Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG

[klsv]

thats not the point I was making at all, and you know it. some of the details from the mendy case are harrowing, with the males attitudes to the women being utterly repugnant. and as has been noted, the 'victims' themselves dont exactly cover themselves in glory with some of their bravado about the 'conquests' either.

Makes you wonder. If I call someone a stupid cnut on RedCafe and get banned for it, does it prove that the person I called a stupid cnut, is not, actually, a stupid cnut?

 

[glasgow 21]

Are those terrible posts about Greenwood gonna stay up? Cause I'm trying behave and not respond to them, as we're not meant to be discussing his case, but they've been there a while now.

which posts ?

 

[FriedClams]

It’s important to recognize here that if Mendy is indeed as innocent as the verdict has claimed, then he deserves a million apologies.

 

[DOTA]

which posts ?

Ones that got deleted.

 

[JPRouve]

It’s important to recognize here that if Mendy is indeed as innocent as the verdict has claimed, then he deserves a million apologies.

The verdict says not guilty. We don't actually know much beyond that.

 

[Shakesy]

“Innocent until proven guilty”.

You forgot the asterisk

 

[JustCoco]

Wow. He was setup.

Seems that way.
He picked her up at a nightclub, she went to his home, dranks and slept with him, Grealish and someone else.
Left, bragged to her mate about it via text and voice messages, then claimed she was raped. Her and another accuser knew each other and came up with a story together.

I believe that woman should face criminal charges for purgery, let alone intentionally trying to ruin someone's life for their personal gain.

This crap is happening on a worryingly regular basis.

 

[Von Mistelroum]

While rape cases are difficult to prove, I don't think it's ok to just assume that every guy accused must be guilty. Or even to leave the "oh well he's not guilty, doesn't mean he's innocent" hanging over him forever.

At the end of the day, the evidence was heard and seen, and the conclusion was that he wasn't guilty of rape. That's really all we can know for sure and he shouldn't have this hang over his head forever like so many others who have had their lives ruined despite not being found guilty of any wrongdoing.

Can't imagine how awful it must be for a woman who is raped, but similarly it can't imagine how it must feel to have everyone think you're a monster.

 

[Daydreamer]

I assumed the original point was that, a 'not guilty' verdict in a court of law has to be taken as the person remaining to be seen innocent in the eyes of the public as well as the law. Based on 'innocenct until proven guilty'.

Yes, the verdict may turn out to be wrong. But that's exactly the same had he been found guilty - that could have been an incorrect verdict as well. But if found guilty, they'd have been seen as guilty. So when found 'not guilty', they should be seen as not guilty. Rather than 'probably guilty as hell but got away with it because it's tough to prove.'

The problem is, "innocent until proven guilty" isn't the law. It's just a phrase. Criminal prosecutions are not about proving people are innocent... they're about proving whether people are guilty or not.

The upside for this is that if you are accused of a crime, theoretically the bar is fairly high. Your guilt has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This is much higher threshold than a civil case where (in the UK) a Magistrate is basically deciding whose case sound more likely. That's how you can end up with cases like OJ Simpson who was found not guilty of murdering his his ex-wife in criminal court, while also being found liable for her death in civil court.

The downside is that the accused may not be viewed as "innocent" in the Court of Public Opinion. But seeing as he wasn't actually found "innocent" in the Court of Real Life Court, that's kinda fair enough, really.

 

[Pintu]

You have to look at the concvinction rates, they are way out of sync.

The justice system is essential but it's flawed, it's our duty to question it.

I think it’s highly likely that the statistics are less out of sync when it comes to black guys accused by white women.

 

[sullydnl]

It’s important to recognize here that if Mendy is indeed as innocent as the verdict has claimed, then he deserves a million apologies.

If he is as innocent as he claims he is, he deserves a million apologies.

But the verdict itself doesn't claim any degree of innocence. All it tells you is that the jury landed somewhere between "we're certain he's innocent" and "we're nearly certain he's guilty".

And that very wide range is why the distinction between "not guilty" and "innocent"(as already discussed in the thread) actually matters in terms of how we view trial outcomes and isn't just a theoretical point.

 

[Withnail]

Seems that way.
He picked her up at a nightclub, she went to his home, dranks and slept with him, Grealish and someone else.
Left, bragged to her mate about it via text and voice messages, then claimed she was raped. Her and another accuser knew each other and came up with a story together.

I believe that woman should face criminal charges for purgery, let alone intentionally trying to ruin someone's life for their personal gain.

This crap is happening on a worryingly regular basis.

How often is a worryingly regular basis?

The figures for false accusations are usually extremely low.

 

[moses]

I think it’s highly likely that the statistics are less out of sync when it comes to black guys accused by white women.

There are lots of grounds on which to question the workings of the legal system.

 

[adexkola]

How often is a worryingly regular basis?

