Giggs trial

IRELANDUNITED said:
How? Another almost certainly guilty rich man walks away scot-free from horrible crimes against women. I see nothing good about this.
Click to expand...
Oh the Caf judges have spoken again. Many made up their mind before the case even went to court.
Yes for me it is good news that Giggs has not been found guilty and/or that the charges have been dropped.
No matter how often you or others may pretend otherwise.
 
Howl said:
In the eyes of the law he is innocent. It's very simple, depending on where you live. I live in an area where you are innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty therefore, he is innocent. He probably still did do it mind, but these cases are very hard to prove and when the defendant has money they very rarely get busted. It's not a contradiction to say in the eyes of the law he's innocent but that he probably did it. All it means is he's got enough money to get away with it.
Click to expand...

Don't really agree with the bolded part and I am not in any way trying to claim that Giggs is a decent human being because he is not. He is notoriously unfaithful which she clearly was aware of having been his mistress before she was his girlfriend and so his moral character was already known to her.

The details in this case though always made a succesful prosecution unlikely regardless of his personal wealth. The relationship as described and acknowledged in court was deeply toxic with both having assaulted the other during arguments and as such it is difficult to hold one or other of the parties involved responsible.
 
moses said:
What's a fair point to make? I probably won't agree with you, as, I never do. Which makes me wonder why you keep quoting my posts?
Click to expand...
If everyone agreed it would be a boring forum, I think we can both agree that this thread is turning in to a repeat of the Mendy one though.

The point about being kept out of the public eye has some merit IMO, or at least until an actual trial occurs, as soon as someone is accused of sexual misconduct they are "outed" whilst the accuser can choose to remain anonymous, that seems a little unfair to me, especially as so many cases never end up in court, the stigma of being accused is never going away whether the were guilty or not

This happened to someone I knew years ago, he was accused and was named in the media, I forget the exact details now but he was able to prove he didn't commit what he was accused of but of course the media didn't really cover that!

Doesn't apply in the 2 current cases of course because they went to trial
 
Red in STL said:
If everyone agreed it would be a boring forum, I think we can both agree that this thread is turning in to a repeat of the Mendy one though.

The point about being kept out of the public eye has some merit IMO, or at least until an actual trial occurs, as soon as someone is accused of sexual misconduct they are "outed" whilst the accuser can choose to remain anonymous, that seems a little unfair to me, especially as so many cases never end up in court, the stigma of being accused is never going away whether the were guilty or not

This happened to someone I knew years ago, he was accused and was named in the media, I forget the exact details now but he was able to prove he didn't commit what he was accused of but of course the media didn't really cover that!

Doesn't apply in the 2 current cases of course because they went to trial
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a no brainier.
 
IRELANDUNITED said:
How? Another almost certainly guilty rich man walks away scot-free from horrible crimes against women. I see nothing good about this.
Click to expand...
He’s not ‘almost certainly’ guilty! - what on earth are you talking about. Were you there?
 
I dunno why they bother with trials. The well informed public should just decide based on what they read in the Sun.
 
Siorac said:
It really isn't. For example, if someone is not convicted because of insanity, despite having done the deed, they aren't innocent of the crime - the justice system simply decided they cannot be held legally responsible for it because of lack of sufficient mental capacity. The verdict is still "not guilty", even if the person actually did commit the crime.
Click to expand...
And in that instance, which very rarely happens, is that they are innocent of the crime because they weren't in control of their actions, ie, they weren't conscious of their actions, hence the not guilty plea due to insanity.
But anyhow, that's not the issue here is it, he wasn't found not guilty due to insanity, as hardly anyone ever has (very rare it happens and even rarer it's successful).

But good attempt to move the goal posts.
 
Champ said:
And in that instance, which very rarely happens, is that they are innocent of the crime because they weren't in control of their actions, ie, they weren't conscious of their actions, hence the not guilty plea due to insanity.
But anyhow, that's not the issue here is it, he wasn't found not guilty due to insanity, as hardly anyone ever has (very rare it happens and even rarer it's successful).

