Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

[Cloudface]

They withdrew the case because of key witnesses dropping out as well as new evidence (which is what I assume they mean by ‘new material’).

Statement hyperlinked for your reference.

Yes I know. But the evidence submitted initially for the CPS to authorise charges will have included the audio I assume. Which the GMP would have surely analysed in full before submitting it. So I'm not really sure we can entertain the fantasies of kinky sex games if we assume they did half a job and checked the whole recording.

The key witness withdrawing after the defendant is allowed to break bail conditions repeatedly and contact them is just depressingly inevitable.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

.

That went to court and a jury of his peers in a court of law that will have paid more attention to the evidence than you did declared him not guilty. Yet you reserve judgment on a player for whom the only evidence in the public domain is damning, that has never provided any evidence as to why he's innocent? Just admit it, if he played for any other side you'd be quick to condemn.

Here’s someone who clearly doesn’t understand the racial connotations surrounding the O.J. Simpson case. And yes of course when something has been to court and all the evidence has been produced you’re in a much better position to decide on guilt or innocence. How are you pretending that is even slightly controversial?

It wouldn’t matter if the player played for any other football club on the planet no, but you clearly feel better projecting that onto anyone who questions whether or not we have seen the full evidence of this case, that never went to court.
I’ll say it once more to you, on the evidence we’ve seen so far I think he’s likely a scumbag, however I cannot say that with any certainty because this case never went to court.
If you believe I’m saying this because I want him to play for Manchester United again, you couldn’t be more wrong, I think for the family, it is much better for them to stay overseas and live life away from the scrutiny they will face in England.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

All you can do is hypothesise about what may have happened.

To an extent, yes.

But we do know that a "full audio" does exist.

(Well, I suppose we don't know that either, but we do know that Manchester United seem to think it does exist.)

Either this "full audio" provides context (for what we've all heard), i.e. it works in Greenwood's favour - or it doesn't.

That's pretty clear cut, I'd say.

 

[Raoul]

You mean the case that went to criminal court where all the evidence was subject to cross-examination?

If the glove doesn't fit - you must acquit.

 

[RedRocket08]

Exactly, that same case that went to court, where all the evidence was presented and he was found not guilty. I ask again - do you think he was actually guilty?! Many are claiming we can't decide with Greenwood because the case never went to court, yet are happy to claim OJ was guilty when the case went to court and he was found not guilty. Weird that.

That went to court and a jury of his peers in a court of law that will have paid more attention to the evidence than you did declared him not guilty. Yet you reserve judgment on a player for whom the only evidence in the public domain is damning, that has never provided any evidence as to why he's innocent? Just admit it, if he played for any other side you'd be quick to condemn.

@Wibble can I claim whataboutery here?

You could see all the evidence and context in OJ's case (If I recall the case was televised? Too young to remember whether it was televised or not tbh, but a lot of this was covered in the show People v OJ Simpson), he was later found guilty in a civil court as well. In addition, a lot of the police work behind OJ's criminal case was bungled + the fact that a lead detective on that case was a Nazi sympathiser made it easy for a lawyer like Johnny Cochrane to put just enough doubt in people (re. police competence) and then make the whole case about racism (With the Rodney King Riots providing the perfect backdrop). I would like to think that the quality of police work these days is far better than what it was in the 90s, and I think that is a safe assumption to make right. I personally do think OJ is guilty, and that he got away with it because the police (And the prosecution as a result) were incompetent, but that is an opinion - and my opinion will not influence what OJ does with the rest of his life, and who he works for.

Mason has been cleared by the CPS pre trial in light of witnesses (And not just Neo Nazi police officer witnesses, the actual alleged victim and those close to her) dropping out and in light of new material being presented to them (As per their statement). Manchester United have also cleared him after considering new material, that is not in public view.

I do think that these cases are bit different, and the only thing in common are that these are two cases of alleged criminal behaviour by pro athletes.

On your second point about being quick to condemn if he was an oppo player - If you want my POV: At least in the case of Mendy, I was ecstatic that he wasn't playing for City (As a rival fan, in a footballing sense), but I didn't judge him guilty/not guilty until the court verdict.