The figures for false accusations are usually extremely low.

Keep in mind these are based on actual conviction figures.

Similarly, rape convictions, while higher than false accusation convictions, are very low compared to the number of cases that end inconclusively.

Going by the numbers the prudent thing to assume is... nothing

 

[Big Ben Foster]

How often is a worryingly regular basis?

The figures for false accusations are usually extremely low.

Eh, the logic behind that statement is pretty faulty - it's no different than claiming the figures for rape are low (because usually you don't have enough evidence for a conviction).

The reality is, nobody knows how frequently or infrequently false accusations happen.

 

[Withnail]

Keep in mind these are based on actual conviction figures.

Similarly, rape convictions, while higher than false accusation convictions, are very low compared to the number of cases that end inconclusively.

Going by the numbers the prudent thing to assume is... nothing

Yeah I'm aware and take the point. It's kind of why I called out a seemingly alarmist statement.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Watch people still try to hang him even after his court exoneration....

 

[Bertie Wooster]

The problem is, "innocent until proven guilty" isn't the law. It's just a phrase. Criminal prosecutions are not about proving people are innocent... they're about proving whether people are guilty or not.

The upside for this is that if you are accused of a crime, theoretically the bar is fairly high. Your guilt has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This is much higher threshold than a civil case where (in the UK) a Magistrate is basically deciding whose case sound more likely. That's how you can end up with cases like OJ Simpson who was found not guilty of murdering his his ex-wife in criminal court, while also being found liable for her death in civil court.

The downside is that the accused may not be viewed as "innocent" in the Court of Public Opinion. But seeing as he wasn't actually found "innocent" in the Court of Real Life Court, that's kinda fair enough, really.

I'm fully aware that innocent until proven guilty isn't a legal term. I was using it from the point of view of the 'Court of Public Opinion' who, as you indicate, are more than happy to decide a person is guilty as hell without hearing much of the evidence that led to the not guilty verdict.

It just seems to be in cases like this at the moment that, as soon as an accusation is made, Court of Public Opinion decides they're guilty and regardless of whether it goes to court, or they're found not guilty, it doesn't matter because they're still seen as 'guilty but got away with it'.

People can see that as progress in fighting for the victims rights. But the flaw in that is it presumes who the victim is from the start - but until the evidence has been heard and a ruling made, that's an unknown. But by then, if you've already decided from the start who's the victim and who's the guilty party, then the only verdict you'll accept is guilty. That's 'proof'. Not guilty - that just means they got away with it and justice hasn't been served.

That's turning it pretty much into the old witch trial dilemma where it's set up in such a way that the accused is going to be found / deemed guilty one way or another.

 

[padr81]

Hope the lad can get his life back on track, and sort out the issues that lead to it. 2 years of a short career taken away.

Hand on heart I presumed guilt and owe the man an apology.

 

[Bertie Wooster]

Keep in mind these are based on actual conviction figures.

Similarly, rape convictions, while higher than false accusation convictions, are very low compared to the number of cases that end inconclusively.

Going by the numbers the prudent thing to assume is... nothing

Completely agree.

The assumption mostly seems to be that all / most of the inconclusive verdicts were actually guilty but got away with it due to not being able to prove it conclusively. But, actually, we've no idea how many of the times that's the case, and how many of the times it was a false accusation that couldn't be proven either way. Or was somewhere between the two.

As you say, "the prudent thing to assume is... nothing". And leave it with the court's ruling. However, in the Court of Public Opinion nowadays, the common thing seems to be to mostly assume 'guilty but got away with it'.

 

[MancunianAngels]

I have female friends and family members that have been the victims of rape and serious sexual assault.

In all cases, the person who committed the crimes was "not guilty".

In all cases, the victim (my friends and family members) had their lives turned upside down. Their choice of clothing was deemed something that could be discussed by the court as a reason why the women/girla might have attracted male attention. In two cases, the male had been accused before but that was something that couldn't be discussed by the courts.

Unless there's serious evidence that Mendy or any other male has been set up. I will always believe the female victim in these cases.

 

[ChaddyP]

Lots of big talk talkers and virtue signalling. If you’re ever accused of a crime and you’re pleading your innocence, you’ll understand. The common law system works and the burden to prove any criminal offence is a difficult evidentiary burden for the Crown, and rightfully so. Thank goodness we don’t have mob rule.

This for me.

 

[Daydreamer]

I'm fully aware that innocent until proven guilty isn't a legal term. I was using it from the point of view of the 'Court of Public Opinion' who, as you indicate, are more than happy to decide a person is guilty as hell without hearing much of the evidence that led to the not guilty verdict.

It just seems to be in cases like this at the moment that, as soon as an accusation is made, Court of Public Opinion decides they're guilty and regardless of whether it goes to court, or they're found not guilty, it doesn't matter because they're still seen as 'guilty but got away with it'.