But good attempt to move the goal posts.
Click to expand...
No goalposts were moved: I'm saying that your assertion that the definition of not guilty is innocent is simply not true. Because it very clearly isn't.
 
Howl said:
In the eyes of the law he is innocent. It's very simple, depending on where you live. I live in an area where you are innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty therefore, he is innocent. He probably still did do it mind, but these cases are very hard to prove and when the defendant has money they very rarely get busted. It's not a contradiction to say in the eyes of the law he's innocent but that he probably did it. All it means is he's got enough money to get away with it.
Click to expand...

no, in the eyes of the law he is not ‘innocent’. That is fundamentally not how the criminal justice system operates. It isn’t a means by which the ‘truth’ of something is conclusively determined. The jury is asked one question – ‘are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?’. If the jury is not sure, then they’re not guilty.

This isn’t something that even requires convincing - you can google it and see the exact same thing from actual lawyers.
 
MUFC OK said:
Balancing act. Must be wary of how hard it is to convict on domestic abuse/sexual assault cases due to the setting in which they often occur - in private.

Also there must be weight put on the function of the law. To me, having guilt effectively determined by public opinion isn’t right either. If someone isn’t charged and convicted they are innocent in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's tough all round and there are no winners here.


In the alternative why not have a properly conducted twitter poll to decide peoples fate rather than the law and judicial system? Very dystopian, almost black mirror vibes which surely cannot be seen as fair and just.
Click to expand...

You joke, but I bet a lot more people than we'd like to believe would be happy with this.
 
Siorac said:
No goalposts were moved: I'm saying that your assertion that the definition of not guilty is innocent is simply not true. Because it very clearly isn't.
Click to expand...
In your eyes, but in the eyes of the law, which lets be honest matter most, he is innocent.
Siorac said:
No goalposts were moved: I'm saying that your assertion that the definition of not guilty is innocent is simply not true. Because it very clearly isn't.
Click to expand...
To be fair you are correct in that in the eyes of the law he isn't strictly speaking innocent, ,but then no one is actually proven innocent in court, despite that maybe I shouldn't have said that, however as I've stated many a time in the eyes of society he is innocent, he has not been found guilty of any crime, and has no charges over his head.
 
This thread is now a copy and paste from the Mendy thread
 
united_99 said:
Oh the Caf judges have spoken again. Many made up their mind before the case even went to court.
Yes for me it is good news that Giggs has not been found guilty and/or that the charges have been dropped.
No matter how often you or others may pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

You'd think they all want it to be true about Giggs
 
Red in STL said:
This thread is now a copy and paste from the Mendy thread
Click to expand...
We will await Depay coming out in support of his former teammate/coach. No smoke without fire and I believe the same in the Mendy case as well. Truth is no one will ever know exactly what happened so it’s hard to judge or draw any sort of conclusion from media reporting.
 
AbusementPark said:
We will await Depay coming out in support of his former teammate/coach. No smoke without fire and I believe the same in the Mendy case as well. Truth is no one will ever know exactly what happened so it’s hard to judge or draw any sort of conclusion from media reporting.
Click to expand...
Doesn't stop this forum drawing conclusions though
 
Not reading all the previous pages. Was she not found to be fabricating evidence and pretending she had cancer? Why is Giggs still bad in some of your eyes then? Isn't that enough to make you question her reliability? In terms of being a woman beater, now. Not in terms of riding his brother's wife which is pretty heinous to be fair.

Genuinely asking btw, I've no horse in this race and just saw that /r/soccer were saying she is worse than him - so I'm really surprised to find arguments to the contrary here.
 
Reapersoul20 said:
Not reading all the previous pages. Was she not found to be fabricating evidence and pretending she had cancer? Why is Giggs still bad in some of your eyes then? Isn't that enough to make you question her reliability? In terms of being a woman beater, now. Not in terms of riding his brother's wife which is pretty heinous to be fair.

