Benjamin Mendy Found Not Guilty of Rape Charges

[Happy Blue]

7 hours ago, Bluewolf said:

Some of these cases baffle me... Mendy was named and shamed long before he had a trial and in this particular instance has been proven innocent but the damage is done now... The police would always say they name people in the hopes that others will come forward but I think they should keep it under wraps until they have their trial and then if found guilty then name and shame them and if others come forward as a result of that conviction then they could just add further charges and extend the punishment... 

 

The same thing thats been done to Manchester City FC, people dont understand innocent until proven guilty then when proven innocent you STILL get people saying he got off because X/Y/Z  

[Dave]

There may not have been a recording but this wasn't an isolated incident with one victim. For so many people to come forward he's going to face the same court of public opinion as the person on the other side of town.

My personal opinion is that it's wrong to continue to treat him as a guilty man & essentially say he shouldn't be shown the compassion a "normal" person would be shown with regards to his mental wellbeing & reputation.

4 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

The same thing thats been done to Manchester City FC, people dont understand innocent until proven guilty then when proven innocent you STILL get people saying he got off because X/Y/Z  

That's because people do get off on technicalities...

[Tar-Mairon]

Right.

There is a lot of nonsense in society that there are huge groups of women everywhere who are on a scam, making up stories together to destroy innocent celebrity men's reputation which hardly ever happens to a normal man. A false accusation of rape is extremely rare and pales into comparison to the amount of people who get off being rapists.

Also, a woman behaving in a way someone may not necessarily expect a victim to behave does not mean she is not a victim. Trauma can be complex.

However, yes, Mendy has been found Not Guilty and it is now up to City to decide whether he has breached his contract or disgraced the club in an ethical sense which is a much lower bar.

 

[Happy Blue]

1 hour ago, The Palace Fan said:

That's because people do get off on technicalities...

Well Man City never has

[Storts]

15 hours ago, Bluewolf said:

Some of these cases baffle me... Mendy was named and shamed long before he had a trial and in this particular instance has been proven innocent but the damage is done now... The police would always say they name people in the hopes that others will come forward but I think they should keep it under wraps until they have their trial and then if found guilty then name and shame them and if others come forward as a result of that conviction then they could just add further charges and extend the punishment... 

 

He has not been proven innocent! Very disappointed to see that language from you. He was found not guilty. Very different.

[Dave]

2 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

Well Man City never has

Google what 'time barred' means.

[6666]

4 hours ago, Tar-Mairon said:

A false accusation of rape is extremely rare and pales into comparison to the amount of people who get off being rapists.

I don't totally disagree with this as a lot of the time it's difficult to prove something like this happened but it also relies on assuming most people that are found not guilty must actually be guilty just based on feeling.

False accusations do exist that's why you can't assume someone's guilty. Even if the likelihood of a false accusation is 1%.

[Bluewolf]

1 hour ago, Storts said:

He has not been proven innocent! Very disappointed to see that language from you. He was found not guilty. Very different.

We can argue semantics but the point of the post was that it was the process they follow in cases like these... This named and shamed before a trial has even started is wrong for me.. Clearly they felt they had enough evidence to take it to court which may mean he was not innocent in all of this but as you know the law requires that you have to prove wrong doing beyond a reasonable doubt and in this case that clearly couldn't be done so they had to find him not guilty.. 

Cases like this can be very tricky, the woman in question could have been an aggrieved one night stand or he could have been forceful or coercive or threatening even so I agree he may not have been 'innocent' in all of this but then that's not what I was getting at... That's a complicated story that only those that were there and the jury could pass judgement on.. 

[Tar-Mairon]

1 hour ago, 6666 said:

I don't totally disagree with this as a lot of the time it's difficult to prove something like this happened but it also relies on assuming most people that are found not guilty must actually be guilty just based on feeling.

False accusations do exist that's why you can't assume someone's guilty. Even if the likelihood of a false accusation is 1%.

Everybody is entitled to a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty etc although personally, there are some people I would not hesitate to call rapists who haven't been found guilty yet. I appreciate the law cannot do that though.

We also must not assume that the women in the Mendy trial have lied either because we do not have evidence of that.

There is now, unfortunately, some wide-ranging belief that women and groups of women are conducting sexual abuse hoaxes on famous men to ruin them which is just not true at all and so rare as to be practically non existent. 

[Tar-Mairon]

55 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

We can argue semantics but the point of the post was that it was the process they follow in cases like these... This named and shamed before a trial has even started is wrong for me.. Clearly they felt they had enough evidence to take it to court which may mean he was not innocent in all of this but as you know the law requires that you have to prove wrong doing beyond a reasonable doubt and in this case that clearly couldn't be done so they had to find him not guilty.. 