 

[Pickle85]

Here’s someone who clearly doesn’t understand the racial connotations surrounding the O.J. Simpson case. And yes of course when something has been to court and all the evidence has been produced you’re in a much better position to decide on guilt or innocence. How are you pretending that is even slightly controversial?

It wouldn’t matter if the player played for any other football club on the planet no, but you clearly feel better projecting that onto anyone who questions whether or not we have seen the full evidence of this case, that never went to court.
I’ll say it once more to you, on the evidence we’ve seen so far I think he’s likely a scumbag, however I cannot say that with any certainty because this case never went to court.
If you believe I’m saying this because I want him to play for Manchester United again, you couldn’t be more wrong, I think for the family, it is much better for them to stay overseas and live life away from the scrutiny they will face in England.

@Wibble can I claim whataboutery here?

You could see all the evidence and context in OJ's case (If I recall the court was televised? Too young to remember whether it was televised or not tbh, but a lot of this was covered in the show People v OJ Simpson), he was later found guilty in a civil court as well. In addition, a lot of the police work behind OJ's criminal case was bungled + the fact that a lead detective on that case was a Nazi sympathiser made it easy for a lawyer like Johnny Cochrane to put just enough doubt in people (re. police competence) and then make the whole case about racism (With the Rodney King Riots providing the perfect backdrop). I would like to think that the quality of police work these days is far better than what it was in the 90s, and I think that is a safe assumption to make right. I personally do think OJ is guilty, and that he got away with it because the police (And the prosecution as a result) were incompetent, but that is an opinion - and my opinion will not influence what OJ does with the rest of his life, and who he works for.

Mason has been cleared by the CPS pre trial in light of witnesses (And not just Neo Nazi police officer witnesses, the actual alleged victim and those close to her) dropping out and in light of new material being presented to them (As per their statement). Manchester United have also cleared him after considering new material, that is not in public view.

I do think that these cases are bit different, and the only thing in common are that these are two cases of alleged criminal behaviour by pro athletes.

On your second point about being quick to condemn if he was an oppo player - If you want my POV: At least in the case of Mendy, I was ecstatic that he wasn't playing for City (As a rival fan, in a footballing sense), but I didn't judge him guilty/not guilty until the court verdict.

Fine, the OJ case was a bit of an overreach but I do think that there's a bizarre case of some claiming to need incontrovertible evidence for this purely because to believe what's most likely (ie that he did it) means that we won't have him back. Then they're in the uncomfortable position of wanting a woman beating attempted rapist playing for the club.

Also, Greenwood wasn't cleared by the CPS was he?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Also, Greenwood wasn't cleared by the CPS was he?

No.

 

[RedRocket08]

Fine, the OJ case was a bit of an overreach but I do think that there's a bizarre case of some claiming to need incontrovertible evidence for this purely because to believe what's most likely (ie that he did it) means that we won't have him back. Then they're in the uncomfortable position of wanting a woman beating attempted rapist playing for the club.

Also, Greenwood wasn't cleared by the CPS was he?

'Most likely' - Based on CPS and United statements, I would say it's now most likely that he isn't guilty of what he's accused of. But when the news dropped initially, and when I heard the recording and saw the photos, I thought it was most likely that he actually did what he's accused of. I can't decide 100% which way I go as an outsider, because I lack the context which can swing this argument either way.

Given the statements from the CPS and Richard Arnold - Yes, I think we as the public do need incontrovertible evidence to prove that he is guilty of being (or at least publicly call him) an attempted rapist / wifebeater. If not, as the public, we just have CPS's statements and United's statements - Which I am willing to accept given they have more information/context than I do. Maybe if this new material/context is put out in the public domain, we too can decide once and for all - But the parties involved have no obligation (At the risk of further intrusion into their private lives) to make it public.

Here's a snippet from that CPS statement: “In this case a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. In these circumstances, we are under a duty to stop the case."

The problem is, that people to seem to take 'there is no longer a realistic conviction' (that phrase should be taken together with the whole statement anyway) as 'he's guilty but we can't convict him'. I don't think this is how we should interpret that particular statement.

