Mason Greenwood

https://amp.theguardian.com/society...op-out-of-investigations-in-england-and-wales

 

I believe the independent review process was established later. Although judicial review has long been available. But the only person likely to have standing to challenge here would have been the complainant. So a challenge is unlikely.

 

The standard of proof in a criminal case is far above 51%, that would be "on the balance of probabilities", not "beyond reasonable doubt".

We do have an example in Scotland where David Goodwillie was found guilty of rape in a civil trial, where the "balance of probabilities" standard of proof is applied. Goodwillie has found it difficult to find a club due to public outcry whenever someone tries to sign him. Because of the lower standard of proof in a civil trial, I would be surprised if Greenwood tried to sue anyone for calling him a rapist, as the last thing he would want is that recording to be played in open court as a defence for libel, and the possibility of a court ruling that it happened. He'll probably try to brush it under the carpet, the ******* nonce.

 

It's a very sad story. I think the reason why the Greenwood case has been this big (other than he's a big footballer with one of the biggest clubs in world football), is due to the amount of evidence we've all seen. Unfortunately, a lot of the other cases can be word against word. And with stories like Andrew Malkinson, being wrongly imprisoned for 17 years after falsely being accused of rape, I think exacerbates both regular cases & makes the Greenwood case look even worse because it's so blatantly obvious what he's done.

 

Proof in a crimimal case must be beyond reasonable doubt. The CPS however apply a two stage process in determining whether to bring a case. The first stage is whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. The second stage is that there must be at least a 51% chance of securing a conviction. When the case gets to court the "beyond reasonable doubt" test applies.

 

When I did benefit fraud investigations and referred cases to the CPS they were so risk averse that the barrier seemed to be in the high 90% chance of successful prosecution for them to go with a case. I guess limited resources which has only gotten worse since then but as the saying goes “this isn’t a court of justice son this is a court of law”.

 

Anyone who defends that are scum. It should be printed off and shown to remind people

 

Not stirring the pot here, and I’ve seen the footage of her apparent injuries and heard the audio of what is transcripted above - but it wasn’t just the dropping out of one witness that led to the cps dropping the charges.

It was the withdrawal of ‘witnesses’ and ‘new material which came to light’ - so it was his girlfriend and her mate who presumably both dropped out, offering very little against the general theme of the thread. But there is also clearly further evidence as well.

We don’t know whether the further evidence offered a different view or context. It seems hard to imagine a circumstance where the video and audio offer a different explanation - but we don’t know that it doesn’t.

It is very dangerous to hang draw and quarter people based on only two bits of evidence out of an unknown total amount, probably dozens, hundreds of individual bits of evidence - however compelling the two in the public domain appear to be.

We will never see or hear all of the rest of what greater Manchester police accumulated - but rather than point out the known and obvious flaws of the legal system on other cases, I question whether there can’t be something that changed the picture significantly to have forced the CPS to drop the charges given the apparent strength of the evidence we have all (mainly all anyway) seen. There has to be a sound legal reason that proceedings were discontinued. Status and money aren’t that reason whatever people say.

There’s more to it. There must be.

As well as being back with the girl, engaged to her and having a child with her, there is also footage of him at her family home with her mum and dad, playing in the garden with her little brother. As a parent I can’t imagine allowing him anywhere near my adult daughter if I thought there was any chance he was what he has been painted to be - and I’d certainly not have him at my house and around my younger child - who’s very young by the looks of it. No money in the world would allow that. He’s innocent in the eyes of the law - and without seeing and hearing everything the cps has, and whilst I can think of some things I won’t speculate as to what they might be - it is very dangerous for the public to draw conclusions.

All this said it’s difficult to imagine a circumstance where he can play in this country now. Too many people have found him guilty and won’t be convinced otherwise.

 

There's more than enough evidence to say that he shouldn't be employed in a position where he will be an idol and example for impressionable young men.

 

A well know Barnsley legend was convicted, in court, of hitting a woman.
I could name others who had been up to all kinds of tricks, but no day in court.

 

Bingo.

Let him work in Greggs.

 

While our justice system isn't infallible, I'm pretty sure that mistakes are very much the exception. Otherwise the whole system would collapse. I don't have faith in very much going on in Britain right now, but our court and justice system definitely isn't one of my main causes for concern. In fact, when you compare it to the legal system in most countries, it's pretty exceptional.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that they've got it right in the case of Greenwood. This is very much an overview.

 

But clearly not enough to maintain a reasonable prospect of conviction. As I said earlier though, United have the resources to fund any settlement of his contractual rights should he be deemed to still possess the same in the light of his behaviour. But if, as seems likely United dispense with his services will it really signify any moral courage on their part, or simply a desire to protect their reputation ("brand")?

 

Would be interesting to see if he stayed if future contract negotiations would be affected by the impact on the brand.

 

That's an interesting one! If he accepted a reduced contract then that would be tantamount to admitting his bad behaviour? But in respect of United, it would look as though they'd monetarised it, so I suspect it's a more binary decision for the club. Keep him or sack him.

 

You're arguing against those who seek to have trial conviction and sentence by media and mob.

And the beneficiary of your argument would appear to be a dubious character in a privileged position. So kudos to you.

Your patience and fairness is commendable.

 

At present they're displaying no moral conviction. They've clearly done an assessment of the potential value of Greenwood less the damage to the brand of him staying and determined that the number is positive, so nothing else matters.

 

Would you be happy to have him play for Barnsley? Or for your kid to get a shirt with his name on the back?

 

Wouldn't want him at tarn but United are in a difficult position. firstly despite all the stuff thats out there his future can't be decided on trial by media..secondly it looks like it's the lass and her witnesses that have withdrawn leaving the case too weak to go forward. thirdly this leaves Utd with a player who in law has been found guilty in law of nothing ( Ah refuse to put innocent) and should they act against him he could sue their ar*e off. clearly best way is mutual agreement as he will damage their image if he stays so sadly it's a payoff..

 

No he couldn't sue their arse off. There will be a clause in his contract about bringing the club into disrepute.