Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic

[Duafc]

Well no I didnt actually, I said I dont think it is but Im open to the possibility as obviously none of us know the actual truth.

Immediately saying you don’t think it is, is a judgement.

If you didnt think he said rapist you have to have a reason, but when I asked, you then had no idea.

Clearly though, some idea prompted you to say you didn’t think it was. (Probably a desire to minimise the whole thing as Bellingham calling him a rapist hurts the MG back brand.)

As for the second in bold, what you’ve said above is not at all what you said initially. You mocked lip readers on twitter, quite fairly.

Again, all this dancing around and answers like you’re on PMQs just underpins the ridiculousness of the position around the entire thing.

 

[Fridge chutney]

We will find out soon enough.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

We will find out soon enough.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So, which member of the caf is getting the call?

 

[NotThatSoph]

And lastly please do provide your source which explains your witness withdrawing/redacted statement claim better as this will allow me to better understand what you're suggesting happened in the timeline.

Withdrawing as a witness typically means that you no longer want to cooperate with the investigation, so things like no more statements/interviews, and that you don't want to be a witness in court. Recanting is making a new witness statement, stating that you don't stand by your previous ones.

I have no idea why you're asking for a source. You can obviously withdraw as a witness without recanting previous witness statements, just like you can recant previous witness statements without withdrawing as a witness. You can do neither, you can do both. She did both. She either did both things simultaneously, or at two different times, that I don't know.

 

[rimaldo]

he was simply saying “ray. pissed.” most concur that they were discussing ray parlour’s antics in the late 90s.

 

[Lash]

The interesting bit about Getafe reporting Bellingham to La Liga is the player will now have to take a position either admitting or denying it. Admitting it would result in a sanction, so denying it would seem like the rational decision given that nothing can be proven either way.

I don't think this is true in Spain. As @Fridge chutney posted, I'm pretty sure la liga have form for getting in lip readers to determine stuff like this.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Well we know that the victim tried to withdraw from April 2022. Charges were made in October 2022 despite this.

The CPS do not make decisions over someone's guilt, only if they should face a court. The two questions the CPS has to consider when making charges are "Does the evidence provide a realistic prospect of conviction?" and "Is it in the public interest to prosecute?"

In October 2022, after the alleged victim made attempts to cancel the investigation, the CPS charged Greenwood because the evidence at the time provided a realistic prospect of conviction and/or it was in the public interest to prosecute.

Between October and Feb 2023 the case was closed due to witnesses withdrawing and new material coming to the light. If the new material is a redacted statement, the likelihood is that redaction is from April 2022 (or not long after) and was already known to the CPS when they decided to press charges. So this wouldn't have been new material - it was already existing material they were aware of at the time of prosecution.

The likelihood is that the new material isn't a redacted statement and I think you know this too. Nothing in the timelines we know or the information in the public domain suggests this.

You, and myself, also do not know what statements were provided by the alleged victim to begin with and any redactions made. What we do know is the alleged victim did try to cancel the investigation 5 months prior to charges being applied.

For full transparency and to ensure we are both talking about the same thing. Can you possibly provide a source which expands on this point, "You can withdraw as a witness without recanting the statements you've already made". It would help me understand your theory better if I can read the legal text which explains what you're suggesting. I'm struggling to find anything myself so feel we need to clarify this.

Richard Arnold clearly said that the audio was a part of a longer recording alongside saying he was provided alternative explanations for the recording.

"We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording"

Explanations is the operative word of course and the following line is further evidence he likely didn't listen to it "While we were unable to access certain evidence for reasons we respect".

They does not mean the CPS didn't access it and that it wasn't potentially the new material which influenced the case being dropped. If the CPS didn't have access to it then Richard Arnold's statement could incriminate whoever was in hold of the tape for perverting the course of justice through the withholding of crucial evidence.

You seem to discount the likelihood that the new material referenced by the CPS is an extended audio or other evidence. Instead pushing that it's actually a redacted statement from a witness who attempted to cancel the investigation 5 months prior to Greenwood being charged. In which case its existing material and not new material.

Unless you believe it was redacted after October 2022 which would imply Richard Arnold is lying or knowingly being misleading when he says:

"The alleged victim requested the police to drop their investigation in April 2022."

