasoning and law used to reach the conclusion.
7. Clown said he read the full transcript of the appeal judgment.
8. CIC asks clown to share it.
9. Clown responds with laughter and insults instead.

I hope this is an accurate summary of the facts. Happy to be corrected if wrong.

[cic old boy]

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.

The comedy couldn't be resisted.

[sinequanon]

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 doubt that man raped the woman.

cic old clown, you are learning! See how you have silently dropped your earlier claim..

The Criminal Cases Review Commission considered it relevant so referred it to the Court of Appeal. The Appeal Court considered it relevant and quashed the conviction. A judge considered it relevant to rule it admissible. A jury acquitted him on the basis of that relevant evidence. All these people were wrong and you are right. OK.

I have schooled you on the difference between the appeal court admitting evidence to court and the appeal court ruling that the evidence is relevant.



All you need to do now is be more open about admitting your ignorance.

[sinequanon]

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.

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 parts you disagreed with and why. You may convince others. Instead of arguing with yourself or looking for someone to argue with.

Look at him. Instead of owning up to his ignorance and being open to learning, he pretends he want "others" to read the facts that he, cic old clown, claims he already knows.

[bamenda boy]

1) Ched Evans lives in England, not the USA.

2) Even in the USA - professional footballers, basketball players, and boxers are not banned for life from their sports for their numerous convictions for wife beating, DWI, assault, rape, illegal dog fighting etc etc.

I am not aware of any law saying that ex-prisoners are never allowed to return to their former occupations ever again. Lots of armed robbers, rapists, fraudsters, and murderers happily return to former occupations after being released from prison.

Not in the US. I think a felony conviction leads to losing professional licenses, and potential ineligibility for employment in many fields.

Where is Sidney Rice and Ocho Cinqo?

[cic old boy]

What a hypocrite! This is why you have no idea that I have already read the full transcript of the appeal judgment and the every single newspaper report that you think you are providing.

You don't know the details, so you have no idea what I am referring to.

Care to share?

[cic old boy]

cic old clown, you are learning! See how you have silently dropped your earlier claim..




I have schooled you on the difference between the appeal court admitting evidence to court and the appeal court ruling that the evidence is relevant.



All you need to do now is be more open about admitting your ignorance.

So the appeal court admitted evidence that was not relevant? 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?

[sinequanon]

So the appeal court admitted evidence that was not relevant? 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?

you are still confused!

You see, if you clown around, it becomes difficult for you to concentrate and assimilate facts. This is law. You have to read carefully -- not declare that you don't care.

In law there are "tests" which judges and jurors are asked to perform in reaching their conclusions. In this case, one of the tests for the appeal court would be..

Can the appeal court judges conclusively PROVE to their standard and quantum of proof that the new evidence is IRRELEVANT?

If the answer is NO, then they must ADMIT the new evidence, if all other tests pass.

The appeal court deeming that the new evidence cannot be proven irrelevant does not mean that they deem it relevant. you are not suffering from ohsee-illogicitis are you? What it means is that the quantum of proof for relevance now shifts to that of a jury decision, and the jury can decide that it is irrelevant or relevant.

So, the appeal court can allow/admit new evidence that the jury decides is irrelevant.

If you read instead of clowning around, you will notice that I have explained this to you at least twice before.

EDIT: In respect of your frying pan incident, I extend my condolences and admit the new evidence in explaining your various memory losses in this thread.

[cic old boy]

you are still confused!

You see, if you clown around, it becomes difficult for you to concentrate and assimilate facts. This is law. You have to read carefully -- not declare that you don't care.

In law there are "tests" which judges and jurors are asked to perform in reaching their conclusions. In this case, one of the tests for the appeal court would be..

Can the appeal court judges conclusively PROVE to their standard and quantum of proof that the new evidence is IRRELEVANT?

If the answer is NO, then they must ADMIT the new evidence, if all other tests pass.

The appeal court deeming that the new evidence cannot be proven irrelevant does not mean that they deem it relevant. you are not suffering from ohsee-illogicitis are you? What it means is that the quantum of proof for relevance now shifts to that of a jury decision, and the jury can decide that it is irrelevant or relevant.

So, the appeal court can allow/admit new evidence that the jury decides is irrelevant.

If you read instead of clowning around, you will notice that I have explained this to you at least twice before.

EDIT: In respect of your frying pan incident, I extend my condolences and admit the new evidence in explaining your various memory losses in this thread.

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.

[cic old boy]

What a hypocrite! This is why you have no idea that I have already read the full transcript of the appeal judgment and the every single newspaper report that you think you are providing.

You don't know the details, so you have no idea what I am referring to.

Care to share?

I'm still waiting!

[sinequanon]

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.

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 court ruled that the evidence is relevant, the judge would not have asked the jury to consider what, IF ANY, relevance the new evidence has.

Wait...cic old clown has no idea that this is what the judge asked, because he has only read a couple of paragraphs in the Daily Mail.

[sinequanon]

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.

I'm still waiting!