When I mean cleared, I mean charges dropped in light of witnesses dropping out, but most importantly (Most importantly to me as an outside observer) in light of new material / evidence. 'Cleared by CPS' also doesn't mean this statement (By CPS) needs to say: 'Oh he's innocent, what an angelic human being' or something along those lines btw.

 

[NotThatSoph]

When I mean cleared, I mean charges dropped in light of witnesses dropping out, but most importantly in light of new material / evidence. 'Cleared by CPS' also doesn't mean this statement (By CPS) needs to say: 'Oh he's innocent, what an angelic human being' or something along those lines btw.

Worth noting that the "most importantly" part is your view, not the CPS.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Based on CPS and United statements, I would say it's now most likely that he isn't guilty of what he's accused of.

Can we at least agree that United's statement means exactly feck all?

United (in some shape or form) talked to Greenwood himself, got a statement from him - an explanation for what everyone heard in that audio. They then got a statement from the (alleged) victim via a representative (her mother, supposedly) which amounted to: I have nothing to add.

That's the "investigation".

If anyone has anything to add to this, any actual steps taken by United in order to clarify what happened - any actual investigation they did, any people they actually interviewed, any insights they actually managed to get - please post away.

 

[RedRocket08]

Worth noting that the "most importantly" part is your view, not the CPS.

Post amended since you insist - I had quoted the CPS statement word for word though earlier in that same post within quotation marks.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

And, again: it is extremely unlikely to get a conviction in a case like this when the (alleged) victim withdraws and won't testify.

(Yes, I am aware that "new evidence" was also stated.)

 

[golden_blunder]

Can we at least agree that United's statement means exactly feck all?

United (in some shape or form) talked to Greenwood himself, got a statement from him - an explanation for what everyone heard in that audio. They then got a statement from the (alleged) victim via a representative (her mother, supposedly) which amounted to: I have nothing to add.

That's the "investigation".

If anyone has anything to add to this, any actual steps taken by United in order to clarify what happened - any actual investigation they did, any people they actually interviewed, any insights they actually managed to get - please post away.

I think you’re fairly spot on there. That’s why I am amazed that they didn’t get an outside investigator and secondly that they can conclude that he’s not guilty. The United investigation was a botch job, completely amateurish

 

[Pickle85]

I think you’re fairly spot on there. That’s why I am amazed that they didn’t get an outside investigator and secondly that they can conclude that he’s not guilty. The United investigation was a botch job, completely amateurish

Without being too tinfoil hat, wasn't the investigation intentionally poorly executed? Basically a whitewash.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Can we at least agree that United's statement means exactly feck all?

United (in some shape or form) talked to Greenwood himself, got a statement from him - an explanation for what everyone heard in that audio. They then got a statement from the (alleged) victim via a representative (her mother, supposedly) which amounted to: I have nothing to add.

That's the "investigation".

If anyone has anything to add to this, any actual steps taken by United in order to clarify what happened - any actual investigation they did, any people they actually interviewed, any insights they actually managed to get - please post away.

All speculation I believe.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

All speculation I believe.

It's been reported all over the place. But, yes - it's speculation in the sense that it hasn't been confirmed by official sources.

Like I said above, if anyone has anything to add - feel free to do so.

Until that happens, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that as far as we know United haven't done anything beyond talking to Greenwood himself and getting some kind of statement from the alleged victim via a representative.

We know for a fact that United did not have access to all evidence in the case - that is not speculation, they have admitted as much themselves. And that alone makes Arnold's "statement" ridiculous.

 

[golden_blunder]

Without being too tinfoil hat, wasn't the investigation intentionally poorly executed? Basically a whitewash.

Hadn’t thought of that. Nah, I think it’s just been amateur hour at United. Yet another sign of incompetence

 

[Chesterlestreet]

That’s why I am amazed that they didn’t get an outside investigator and secondly that they can conclude that he’s not guilty.

It's ridiculous (as I keep saying).