And lastly please do provide your source which explains your witness withdrawing/redacted statement claim better as this will allow me to better understand what you're suggesting happened in the timeline.

Seriously man, you spending a lot of time exploring the possibility that they hidden extended version of the audio exonerate Greenwood and that we should ignore that she made a statement, regardless of whether she later retracted it.

Not just a statement, a full ACE interview. They are deep and they retraumatise you, everything is written down and recorded by camera. And they last ages.

Either she recanted a true story that corroborates the evidence or the only other possibility is that her initial statement was false.

 

[Raoul]

Either she recanted a true story that corroborates the evidence or the only other possibility is that her initial statement was false.

These seem the most plausible of options.

 

[Raoul]

We will find out soon enough.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Should be interesting given that lip reading is only considered to be about 30-40% accurate

 

[redcucumber]

It's a drip, drip, drip of new evidence. Ignore it if you want.

It's not evidence?! That's the frustration here! Somebody theorised that Bellingham/the England team had heard the longer version of the tape which didn't absolve Greenwood thus Bellingham was still happy to call him a rapist. That isn't by any metric evidence ffs.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

It's not evidence?! That's the frustration here! Somebody theorised that Bellingham/the England team had heard the longer version of the tape which didn't absolve Greenwood thus Bellingham was still happy to call him a rapist. That isn't by any metric evidence ffs.

Other people are theorising that the extended version of the tape exonerates him. Both are theories, grow up

 

[Leftback99]

It's not evidence?! That's the frustration here! Somebody theorised that Bellingham/the England team had heard the longer version of the tape which didn't absolve Greenwood thus Bellingham was still happy to call him a rapist. That isn't by any metric evidence ffs.

No I theorised that if there was a longer version of the the tape or other reasons which exonerated him then the England players would have heard about it as it would be known to our own players.

 

[Red the Bear]

Maybe Bellingham is a proud unionist and simply called him a papist.

 

[redcucumber]

Other people are theorising that the extended version of the tape exonerates him. Both are theories, grow up

good lord man. This thread really brings out the best in people.

 

[Rood]

Immediately saying you don’t think it is, is a judgement.

If you didnt think he said rapist you have to have a reason, but when I asked, you then had no idea.

Clearly though, some idea prompted you to say you didn’t think it was. (Probably a desire to minimise the whole thing as Bellingham calling him a rapist hurts the MG back brand.)

As for the second in bold, what you’ve said above is not at all what you said initially. You mocked lip readers on twitter, quite fairly.

Again, all this dancing around and answers like you’re on PMQs just underpins the ridiculousness of the position around the entire thing.

I gave my reasons why in the bit you deleted from my last post.

You need to go back and see how our conversation started - you asked me what I thought he said and it was to that question that I answered 'No idea'.
I now see some speculation that he said 'rubbish', not my view but it is a possibility. Entirely possible that he said 'rapist' too and if there is an investigation then I'll await the details.

Im not dancing around anything - my position is clear, consistent and completely logical as far as Im concerned.

 

[Duafc]

I gave my reasons why in the bit you deleted from my last post.

You need to go back and see how our conversation started - you asked me what I thought he said and it was to that question that I answered 'No idea'.
I now see some speculation that he said 'rubbish', not my view but it is a possibility. Entirely possible that he said 'rapist' too and if there is an investigation then I'll await the details.

Im not dancing around anything - my position is clear, consistent and completely logical as far as Im concerned.

How can you not think he said it if you have no idea what he said?

 

[Rood]

How can you not think he said it if you have no idea what he said?

I told you why already:

I havent taken the time to check when this apparently happened in the match, if they had been arguing, had a bad tackle or what exactly.
The short clip Ive seen was completely innocuous so seems weird that Bellingham would suddenly decide to call him out like that - the entire thing is fueled by one post on Twitter as far as I can tell.

 

[moses]

Yes, that must be it, trial by Twitter. Poor Mason, the victim of virtue-signalling fellow pros. The lad can't catch a break.

That said, I wouldn't be shocked if that's not what Bellingham said. It would be very odd.

