Mason Greenwood

[Cicero]

He wouldn’t be with her if she falsely accused him of anything imo. 

[Juniper]

15 minutes ago, Cicero said:

He wouldn’t be with her if she falsely accused him of anything imo. 

She would have accused him after. We will never know what went on.

[Devil]

16 minutes ago, Cicero said:

He wouldn’t be with her if she falsely accused him of anything imo. 

He couldn't be could he, if she's falsely accused him then she's destroyed his career and it's not like he's lost his job at IKEA is it.

His family wouldn't accept her surely, that said if its the other way round how are her family accepting him!!!

The whole situation is insane. Keep it well away from Manchester United for me, let him sit at home his whole contract if that's what's got to be done.

[Juniper]

15 minutes ago, Devil said:

He couldn't be could he, if she's falsely accused him then she's destroyed his career and it's not like he's lost his job at IKEA is it.

His family wouldn't accept her surely, that said if its the other way round how are her family accepting him!!!

The whole situation is insane. Keep it well away from Manchester United for me, let him sit at home his whole contract if that's what's got to be done.

Whether he is innocent or not they will pay off his contract and let him loose (severance) if not already This has tarred him and will bring the club negative media coverage. As stated they still haven't finished their 'on going' investigation but we may find he will be paid off with a severance payment. We may not know the reason behind the retraction of the statements by alleged witnesses but could speculate and it is this speculation which will see him leave Man Utd. He may get another club with a club willing to take him on, who knows? 

[The Palace Fan]

On 25/02/2023 at 13:40, MUFC said:

The new evidence that came to light must of been that she was pregnant meaning she had sexual relations with Mason after he was charged.

You couldn’t make this up.

I've seen first hand the lengths a family will go to when it comes to ignoring what a professional footballer has done in the hope of being a part of his financial pie. Its weird and sad.

 

EDIT: I should probably add he hasn't done anything criminal. 

[Devil]

8 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

I've seen first hand the lengths a family will go to when it comes to ignoring what a professional footballer has done in the hope of being a part of his financial pie. Its weird and sad.

Can you share this first hand info?

[The Palace Fan]

1 hour ago, Devil said:

Can you share this first hand info?

Clearly not.

[OrangeKhrush]

what a weird situation.  just when yo think this couldn't get any more crazy, the plot tells you to hold it's beer

[Devil-Dick Willie]

On 26/02/2023 at 05:07, The Palace Fan said:

I've seen first hand the lengths a family will go to when it comes to ignoring what a professional footballer has done in the hope of being a part of his financial pie. Its weird and sad.

Even the football stuff aside. Last year I did accounting with a girl who we shall call Stacy for the purposes of the story. She had a cop boyfriend of 3 years, and she always went on about how sweet and protective he was (all the stories sounded overbearing and possessive to me but I didn't tell her that) 
In 2nd semester we both had another accounting class, so she organized for us to have the same tutorial time. One day we were studying in the library with another girl and we were having the conversation about how most cops are fuckwits, and that every cop friend I have had or friend of friend I have heard stories about has been a fucking psycho or insecure wreck. Stacy insisted hers was different. Remember this part of the tale. 

Few months later they break up, Stacy goes through a post break up off the pill hoe phase and I cash in my chips. At dinner she tells me that the day we studied together he pushed her down a flight of stairs for studying with me . He had done worse in the past too. Afterwards she gets a call FROM THE EX. And she tells me they're still banging occasionally. Fucking mental. I told her that if she can't help herself in that situation she deserves a round 2. 

[Bluebird Hewitt]

Might as well chuck it in here. Could have put it in the Man U discussion but whatever.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66357915

[Pyfish+]

Seems almost like a Catch 22 situation for United at the moment. Let him play and people will be outraged; don't let him play and the other set of people will be outraged. it's not great press for United either way.

[Danny]

The audio that was released should be enough, United should have had the done and dusted a long time ago. Not a great look for the club, especially for the fanbase who want him gone

[Redcanuck]

I stand tby the concept of innocent til proven guilty, it's the corner stone of our judicial system. All charges have been dropped, he's not been found guilty , so under the law he is innocent.  

