Mason Greenwood

Did he, Did'nt he, i have not really followed this, and reading the posts and a few clippings on the internet, i'm still not sure if he did or he did'nt , if he did i hope to god he never gets to use the ability he was born with, if he's innocent then i think the lad should be back asap, for me i say innocent until proven guilty.

 

The richer the accused, the better the justice.

 

Who said hearsay? I never suggested the recording wasn’t evidence. But that isn’t anything like the full picture.

You have absolutely no idea what other evidence there is/was, and, amongst many to be fair, are making a decision based on the snippet in the public domain.

I have daughters. I understand your viewpoint.

But you will note that one of the resident lawyers on here, who knows a damn site more about criminal matters and burden of proof etc than most of the rest of us, appears to disagree, as I do, with what the general consensus on this thread appears to be, i.e. ‘I don’t care what the law says, I don’t care what the other evidence might have been, he did it’ - and there is a worrying trend towards this. Trial by social media means it makes no difference if the established legal process maintains your innocence, the public will hang you anyway.

He might not be a nice fella. He might have done hellish things they can’t prove. But you or I don’t know that whatsoever. He’s not a convicted criminal. He’s not being pursued over any accusation.

And yet it is very apparent his ability to make a living in a career he excels at is pretty much expired, at least at his current club and probably in his home country.

Meaning a 21 year old kid is likely to be forced out of his home country to earn a living, when innocent in the eyes of the law, due to trial by public opinion.

It isn’t right and until such a time he’s proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed anything he was accused of I’ll maintain this.

The law isn’t an ass just because you decided he did it based on very little of the overall picture; and he wasn’t tried, nor found guilty. Mason Greenwood isn’t the first example and won’t be the last of mass consensus just jumping to the conclusion that the legal system has to be flawed because he wasn’t convicted.

Is it not possible he wasn’t convicted because the balance of evidence couldn’t suggest strongly enough that he did? Dare I further suggest, might he not have been convicted as he didn’t do what he was accused of?

Yeah I’ll accept the recording shows at the very least that he’s a bit of a ****. I’m not sure we ought to support too many footballers if arrogant, entitled and twattish behaviour isn’t to be expected.

Whatever he did or didn’t do I think it is probably safe to assume there are plenty of others kicking around the premier league and efl with as bad or worse attitudes and behaviours who will get continuing adulation from supporters, having been found guilty of as many crimes as Greenwood.

 

He wasn’t just accused of rape, in fact he wasn’t accused of that as I recall, attempted rape, assault and coercive control I think.

But to carry the point, yes, rape has a very low conviction rate. That is awful. There are no doubt rapists who get away with it.

But you can’t assume everyone accused who isn’t convicted is guilty. Some will have done absolutely nothing wrong at all. Some might be morally bankrupt but not be criminal. Some completely innocent of any wrongdoing of any kind.

Yet in a high profile case with a snippet of evidence leaked he’s hung drawn and quartered. That isn’t what a democratic and right thinking society should do.

 

Which is why I posed the question how do his club and previous sponsors react now...as I said its a no case situation which leaves him in limbo between the original accusations and what can actually be proven. sadly the only answer in cases like this is that everything should be kept unreleased until the case is over.sadly due to social media and the need for headlines famous people will have trial by media before the case is complete.

 

The law is one thing, and rightly there is a stringent set of rules around criminal convictions and then punishments thereof. But if you listen to that recording of him threatening his girlfriend and coercing her into sex it doesn’t really matter if he’s convicted of a crime - that’s not the measure of my opinion of him - what he says and does is the measure. That means, like it or not, I’ve deemed him to be a nasty, vile dangerous sex pest- me, in the court of common sense. He can say and do whatever he wants in public, but he’s a vile tw@t and probably deserves sacking from Man Utd. And yes, any other footballer who treats woman badly - Ched Evans - regardless of the criminal proof, where there is evidence that they have behaved in a disgusting way don’t deserve my sympathy or benefit of the doubt.
So let’s be clear - from the evidence I have seen/heard - Greenwood is a nasty piece of work and if he played for Barnsley I would refuse to go and cheer him on.
Same for Ched Evans.

 

He's a scumbag, just not a convicted scumbag. Anyone defending this scumbag is also a scumbag. Hope this helps.

 

Allegedly 12 witnesses including the lady in question have refused to cooperate and new information was found.
As a result the case was dropped.

Perhaps the original case wasn’t that strong, perhaps the 12 have had a change of heart, perhaps the new information was compelling!
Who knows

 

There’s very much a difference between ‘innocent’ and not convicted.

Even if he’d been to court and found ‘not guilty’ that does not equal ‘innocent’ in any way at all.

Let’s be absolutely clear of our language here.

 

You only quoted a small part of what I said in that section. The very next thing I wrote in the same paragraph qualified what I meant - but a little bit has been snipped out to draw a conclusion.

To be honest that sort of sums up the attitude of many on this thread. A conclusion drawn based on the bits of evidence that suit your conclusion. Despite only bearing witness to one bit of evidence, to which there has been no explanation or defence heard, no possible context offered, which would have been in court had it progressed and will likely be known by the crown.

All the rest of the evidence, which for something like this will likely be detailed and numerous, is unknown. The police have said that as well as twelve separate witnesses withdrawing, there has also been new information come to light. The implication being that this new information added to his defence and perhaps even threw the incriminating evidence into doubt as well. Yet he’s still vilified and the law is an ass.

My point wasn’t that he is an innocent, perfect little wallflower. In fact it’s pretty clear he’s far from it.

The point is that the law of the land assumes innocence until proven guilty. He hasn’t been proven guilty.

Yes in terms of terminology not guilty isn’t the same as innocent - but the legal system doesn’t find people innocent. You can’t be found innocent.

What the law does assume is innocence until guilt is proven. It hasn’t been, it won’t be, and so he remains in that sense innocent.

 

Stop talking sense, you’re a scumbag.

Like me.

 

Did you go to Oakwell to cheer on the convicted violent criminal Adam Hammill?

A man who lost control through drink, violently assaulting and injuring two women who were conducting their underpaid (and under rewarded generally) public sector work. Ok he wasn’t accused of a sex crime but he was convicted of assault of two women. He was guilty of violence.

He was convicted in a court of law, not the ‘court of common sense’. Does the court of common sense routinely decide guilt based on the the one bit of evidence which yes, isolated, strongly suggests it - without knowing anything about any of the other evidence? Without any other consideration whatsoever? Disregarding the public announcement from the police that new further evidence has been established?

Doesn’t much sound like common sense to me, more a witch hunt.

 

I appreciate that legally he’s innocent until proven guilty; but insofar as describing this as a ‘witch-hunt’:

Would you let your daughter date him?

 

Rather than innocent, it looks to me like the pressure of a celebrity case ( or something else) got to the witness and they decided they couldn’t go through with it.

 

I bet he's given her a backhander.