 

[duffer]

The interesting bit about Getafe reporting Bellingham to La Liga is the player will now have to take a position either admitting or denying it. Admitting it would result in a sanction, so denying it would seem like the rational decision given that nothing can be proven either way.

A sanction for what? Calling him a rapist? How is that sanctionable by the Spanish league?

Would be the first case of a football league punishing a player for slander I would imagine.

 

[moses]

A sanction for what? Calling him a rapist? How is that sanctionable by the Spanish league?

Would be the first case of a football league punishing a player for slander I would imagine.

Would set a precedent and make all sorts of shenanigans possible. Still not sure why Getafe insisted it be reported.

 

[Duafc]

Would set a precedent and make all sorts of shenanigans possible. Still not sure why Getafe insisted it be reported.

snowflakes I guess.

 

[moses]

snowflakes I guess.

Oddly hungry for negative publicity.

 

[Partridge]

It is. One post, that was subsequently retweeted ad nauseam for point scoring purposes. Bellingham could well have actually said it, although we will never know unless he admits it, which is highly unlikely imo.

I'd be interested to hear what lip readers think...

 

[Duafc]

I told you why already:

I havent taken the time to check when this apparently happened in the match, if they had been arguing, had a bad tackle or what exactly.
The short clip Ive seen was completely innocuous so seems weird that Bellingham would suddenly decide to call him out like that - the entire thing is fueled by one post on Twitter as far as I can tell.

Quite tired of this. You said all of the above after your initial post, my question and your response.

You were clearly referring to the actual lip reading element below, not the wider context of why Bellingham would say something like that.

I dont think he is saying that but Im not a lip reading expert like half of Twitter apparently are

As inane a conversation as I’ve had here over a small point, good evening!

 

[FrankDrebin]

So Mason doesn't like rap music then.

 

[Seveneric]

If anyone has ever watched those bad lip reading videos, you'll see how by lip reading, things can seem wildly different to what was said, especially when the power of the mind (when you're already conditioned to want to hear 'rapist' due to who is involved) is at work. How anyone can be so sure that's what Bellingham said to the extent that he's getting praised for it is fecking bizarre.

This isn't remotely in defense of Greenwood btw (ew), just another evidenceof the seeming brain rot where no one seems to want to think and everyone is just retweeting and believing things like brain dead sheep. Scary and irritating.

 

[moses]

If anyone has ever watched those bad lip reading videos, you'll see how by lip reading, things can seem widely different to what was said, especially when the power of the mind (when you're already conditioned to hear 'rapist' due to who is involved) is at work. How anyone can be so sure that's what Bellingham said to the extent that he's getting praised for it is fecking bizarre.

This isn't remotely in defense of Greenwood btw (ew), just the seeming brain rot where no one seems to want to think and everyone is just retweeting and believing things like brain dead sheep. Scary and irritating.

Aye. It's wild, and what he said is almost irrelevant. The damning fact is that there is a circus around Greenwood because of how it has all played out.

If there is mitigating info it should be released or else MG needs to accept this is his fate.

 

[Rood]

That said, I wouldn't be shocked if that's not what Bellingham said. It would be very odd.

Exactly - as far as I know they didn't have any kind of bust up but I've not watched any of the match to know if there was, still too busy watching replays of Mainoo!

 

[DJ Jeff]

If anyone has ever watched those bad lip reading videos, you'll see how by lip reading, things can seem widely different to what was said, especially when the power of the mind (when you're already conditioned to want to hear 'rapist' due to who is involved) is at work. How anyone can be so sure that's what Bellingham said to the extent that he's getting praised for it is fecking bizarre.

This isn't remotely in defense of Greenwood btw (ew), just another evidenceof the seeming brain rot where no one seems to want to think and everyone is just retweeting and believing things like brain dead sheep. Scary and irritating.

Yeah like I'd give Greenwood shit about it on the pitch too in an attempt to throw him off but people acting like Bellingham's a saint for saying something anyone would say to him is weird. That and I'm not remotely sure that's what he actually said.

 

[Rood]

Quite tired of this. You said all of the above after your initial post, my question and your response.

You were clearly referring to the actual lip reading element below, not the wider context of why Bellingham would say something like that.




As inane a conversation as I’ve had here over a small point, good evening!

I don't even know what point you are making here? That I should have put my full reasoning in my first post?