People can see that as progress in fighting for the victims rights. But the flaw in that is it presumes who the victim is from the start - but until the evidence has been heard and a ruling made, that's an unknown. But by then, if you've already decided from the start who's the victim and who's the guilty party, then the only verdict you'll accept is guilty. That's 'proof'. Not guilty - that just means they got away with it and justice hasn't been served.

That's turning it pretty much into the old witch trial dilemma where it's set up in such a way that the accused is going to be found / deemed guilty one way or another.

Yeah, I take your point. It would certainly suck to be accused of something you didn't do and essentially have an asterisk over your head for the rest of your life.

 

[Bertie Wooster]

I have female friends and family members that have been the victims of rape and serious sexual assault.

In all cases, the person who committed the crimes was "not guilty".

In all cases, the victim (my friends and family members) had their lives turned upside down. Their choice of clothing was deemed something that could be discussed by the court as a reason why the women/girla might have attracted male attention. In two cases, the male had been accused before but that was something that couldn't be discussed by the courts.

Unless there's serious evidence that Mendy or any other male has been set up. I will always believe the female victim in these cases.

So do you think the burden of proof should be switched to the accused to prove their innocence? Rather than on the courts to prove their guilt?

If so, do you think that should apply to all cases, or just rape allegations?

 

[Lay]

I have female friends and family members that have been the victims of rape and serious sexual assault.

In all cases, the person who committed the crimes was "not guilty".

In all cases, the victim (my friends and family members) had their lives turned upside down. Their choice of clothing was deemed something that could be discussed by the court as a reason why the women/girla might have attracted male attention. In two cases, the male had been accused before but that was something that couldn't be discussed by the courts.

Unless there's serious evidence that Mendy or any other male has been set up. I will always believe the female victim in these cases.

Out of curiosity, what would be considered serious evidence?

 

[TsuWave]

Exactly. The quotes only throw their credibility into question, but something could still have happened. The jury needs to be 100% certain to convict.

The lust to take a side and win for that side is what's weird.

There's not really anything "weird" in this thread as people are not only reacting to the verdict, but also to the guardian article, which paints a damning picture for the accusers - similar to how the initial accusations painted a damning picture for Mendy and people reacted accordingly, back then.

"Something could still have happened" though true, one also shouldn't presume guilt all the time/every time, especially with the added context of a court verdict and an article like the one referenced above.

 

[Mainoldo]

Out of curiosity, what would be considered serious evidence?

Being found not guilty.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

I have female friends and family members that have been the victims of rape and serious sexual assault.

In all cases, the person who committed the crimes was "not guilty".

In all cases, the victim (my friends and family members) had their lives turned upside down. Their choice of clothing was deemed something that could be discussed by the court as a reason why the women/girla might have attracted male attention. In two cases, the male had been accused before but that was something that couldn't be discussed by the courts.

Unless there's serious evidence that Mendy or any other male has been set up. I will always believe the female victim in these cases.

It's your right to believe - or not believe - whomever you want. At the societal level though, things have to be a bit more nuanced since, unfortunately, nobody has perfect information.

 

[mu4c_20le]

There's not really anything "weird" in this thread as people are not only reacting to the verdict, but also to the guardian article, which paints a damning picture for the accusers - similar to how the initial accusations painted a damning picture for Mendy and people reacted accordingly, back then.

"Something could still have happened" though true, one also shouldn't presume guilt all the time/every time, especially with the added context of a court verdict and an article like the one referenced above.

Maybe it's because we're sports fans, but it feels oddly tribal at times.

 

[Bertie Wooster]

Yeah, I take your point. It would certainly suck to be accused of something you didn't do and essentially have an asterisk over your head for the rest of your life.

Thanks for that reply.

Yeah, that's pretty much my point. It just feels like, in the Court of Public Opinion at least, only one set of 'rights' are considered in cases like this. Whereas both lives can be destroyed, and we don't know anywhere near the full facts to make informed decisions ourselves - so should just accept the verdict of the court that has heard all the evidence, rather than ignore the verdict and continue to destroy one of the life's in The Court of Public Opinion.

 

[Revan]

Exactly. The quotes only throw their credibility into question, but something could still have happened. The jury needs to be 100% certain to convict.

The lust to take a side and win for that side is what's weird.

Something might happen but if you text your friend that ‘yesterday was the best day of your life’, in all likelihood, you probably didn’t get raped yesterday.

 

[Duafc]

So much black and white.

So little understanding of the UK legal system.

Oh that it were reversed.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Something might happen but if you text your friend that ‘yesterday was the best day of your life’, in all likelihood, you probably didn’t get raped yesterday.

If this was a single incident, sure. But he was accused by seven women, and I believe there was a hung jury in his last acquittal.