Arnold could have a) hired an outside investigator (as you say) and referred to whatever they ended up finding or b) made a generic statement of some kind without stating this:

While we were unable to access certain evidence for reasons we respect, the evidence we did collate led us to conclude that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with.

That's the idiotic part. What evidence were you not able to access, and why the feck should we ignore the fact that you couldn't access it and just go along with your "conclusion" (based on what, then? Clearly not the evidence you had no access to) that he didn't commit the acts he was charged with?

"Richard Arnold, the famously sagacious successor to the venerable Edward Woodward, clearly is capable of judging what evidence is relevant and not in this case."

Said nobody ever.

(But it's actually implied by a number of people, whether they realize it or not.)

 

[Rood]

It's been reported all over the place. But, yes - it's speculation in the sense that it hasn't been confirmed by official sources.

Like I said above, if anyone has anything to add - feel free to do so.

Until that happens, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that as far as we know United haven't done anything beyond talking to Greenwood himself and getting some kind of statement from the alleged victim via a representative.

We know for a fact that United did not have access to all evidence in the case - that is not speculation, they have admitted as much themselves. And that alone makes Arnold's "statement" ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?
Unlike the CPS, the club are duty bound to come to a verdict based on whatever evidence they have and if they get an 'alterntive explanation' and the alleged victim and her family say he's not guilty then I don't really see what else the club can do at that point.

I agree that they absolutely should have got an external investigation and the length of time it took was certainly ridiculous.
Although would fans have accepted the results of an external investigation if there was no further explanation?

By the way, we don't actually know what evidence the club had - it's true that we only for sure that they spoke to Mason and the family because Arnold mentioned that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's it.

There are bits of other detail out there like that it was a 5 person committee overseeing the internal investigation including two women, so not just Arnold alone.

 

[Withnail]

I find it highly suspect that in an alleged coercive control/domestic violence case the alleged victim, after withdrawing her cooperation from the criminal investigation, refused to speak to the club during their investigation into whether he should be for United again.

If you want to conclude that her mother saying "nothing to see here" means nothing untoward happened, that's quite naive imo.

 

[Posh Red]

This thread is so depressing. Reckon I’ll stay out of it for the foreseeable.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Why is it ridiculous?

It is ridiculous to state that you "conclude that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with" while at the same time (earlier in the same bloody sentence) plainly admitting that you were "unable to access certain evidence".

They conclude that he did not commit the acts without having seen all the evidence by their own admission.

I call that ridiculous.

Anyway, it doesn't matter whether I find it ridiculous or not. What matters is that Arnold's statement shouldn't be taken for anything beyond what it is. And there are several examples in this thread - and elsewhere - of people doing just that.

There is zero evidence that Arnold has access to any relevant evidence beyond Mason Greenwood's own statement about what happened.

That is my contention, if you will.

And, like I've said a few times now, I invite anyone who knows anything about this to post anything relevant that might change my opinion.

 

[Rood]

From The Athletic:

United have taken their time, establishing an executive panel in the wake of Greenwood’s legal case being discontinued in February and going through all the evidence.

That included having access to the police work done following his initial arrest, such as seeing phone records and witness interviews, as well as making additional enquiries themselves. They have spoken to Greenwood and the complainant, as well as what the club believe are all the other relevant people. In United’s view, this has been a professional process.

“We’ve done a really detailed and thorough internal investigation and we’ve asked as many people as we can around what happened and try to understand it beyond the original investigation done by the police,” Collette Roche, United’s chief operating officer, told The Athletic last week.

“You’d expect us to engage with people who were relevant in terms of stakeholder groups,” she added but stressed the “decision is firmly a decision that’s on us”.

The panel was led by United’s chief executive, Richard Arnold, assisted by Roche, lawyer Patrick Stewart, who is the club’s general counsel, communications chief Ellie Norman and football director John Murtough.

 

[Raoul]

This thread is so depressing. Reckon I’ll stay out of it for the foreseeable.

Its also a good case study for how circular arguments on social media and forums are almost always futile productivity killers for those doing most of the arguing, often resulting in no minds being changed.

 

[Laurencio]

From The Athletic:

United have taken their time, establishing an executive panel in the wake of Greenwood’s legal case being discontinued in February and going through all the evidence.