However, unless we are told what the new material that came to light is,  that meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction, it's hard to make an informed decision. There is always going to be doubt and the CPS are doing everybody a disservice by keeping this new material secret, especially if it casts doubt on the authenticity of the pictures and the audio tape.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Redcanuck said:

I stand tby the concept of innocent til proven guilty, it's the corner stone of our judicial system. All charges have been dropped, he's not been found guilty , so under the law he is innocent.  

However, unless we are told what the new material that came to light is,  that meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction, it's hard to make an informed decision. There is always going to be doubt and the CPS are doing everybody a disservice by keeping this new material secret, especially if it casts doubt on the authenticity of the pictures and the audio tape.

I think it's a bit weird though to accept him as innocent when the only reason the charges were dropped is because the victim wasn't willing to testify anymore. The audio and photos are damning.

It's sort of corporate soulless immorality, like when NFL teams pick up a player that's been released from another side because of video evidence of their player punching a woman in the head. I expect more from football clubs like United because they should be more than just a soulless corporate entity. They're meant to reflect a community and the values of that community. I guess when you've got owners like the Glazers though that all goes out the window because modern football's doing all it can to remove community values from our historic clubs for the sake of chasing cash.

I think it's a bit sad that this announcement seems to be a way of easing fans back into the idea of having him in the first team squad again. I hope he gets an insufferably hard time from United fans and from fans of every team they face, he's a despicable manchild who did horrible and unforgiveable things.

[Redcanuck]

46 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think it's a bit weird though to accept him as innocent when the only reason the charges were dropped is because the victim wasn't willing to testify anymore. The audio and photos are damning.

It's sort of corporate soulless immorality, like when NFL teams pick up a player that's been released from another side because of video evidence of their player punching a woman in the head. I expect more from football clubs like United because they should be more than just a soulless corporate entity. They're meant to reflect a community and the values of that community. I guess when you've got owners like the Glazers though that all goes out the window because modern football's doing all it can to remove community values from our historic clubs for the sake of chasing cash.

I think it's a bit sad that this announcement seems to be a way of easing fans back into the idea of having him in the first team squad again. I hope he gets an insufferably hard time from United fans and from fans of every team they face, he's a despicable manchild who did horrible and unforgiveable things.

The bolded part isn't true.  The fact that the victim wouldn't testify anymore is irrelevant and unfortunately not that uncommon. If the photos and the tape are genuine there is enough evidence to try him and convict him.  A prosecutor doesn't need the victim to testify if they have enough evidence to convict without their testimony.  The CPS are also legally obligated to take this to trail if they are given or find enough evidence.

It seems to me that it was the discovery of new material that led the CPS to feel there was little or no chance of a conviction.  However, what that new material is, is anybody guess.  Without knowing all the facts you run the risk of destroying his career unjustly.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Redcanuck

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Redcanuck said:

The bolded part isn't true.  The fact that the victim wouldn't testify anymore is irrelevant and unfortunately not that uncommon. If the photos and the tape are genuine there is enough evidence to try him and convict him.  A prosecutor doesn't need the victim to testify if they have enough evidence to convict without their testimony.  

That all depends on what his defense would have been tbh. I don't think it's coincidental that once she made the decision that she wouldn't testify, it wasn't much later that the prosecution dropped charges. The case against him was hinging on her social media posts and her releasing the audio, to get the full context of all of that in court... you sort of need her to testify.

[Redcanuck]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That all depends on what his defense would have been tbh. I don't think it's coincidental that once she made the decision that she wouldn't testify, it wasn't much later that the prosecution dropped charges. The case against him was hinging on her social media posts and her releasing the audio, to get the full context of all of that in court... you sort of need her to testify.

It's a question for a lawyer,  which I am not, but the pictures and the tape were publicized by the media, doesn't that make them part of the public record? Also I belive the CPS can read the statement or statements she has already given into the record at the trial whether she testifies or not.  

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 minutes ago, Redcanuck said:

It's a question for a lawyer,  which I am not, but the pictures and the tape were publicized by the media, doesn't that make them part of the public record? Also I belive the CPS can read the statement or statements she has already given into the record at the trial whether she testifies or not.  

Yeah, not a lawyer either so I don't have the answer for that either.

But just like the NFL taking players who aren't convicted in court but have public evidence of them doing horrible things... I think it's a bit morally empty to just let him keep playing. So if anyone else wants to judge him based off the photos and audio, I welcome that decision. I think it's a bit sad all he really loses is just a bit of his career for what looks like a brutally violent rape.