Cases like this can be very tricky, the woman in question could have been an aggrieved one night stand or he could have been forceful or coercive or threatening even so I agree he may not have been 'innocent' in all of this but then that's not what I was getting at... That's a complicated story that only those that were there and the jury could pass judgement on.. 

Regarding this case, it seems that everyone agreed that these women consented to attend parties at Mendy's house (technically illegal as the country was in lockdown at the time) and that there was some consensual contact between him and the women.

Stories very after this with Mendy being accused of sexual assault and rape and Mendy claiming that things continued to be consensual.

Rape is extremely difficult to prove unless there is corroborating visual evidence such as physical injuries, unfortunately. I would presume the jury either thought that:

A) The evidence threshold for rape had not been met - not enough evidence was provided.

B) They found the evidence too ambiguous to decide either way which means they must find Not Guilty.

C) They believed that Mendy was telling the truth.

We don't know which of these it is but the women must be entitled to the presumption that they reported him in good faith which "he was found innocent" does not suggest, although I am not arguing your intentions. 

[Stan]

This sums it up pretty well for me. 

CPS would have granted that there be enough evidence to agree with the police investigations and bring all the charges forward on him. 

That there is not enough for a jury to find him guilty doesn't necessarily mean he's not some kind of sexual predator. If it was one or two accounts then there's some element of benefit of doubt. But we're talking several accounts from several women. So not isolated incidents. 

I wouldn't trust that Mendy is a good person given his actions, and I feel most for the women that had to go through their ordeals with him and then relive them through this trial. It must be harrowing for them. The support given to Mendy saying he's now innocent (not saying Bluewolf is saying this, and I don't believe he mentioned 'innocence' in a malicious way) and free etc seems like a slap in the face for the women that found the courage and bravery within them to report him to the Police. I hope they get the necessary support and help after this. 

[Happy Blue]

2 hours ago, The Palace Fan said:

Google what 'time barred' means.

We was innocent of that charge too even if it was timed barred, if it wasnt we would of still been proven innocent 

Basically the whole thing was about something that was brought up in the uafa investigation and it boils down to some guy paid the money on behalf of Etisalat in 2 payments of 15m one in 2012 and in 2013 and that person was connected to us, however those by a broker acting on behalf of Etisalat who was having cash flow issues, and city shown evidence at the cas hearing showing Etisalat repaid the money a year later, so basically Etisalat used a broker and intermediary to pay their sponsorship to city and then Etisalat repaid it a year later

so in essence Etisalat  borrowed the sponsorship money, this was a time bared offence at the time. Basically this just allowed Etisalat to start their sponsorship agreement earlier when they didn't have the money, but IGT allowed city to add it to their 2012 financial figure, but this is just a everyday business thing that lots of companies do called invoice factoring where companies get paid straight away but its paid back at a later date, it is just a general business thong that gets done all the time. Yes it was time barred but it would have been dismissed anyway similar to the same accusation made about Etihad, that was within the statute of limitation but was found to NOT be true by case and city was proved innocent on

[Happy Blue]

Benjamin Mendy signs for Ligue 1 side Lorient

Benjamin Mendy will continue his football journey at Lorient, after signing a two-year deal.

[OrangeKhrush]

On 15/07/2023 at 12:51, Storts said:

He has not been proven innocent! Very disappointed to see that language from you. He was found not guilty. Very different.

In terms of criminal law if the state fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt and you are acquitted of the charges,  then you are by the the legal definition,  innocent.   This shows that the western legal system,  the one people conveniently vaunt over middle eastern and asian systems as being fair,  works when applied properly.   

If the state or plaintiff cannot prove their case beyond reasonable doubt (balance of probabilities in a civil case which is a lower threshold) then you should maybe consider the damage to the accused/defendent's reputation.   This is nothing like the Greenwood's case where he was not acquitted.

I think Mendy should now consider crimen injuria  charges against womans rights groups that smeared his reputation as well as the "victim" as his career is well and truly destroyed. 

[Cicero]

He's very much in the Ronaldo category where even though the charges were dropped or found not guilty, something may have happened. 

[Stan]

13 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

as his career is well and truly destroyed. 

Getting a move immediately to Lorient suggest very much the opposite. 

[OrangeKhrush]

10 minutes ago, Stan said:

Getting a move immediately to Lorient suggest very much the opposite. 

Its a long way down to Lorient

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Its a long way down to Lorient

But you said his career has been 'destroyed'. It hasn't. It's still going. 

[6666]

 

On 19/07/2023 at 16:59, Stan said:

But you said his career has been 'destroyed'. It hasn't. It's still going. 

Being pedantic about the wording aside, you have to admit his career was damaged by it. Whether you think that's deserved or not is a different matter.