Enjoy your weekend mate !

 

[Ja-dublegz]

Christ alive this thread!! The same people going on and on about the same, regurgitated crap!

Just give up trying to get one over on another with the moral outrage - You’re either willing to wait and let the club decide what’s best for the club and player at the end of the season (seen as they are the ones who actually know the full story) or you’ve already made up your mind that he’s guilty/a scumbag and want rid.

You’re aren’t going to change anyone’s mind either way so just calm down, take a breath and discuss his performances for Getafe as you’re going to have ZERO influence on what decision is made anyway.

 

[BristolMick]

Withdrawing as a witness typically means that you no longer want to cooperate with the investigation, so things like no more statements/interviews, and that you don't want to be a witness in court. Recanting is making a new witness statement, stating that you don't stand by your previous ones.

I have no idea why you're asking for a source. You can obviously withdraw as a witness without recanting previous witness statements, just like you can recant previous witness statements without withdrawing as a witness. You can do neither, you can do both. She did both. She either did both things simultaneously, or at two different times, that I don't know.

I asked for a source because I wanted to be sure we were talking about the same thing. I thought you were talking about a statement of withdrawal which is a normal part of the process for a witness withdrawing.

But you said the below which at the time suggested to me you're talking about something else:

"Withdrawing and recanting are two different things"

Reading on I believe you are talking about an application to amend their original statement as part of the statement of withdrawal process? So I think we are discussing the same thing.

In my opinion I'd have thought every witness withdrawl contains new material considering the extensive information which needs to be included as part of a process. So I'd assume a statement mentioning witnesses withdrawing and new material would likely be discussing two separate things. Or else every CPS statement with a withdrawl would also mention new material coming to light.

Irregardless of the above I stand by my point that I think it's highly unlikely the new material refers to a statement from the alleged victim. The reason for this is that we have knowledge they began the procedure of cancelling the investigation, which i take to also mean withdrawing as a witness, in April 2022 - 5 months prior to greenwood being charged and 9 months prior to the cps no longer pursuing the case.

Of course that doesn't prove in anyway that the new material they're referencing is an extended audio. I stand by the thought that it's more likely to be that over what you've suggested though.

Seriously man, you spending a lot of time exploring the possibility that they hidden extended version of the audio exonerate Greenwood and that we should ignore that she made a statement, regardless of whether she later retracted it.

Not just a statement, a full ACE interview. They are deep and they retraumatise you, everything is written down and recorded by camera. And they last ages.

Either she recanted a true story that corroborates the evidence or the only other possibility is that her initial statement was false.

I'm not. The foundations behind my argument has always been that nobody can be certain he's innocent or guilty with the information we have in the public domain - I stand by this.

I've not at any stage said we should ignore any statements, just like we shouldn't ignore when those statements were made either. I asked the poster to clarify what they were referencing so that I could ensure we were discussing the same thing and to check I hadn't misunderstood myself. Their most recent reply suggests we are talking about the same thing.

I don't know what the new material referenced in Feb 2023 by the CPS is. But with the information we do have and the timeline of events - it's highly unlikely to be another statement from the alleged victim who im lead to believe through Richard Arnolds letter began proceedings for withdrawing as a witness 9 months earlier.

The reason I point towards an extended audio is because it is referenced in Richard Arnold's statement so we therefore do know it exists. That doesn't necessarily mean that is the new material being referenced by the CPS is an extended audio. I do however think it's unlikely to be a statement from the alleged victim due to the reasons outlined above.

Of course though they could always be referencing something completely different too which isn't in the public domain.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I asked for a source because I wanted to be sure we were talking about the same thing. I thought you were talking about a statement of withdrawal which is a normal part of the process for a witness withdrawing.

But you said the below which at the time suggested to me you're talking about something else:

"Withdrawing and recanting are two different things"

Reading on I believe you are talking about an application to amend their original statement as part of the statement of withdrawal process? So I think we are discussing the same thing.

In my opinion I'd have thought every witness withdrawl contains new material considering the extensive information which needs to be included as part of a process. So I'd assume a statement mentioning witnesses withdrawing and new material would likely be discussing two separate things. Or else every CPS statement with a withdrawl would also mention new material coming to light.

