(15-10-2016, 17:11)Imre varadi Wrote: so if lets say i killed 3 people and went on trial for a fourth killing then my past 3 killings wouldnt matter ? or lets say i robbed 3 banks and went on trial for a fourth then it wouldnt matter or maybe i bribed 3 people and went on trial for a fouth then it wouldnt matter ?

Yep youre talking out of it again  

Anyway i coudnt give a monkeys bollocks about it one way or another there are worst things happening in the world i live in so realy this is feffing triva  

(15-10-2016, 17:27)St Charles Owl Wrote:

(15-10-2016, 17:03)peiowl Wrote: I disagree with all of you, but nothing new about that. The woman's past sexual history, her relations with her boyfriends, had no place in the court room and articles have been written about that aspect.

It's precisely because of how women who do report rape and sexual assault are victimized and pilloried in the law courts and in the court of public opinion that countless other women don't come forward and report them.

Trump and Cosby are prime examples of that and Evans, while a lesser light, epitomizes everything that is wrong with judicial systems that turn the victim into an offender.

So, I know you'll not like this, but I don't care. That's how I feel.

I don't disagree with you on everything but currently the law does!!  At the end of the day many of these sort of trials are based on one persons word against another with little to no evidence of outright positive proof of innocence or guilt!!  Therefore inevitably the general character of both the accused and the accuser has to become part of any trial.  In this one, the behaviour of the woman on that night was shown to be consistent with her behaviour a few nights earlier and less than two weeks after the Evans incident, that iformation surely does have some relevance in this case??

(15-10-2016, 19:33)madsteve Wrote: Was it correct that the jury wasn't aware that two witnesses were offered £50k by Evans' fiancee to change their testaments for the latest trial?

Worse still perhaps, that the judge felt this was acceptable.

The latest re-trial doesn't prove Ched is innocent, only that on the balance of probability, there wasn't overwhelming proof of his guilt. The girl involved has never changed her testament, she has always said that she remembers nothing. The difference this time was that the jury believed his view that she was consenting.

(15-10-2016, 19:55)peiowl Wrote: I don't disagree with you on everything but currently the law does!!  At the end of the day many of these sort of trials are based on one persons word against another with little to no evidence of outright positive proof of innocence or guilt!!  Therefore inevitably the general character of both the accused and the accuser has to become part of any trial.  In this one, the behaviour of the woman on that night was shown to be consistent with her behaviour a few nights earlier and less than two weeks after the Evans incident, that iformation surely does have some relevance in this case??

(15-10-2016, 22:25)Maddix Wrote: Without being frivolous, perhaps the younger generation should start to tackle their mindsets. The Government needs to forget smoking and eating and maybe attempt to stop the culture of getting absolutely mindlessly pissed on shots before going out at night