Ched Evans

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, moof said:

Which doesn’t mean he’s actually innocent 

It also doesn't mean you fingered Penelope Cruz at the Oscars. 

[moof]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

It also doesn't mean you fingered Penelope Cruz at the Oscars. 

 

[moof]

So his innocence was “proven”. I’d love to see evidence of this “proof”

[KMD7]

3 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

It also doesn't mean you fingered Penelope Cruz at the Oscars. 

I haven't seen any evidence to prove that he didn't

[magicrat]

1 minute ago, KMD7 said:

I haven't seen any evidence to prove that he didn't

On the balance of probabilities I think you're talking bollocks

[magicrat]

4 minutes ago, moof said:

So his innocence was “proven”. I’d love to see evidence of this “proof”

I was referring to Penelope Cruz not that paragon of virtue Ched Evans

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, moof said:

So his innocence was “proven”. I’d love to see evidence of this “proof”

Prove he did? 

[Bjornebye]

7 minutes ago, moof said:

 

Thanks mate x 

[Anubis]

He may not be guilty of rape but he’s still a horrible misogynistic bastard. I’ll start watching that doc if he feels some lass up in a Teeside nightclub and gets glassed in the balls. Otherwise, I won’t bother my arse.

[Fugitive]

2 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Prove he did? 

He’s as guilty as Savile

[Fugitive]

Just now, Fugitive said:

He’s as guilty as Savile

You apologist

[rubble-rouser]

Can he play right back?

[Chairman Meow]

They need their Cheds read. 

[Dr Nowt]

This thread should have been closed after Stringy’s “Ched Evans for little girls” pun.

 

Never getting back to that peak.

[liverpoolsno9]

15 hours ago, moof said:

Which doesn’t mean he’s actually innocent 

Doesn’t mean he’s guilty either. He was found not guilty in a retrial. Is that not good enough for you? The retrial lasted eight days, during that 8 days of cross examining and questioning and sifting through all available evidence, he was found not guilty. I suppose you  know more by reading a few newspaper reports? Not only that, but you still think it’s ok to cast aspersions about him on a public forum. Let him get on with his life. 

[Jairzinho]

19 minutes ago, liverpoolsno9 said:

Doesn’t mean he’s guilty either. He was found not guilty in a retrial. Is that not good enough for you? The retrial lasted eight days, during that 8 days of cross examining and questioning and sifting through all available evidence, he was found not guilty. I suppose you  know more by reading a few newspaper reports? Not only that, but you still think it’s ok to cast aspersions about him on a public forum. Let him get on with his life. 

Well said, mate. 

 

And all the best at Sunderland.

[Remmie]

Trials in court do not prove innocence, they find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thinking someone is guilty is not enough, the jury had to be unequivocally certain. 

[Biscao]

16 hours ago, moof said:

So his innocence was “proven”. I’d love to see evidence of this “proof”

He doesn't need to prove his innocence, does he now? 

 

From what I've seen it's a disgrace that he was convicted in the first place.

[VladimirIlyich]

On 1/31/2019 at 11:58 AM, Biscao said:

He doesn't need to prove his innocence, does he now? 

 

From what I've seen it's a disgrace that he was convicted in the first place.

I think our resident legal expert Anubis hinted that there was more to the case than the media revealed.

[Anubis]

20 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I think our resident legal expert Anubis hinted that there was more to the case than the media revealed.

 

Nope. Can’t be arsed trawling through the thread, but I may have said that what the media report about cases is not always accurate or correct, but I have no inside knowledge about the case.

[VladimirIlyich]

38 minutes ago, Anubis said:

 

Nope. Can’t be arsed trawling through the thread, but I may have said that what the media report about cases is not always accurate or correct, but I have no inside knowledge about the case.

That's what I was getting at,the fact that you said that the reported media stories were not what you could call 'wholly accurate.'

Just to add that I wasn't inferring insider knowledge just the fact that not all the evidence may be revealed through the media. I felt that the media were very sympathetic to Evans so its likely that neutrals would perceive an air of innocence.

[Anubis]

Ah, right. Sorry, but thought your initial tweet was implying I knew something about the Evans case specifically.

[VladimirIlyich]

2 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Ah, right. Sorry, but thought your initial tweet was implying I knew something about the Evans case specifically.

Apologies if you thought that.

[Jairzinho]

22 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Ah, right. Sorry, but thought your initial tweet was implying I knew something about the Evans case specifically.

Twitter generation mong.

[Anubis]

Fuck you, you eagle-eyed fucking fuck.