That included having access to the police work done following his initial arrest, such as seeing phone records and witness interviews, as well as making additional enquiries themselves. They have spoken to Greenwood and the complainant, as well as what the club believe are all the other relevant people. In United’s view, this has been a professional process.

“We’ve done a really detailed and thorough internal investigation and we’ve asked as many people as we can around what happened and try to understand it beyond the original investigation done by the police,” Collette Roche, United’s chief operating officer, told The Athletic last week.

“You’d expect us to engage with people who were relevant in terms of stakeholder groups,” she added but stressed the “decision is firmly a decision that’s on us”.

The panel was led by United’s chief executive, Richard Arnold, assisted by Roche, lawyer Patrick Stewart, who is the club’s general counsel, communications chief Ellie Norman and football director John Murtough.

If they did all that, had access to all that evidence, then Arnold's letter to the fans is a right mess. He doesn't mention any of that.

 

[RedNome]

Its also a good case study for how circular arguments on social media and forums are almost always futile productivity killers for those doing most of the arguing, often resulting in no minds being changed.

That's actually the most sense you've written in here

 

[Rood]

If they did all that, had access to all that evidence, then Arnold's letter to the fans is a right mess. He doesn't mention any of that.

No coincidence that's he's no longer in a job.

 

[Rood]

But I hope this puts an end to the utter drivel people have been spouting about the club investigation.

I do understand that confidence in our board is at an all time low, but the idea that a 5 person committee spent several months on an internal investigation and it simply amounted to a quick chat with Mason and a missed call to the mother of his partner is obviously total nonsense.

The worst thing is that it's the same people who go accusing others of 'mental gymnastics' who come up with these nonsensical scenarios.

 

[Laurencio]

But I hope this puts an end to the utter drivel people have been spouting about the club investigation.

I do understand that confidence in our board is at an all time low, but the idea that a 5 person committee spent several months on an internal investigation and it simply amounted to a quick chat with Mason and a missed call to Mrs Robson is obviously total nonsense.

The worst thing is that it's the same people who go accusing others of 'mental gymnastics' who come up with this nonsensical scenarios.

Could you post a link to the Athletic article, I'd be interested in what more it has to say.

 

[Rood]

Could you post a link to the Athletic article, I'd be interested in what more it has to say.

https://theathletic.com/4739086/2023/08/16/manchester-united-mason-greenwood-future-explained/

There are other articles on The Athletic too with various bits of info that you won't find elsewhere

That's the problem nowadays, people get their info from social media and the tabloids rather than actually do some proper research.

 

[Cloud7]

Its also a good case study for how circular arguments on social media and forums are almost always futile productivity killers for those doing most of the arguing, often resulting in no minds being changed.

I'm actually amazed that folks (on both sides of this discussion) have the energy to continue having the same circular discussion over and over and over with the same points. Ever so often I see the thread has gone up by a few pages, then pop in and see that it's the same points again

 

[Peter van der Gea]

I can't believe that anyone thinks that the Man Utd statement was anything other than PR to protect the value of an asset.

What were the Glazers going to do, sack someone and say that, despite the CPS dropping the case, he is a wrong'un, who has a potential value of £60m+? That wouldn't help their dividends much, and that's the only thing that they care about.

 

[Shakesy]

Its also a good case study for how circular arguments on social media and forums are almost always futile productivity killers for those doing most of the arguing, often resulting in no minds being changed.

The purpose of arguing online is not to change the other's mind. It's to define your social media persona and entrench your biases. Every time we take a stance we move further away from reconciliation. That's why opinions are becoming more and more polarised.

I'm for the centre

 

[Smores]

But I hope this puts an end to the utter drivel people have been spouting about the club investigation.

I do understand that confidence in our board is at an all time low, but the idea that a 5 person committee spent several months on an internal investigation and it simply amounted to a quick chat with Mason and a missed call to the mother of his partner is obviously total nonsense.

The worst thing is that it's the same people who go accusing others of 'mental gymnastics' who come up with these nonsensical scenarios.