Anyways, I only wrote that becuase there were some disturbing posts about wanting to punish the women immediately after today's result.

 

[Halftrack]

What I think is that it's completely idiotic to read "not guilty" as "innocent" or "exonorated", and then go on to make the assumption that this means the woman was lying.

It's like some are just waiting for verdicts like these to help promote their view that women are all to happy to lie about being raped.

 

[Roane]

Think I mentioned this before on here somewhere but here goes. If in appropriate then admin please remove.

Someone very close to me is on a few years stretch and Mendy was there for a while. I am a regular visitor to see the person.

This is from a while back:

Mendy is a happy go lucky guy who kind of lives on another planet due to his wealth and celebrity. He wasn't worried about being found guilty during the early parts of his incarceration. He almost was dismissive of it.

His story, for want of a better word, was that this was normal. They have party, have sex with loads of women (apparently they are like groupies) but usually the minders/agents/security get video consent from them.

Mendy s brother usually did the gaining of consent bit. He was in Dubai on holiday and Mendy forgot to get consent.

He was nonchalant about it, even thought it was funny that he'd been an idiot for forgetting. He was very much "this isn't a problem" and that many other players were there. He mention JG by name.

He even made the case sound "normal" as it was an everyday type of thing and that by not getting consent you expected allegations.

He gave details of what was expected from whom and that this would be videoed for consent. The groupies had "specialities" they offered.

Have to be honest he came across as a bit of a prick. But he seemed so sure he would be found not guilty.

 

[oates]

Seems that way.
He picked her up at a nightclub, she went to his home, dranks and slept with him, Grealish and someone else.
Left, bragged to her mate about it via text and voice messages, then claimed she was raped. Her and another accuser knew each other and came up with a story together.

I believe that woman should face criminal charges for purgery, let alone intentionally trying to ruin someone's life for their personal gain.

This crap is happening on a worryingly regular basis.

The Police and the CPS aren't keen on charging women who change their evidence or give false evidence during the investigation. It's hard enough as it is to get victims of rape - both men and women - to give evidence in court or even press charges. If rape victims feel that there's some sort of chance they'll be found guilty of a crime for whatever reason it makes it even harder to get the case to court. I'm not an expert but these are the sort of reasons I've picked up over a lifetime.

 

[Duafc]

If this was a single incident, sure. But he was accused by seven women, and I believe there was a hung jury in his last acquittal.

Anyways, I only wrote that becuase there were some disturbing posts about wanting to punish the women immediately after today's result.

Highly relevant and contextual points that don't matter anymore, to most.

The evidence that appears totally contrary to a rape allegation for 2(?) of the victims is obviously massive and would rightly skew any jurors view of those witnesses in the circumstances.

That is clearly not the sum total of the entire episode though. Also feels like there is, somewhat understandably, huge projection in this thread. Ultimately the cases are nothing whatsoever alike and the attempts at point scoring are quite tragic and dim.

 

[Bertie Wooster]

The Police and the CPS aren't keen on charging women who change their evidence or give false evidence during the investigation. It's hard enough as it is to get victims of rape - both men and women - to give evidence in court or even press charges. If rape victims feel that there's some sort of chance they'll be found guilty of a crime for whatever reason it makes it even harder to get the case to court. I'm not an expert but these are the sort of reasons I've picked up over a lifetime.

I can fully understand that from one side of the view. Obviously it would help encourage more (genuine) victims of rape if they didn't fear facing charges if (wrongly) presumed to be lying.

On the other hand, it's frightening to think that a person could be found to have lied / given false evidence and tried / succeeded in destroying a person's life or career and yet not face any charges for that.

Difficult balancing act for the courts, I accept.

 

[Stadjer]

What I think is that it's completely idiotic to read "not guilty" as "innocent" or "exonorated", and then go on to make the assumption that this means the woman was lying.

It's like some are just waiting for verdicts like these to help promote their view that women are all to happy to lie about being raped.

What is inbetween not guilty and innocent? How does ''not guilty'' need to be read in your view? Partly innocent? Partly guilty? Suspicious?

 

[oates]

I can fully understand that from one side of the view. Obviously it would help encourage more (genuine) victims of rape if they didn't fear facing charges if (wrongly) presumed to be lying.

On the other hand, it's frightening to think that a person could be found to have lied / given false evidence and tried / succeeded in destroying a person's life or career and yet not face any charges for that.

Difficult balancing act for the courts, I accept.

I don't know where it stands or even if it would help in the long run but I thought I heard a debate in Parliament some time ago, mainly advocating that neither the supposed victim or offender be named until the trial ends and hopefully that should include the case not being discussed by the media at all. With the recent discussions on Huw Edwards, at the end of the day his employer has probably done as much damage to his privacy and what sort of show he'd been suspended from, as The Sun with all of their salacious reporting.