I've got a friend back home who's a United fan and his very young son absolutely loved Mason Greenwood. He had to tell the kid, without going into detail about what the photos and audio demonstrated to the public, that he'd have to take the Greenwood shirt away from him and he couldn't get another Greenwood shirt because he'd done something very very bad. I feel for him and other parents in his situation when if their club puts this guy back into the first team and these young kids who don't really know any better start making this guy an idol again. It's a bit different to the Mendy case or even the Ronaldo arse-rape situation, where there's just allegations but little hard evidence made public.

I dunno what my mate's supposed to say if his kid asks for another Greenwood shirt - I wouldn't want my kid wearing a shirt with the name of a guy who brutally beat a woman and thinks he's entitled to have sex even if it amounts to rape.

[The Palace Fan]

5 hours ago, Redcanuck said:

The bolded part isn't true.  The fact that the victim wouldn't testify anymore is irrelevant and unfortunately not that uncommon. If the photos and the tape are genuine there is enough evidence to try him and convict him.  A prosecutor doesn't need the victim to testify if they have enough evidence to convict without their testimony.  The CPS are also legally obligated to take this to trail if they are given or find enough evidence.

If that was the case then the backlog of cases awaiting to go to trial would be far more horrendous than it already is.

The reality of the situation is without the victims support in DV cases, they'll drop the case the majority of the time, because they're aware how difficult it is to convince a 12 person jury without the support of a victim.

[Redcanuck]

42 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

If that was the case then the backlog of cases awaiting to go to trial would be far more horrendous than it already is.

The reality of the situation is without the victims support in DV cases, they'll drop the case the majority of the time, because they're aware how difficult it is to convince a 12 person jury without the support of a victim.

In this case I believe that the pictures and the tape would be enough to get a conviction.  Providing they haven't been photo shopped or doctored in anyway.  

[Danny]

42 minutes ago, Redcanuck said:

In this case I believe that the pictures and the tape would be enough to get a conviction.  Providing they haven't been photo shopped or doctored in anyway.  

You would be surprised at how much evidence the CPS can have and still not get a conviction.

[Inverted]

The most important evidence in a rape trial is typically the victim's testimony. 

If she gave evidence, then the pictures and the recording would do a great job in corroborating what she said. But trying to piece together a precise sequence of events without any witness is just too much of a stretch.

[Dr. Gonzo]

9 hours ago, Inverted said:

The most important evidence in a rape trial is typically the victim's testimony. 

If she gave evidence, then the pictures and the recording would do a great job in corroborating what she said. But trying to piece together a precise sequence of events without any witness is just too much of a stretch.

There we go, @Redcanuck - a lawyer's perspective.

[Redcanuck]

10 hours ago, Inverted said:

The most important evidence in a rape trial is typically the victim's testimony. 

If she gave evidence, then the pictures and the recording would do a great job in corroborating what she said. But trying to piece together a precise sequence of events without any witness is just too much of a stretch.

I understand that the victim's testimony in a rape trail is usually the most important evidence, but in this case don't you think the photos and the tape are damning enough?    Also can the CPS read her previous witness statements into the record at a trial even if she doesn't want them to?

[Inverted]

2 hours ago, Redcanuck said:

I understand that the victim's testimony in a rape trail is usually the most important evidence, but in this case don't you think the photos and the tape are damning enough?    Also can the CPS read her previous witness statements into the record at a trial even if she doesn't want them to?

I'm not a criminal lawyer (and not even and English lawyer in the first place) but that sounds iffy.

It isn't generally done and I would guess it's because it raises the problem that the defence has no opportunity to cross-examine and therefore it causes a massive procedural unfairness. A judge might feel the unfairness is balanced out in cases where there is a genuine reason (I think I've heard of old statements being read where a witness has died) but a witness just refusing to cooperate isn't really a legitimate reason. 

So I imagine a judge would be wary. And you can't ask a police officer what the victim said at the time because that's essentially hearsay - it's someone repeating what they heard someone else say. If the evidence is what someone has said, then you always want it first-hand, from the person who actually said it, and you want the person who said it to formally swear to and stand by its accuracy.