Have you ever been involved with an employee under criminal investigation or have you just found an online article and think you're now an expert?

I've told you lot on several occasions even prior to the case being dropped, an employer has very limited access and it has to be direct. The police, nor the courts have shared anything with the club that breaches confidentiality. They'll have been given statements and supporting evidence form Greenwood via his legal team so yeah phone records and whatever witness statements they could share.

It no shape or form could or has the club conducted anything resembling a criminal level investigation with full access.

 

[Rood]

Have you ever been involved with an employee under criminal investigation or have you just found an online article and think you're now an expert?

I've told you lot on several occasions even prior to the case being dropped, an employer has very limited access and it has to be direct. The police, nor the courts have shared anything with the club that breaches confidentiality. They'll have been given statements and supporting evidence form Greenwood via his legal team so yeah phone records and whatever witness statements they could share.

It no shape or form could or has the club conducted anything resembling a criminal level investigation with full access.

Yes I have actually so know very well how this kind of internal company investigation might work.

I suggest you reread the posts because no one has claimed the club conducted a criminal level investigation and there are lots of things the club could have done better, but I am absolutely certain the internal investigation was a lot more comprehensive than several here are suggesting.

 

[Rood]

I can't believe that anyone thinks that the Man Utd statement was anything other than PR to protect the value of an asset.

What were the Glazers going to do, sack someone and say that, despite the CPS dropping the case, he is a wrong'un, who has a potential value of £60m+? That wouldn't help their dividends much, and that's the only thing that they care about.

If the club had evidence that pointed to him being guilty then yes I am sure he would have been sacked. The club would have saved a lot of money in wages and it actually would have been the easy option compared to the ongoing issue that we have now.

Greenwood's value is pittance compared to the £5bn brand value of Manchester United - that is the most important asset value that they want to protect (especially at a time when they were looking for investment). The negative publicity outweighing the player's value is exactly why he was sent away on loan despite the internal investigation finding him not guilty.

 

[moses]

I'm actually amazed that folks (on both sides of this discussion) have the energy to continue having the same circular discussion over and over and over with the same points. Ever so often I see the thread has gone up by a few pages, then pop in and see that it's the same points again

Aye, usually this style of exchange is about religion. I think it's just become another culture war battleground.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I mean the only reason the case was dropped was because the material witness dropped out, nothing about new evidence or anything just that person wasn't going to testify, this he wasnt found guilty nonsense that people are using to absolve him of any wrongdoing is completely wrong, if I rob a bank tomorrow and everyone knew I did it but there was no evidence I wouldn't go to jail I still fecking robbed the bank though

No one has absolved him of a thing! That's what people like you simply REFUSE to understand! They rather simply are not as eager as you to label him a certified criminal off a post from social media, no MATTER how daming it may appear to be! It's No wonder you came up with a non sequitur fallacy of an analogy as "you robbing a bank" to compare. Because people like you have convinced themselves they know all the facts of the case and every context of the evidence. To hell with due process. To hell with investigation. Just lock him up and throw away the key or cancel him out of society. You don't care either way. You just want him ruined and gone. It wouldn't be a suprise if you had the same sentiments for those who don't agree.

 

[moses]

No one has absolved him of a thing. Thats what people like you simply REFUSE to understand. They rather simply not as eager as you to him a certified criminal of a posg from sociak media, not MATTER how daming it may appear to be! Its No wonder you came up with a non sequirtur fallacy of an analogy as "you robbing a bank" to compare. Because people like you have convinced themselves they know all the facts of the case an every context of the evidence. To hell with due process. To hell with investigation. Just lock him up and throw away the key or cancel him out of society. You don't care either way. You just want him ruined and gone.

Unbanned and straight back in the saddle with gusto. Impressive.
Relax, breathe gently, and do a spellcheck occasionally.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

For someone talking about intellectual deficiencies it's surprising you can't spell dwarfism or, seemingly, proofread.

Its no surprise you'd think that. After all you are siding with someone eager to label people willy nilly rape appolgists and moral bankrupt just because they don't believe as you do. You'd rather concentrate on the mundane than the serious.