Irregardless of the above I stand by my point that I think it's highly unlikely the new material refers to a statement from the alleged victim. The reason for this is that we have knowledge they began the procedure of cancelling the investigation, which i take to also mean withdrawing as a witness, in April 2022 - 5 months prior to greenwood being charged and 9 months prior to the cps no longer pursuing the case.

Of course that doesn't prove in anyway that the new material they're referencing is an extended audio. I stand by the thought that it's more likely to be that over what you've suggested though.

You would have thought wrong.

 

[CM]

We will find out soon enough.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Is it still considered a shocking insult if it's factual?

 

[sepulturite]

I asked for a source because I wanted to be sure we were talking about the same thing. I thought you were talking about a statement of withdrawal which is a normal part of the process for a witness withdrawing.

But you said the below which at the time suggested to me you're talking about something else:

"Withdrawing and recanting are two different things"

Reading on I believe you are talking about an application to amend their original statement as part of the statement of withdrawal process? So I think we are discussing the same thing.

In my opinion I'd have thought every witness withdrawl contains new material considering the extensive information which needs to be included as part of a process. So I'd assume a statement mentioning witnesses withdrawing and new material would likely be discussing two separate things. Or else every CPS statement with a withdrawl would also mention new material coming to light.

Irregardless of the above I stand by my point that I think it's highly unlikely the new material refers to a statement from the alleged victim. The reason for this is that we have knowledge they began the procedure of cancelling the investigation, which i take to also mean withdrawing as a witness, in April 2022 - 5 months prior to greenwood being charged and 9 months prior to the cps no longer pursuing the case.

Of course that doesn't prove in anyway that the new material they're referencing is an extended audio. I stand by the thought that it's more likely to be that over what you've suggested though.



I'm not. The foundations behind my argument has always been that nobody can be certain he's innocent or guilty with the information we have in the public domain - I stand by this.

I've not at any stage said we should ignore any statements, just like we shouldn't ignore when those statements were made either. I asked the poster to clarify what they were referencing so that I could ensure we were discussing the same thing and to check I hadn't misunderstood myself. Their most recent reply suggests we are talking about the same thing.

I don't know what the new material referenced in Feb 2023 by the CPS is. But with the information we do have and the timeline of events - it's highly unlikely to be another statement from the alleged victim who im lead to believe through Richard Arnolds letter began proceedings for withdrawing as a witness 9 months earlier.

The reason I point towards an extended audio is because it is referenced in Richard Arnold's statement so we therefore do know it exists. That doesn't necessarily mean that is the new material being referenced by the CPS is an extended audio. I do however think it's unlikely to be a statement from the alleged victim due to the reasons outlined above.

Of course though they could always be referencing something completely different too which isn't in the public domain.

Jesus you devote way to much to writing these essays finding reasonings and defending MG, it's actually fecking grim and ridiculous.

 

[Pickle85]

[

Christ alive this thread!! The same people going on and on about the same, regurgitated crap!

Just give up trying to get one over on another with the moral outrage - You’re either willing to wait and let the club decide what’s best for the club and player at the end of the season (seen as they are the ones who actually know the full story) or you’ve already made up your mind that he’s guilty/a scumbag and want rid.

You’re aren’t going to change anyone’s mind either way so just calm down, take a breath and discuss his performances for Getafe as you’re going to have ZERO influence on what decision is made anyway.

So in your opinion there's no faction that believes he's innocent at this point? It's either those waiting to let the club make up their minds for them, or those that think he's a scumbag that belongs nowhere near the club. Why do you believe that?

 

[Raoul]

Richard Arnold clearly said that the audio was a part of a longer recording alongside saying he was provided alternative explanations for the recording.

"We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording"

While this is true, I don't believe Arnold made any claims that he actually heard the rest of the audio. Am I wrong ?

 

[Heinzesight]

Looks to me like ‘rapidez’.

 

[moses]

Exactly - as far as I know they didn't have any kind of bust up but I've not watched any of the match to know if there was, still too busy watching replays of Mainoo!

You're quite the editor Rood, respect where it's due.

 

[Raoul]

Looks to me like ‘rapidez’.

A bit reminiscent of this.

Spoiler