Genuinely asking btw, I've no horse in this race and just saw that /r/soccer were saying she is worse than him - so I'm really surprised to find arguments to the contrary here.
Click to expand...

From what I've read it was a toxic relationship on both sides, neither of them comes out of it looking good. Perhaps why they didn't want it all being aired in public again.

Remember reading about this last year. Tis sky news, not the best source, but it's the jist of what you say.

https://news.sky.com/story/ryan-gig...-staged-photo-after-alleged-headbutt-12670558

The court heard she messaged Giggs saying: "I had a smear test when you was away and I had cancerous cells. I had to go to hospital on Thursday."

Cross-examining Ms Greville, Giggs's defence barrister Chris Daw QC said: "The truth is you were going to have your contraceptive out."

Ms Greville responded: "I was getting my coil out and I also wanted a STD test."

"I wanted him off my back. I completely regret saying these things but I needed to say something to get him off my back and for him to leave me alone."

She added: "If I was saying I had cancerous cells then I would not have to have sex with him."

Mr Daw suggested Ms Greville and Giggs were having "active, regular and very enthusiastic sex" at this time - including after she had the coil removed.

Ms Greville said: "I disagree."

Mr Daw said: "Your plan was to get pregnant by Mr Giggs."

"No, absolutely not," Ms Greville replied.

The witness was asked about an article in The Sun on 16 November 2020.

It featured a photograph of Ms Greville walking along a country lane with her dog, alongside the words "Living hell. Ryan Giggs's ex spotted with a bruised lip in first outing since Wales manager's assault arrest".

The jury was read messages exchanged between Ms Greville and a friend in which Giggs's ex-girlfriend wrote: "We can set up a pic and get money for both of us. What do you think?"

The friend said: "I think yes."

Ms Greville wrote back: "We could get 5K."

Her friend later wrote: "Let's f****** do it.

"A sofa like Molly-Mae's would be like 10K."

Ms Greville responded: "Need to sell some more stories."

Addressing Ms Greville in court, Mr Daw suggested she was "trying to tell the whole world a completely false story".

Ms Greville replied: "I was trying to stop the paps turning up my doorstep every day. To take back control."

She denied that she had "enhanced" the appearance of her injury by using make-up to make it look worse.

But she admitted she did not tell her father that the photo was staged, saying: "I was ashamed at doing it. I didn't want him to know."

Breaking down in tears in court, Ms Greville told the jury she did not sell her story and never asked for money.

"It was to stop the press turning up at my doorstep," she added. "I was scared to go out. I felt trapped and my mum and dad were getting harassed."
Click to expand...
 
Yet another multi millionaire footballer walks away.

There must be a common denominator ….wonder what it is?
 
Reapersoul20 said:
Not reading all the previous pages. Was she not found to be fabricating evidence and pretending she had cancer? Why is Giggs still bad in some of your eyes then? Isn't that enough to make you question her reliability? In terms of being a woman beater, now. Not in terms of riding his brother's wife which is pretty heinous to be fair.

Genuinely asking btw, I've no horse in this race and just saw that /r/soccer were saying she is worse than him - so I'm really surprised to find arguments to the contrary here.
Click to expand...
Yes. I also remember reading during last year’s court hearing she wrote messages to a friend claiming “I am not leaving with nothing” basically saying she will only leave Giggs with money. When the court asked what she meant she said she meant she wouldn’t leave with nothing as she was planning to leave with her dog or something thing like that. As you say, she didn’t come across as reliable.
 
Wilt said:
Yet another multi millionaire footballer walks away.

There must be a common denominator ….wonder what it is?
Click to expand...

Yeah that only rich men have the resources to defend themselves against the seismic societal and legal double standard, ie Amber turd.

Edit: I have lost count of the amount of false accusations over the last few years that have ruined careers and not just in sports, like straight up the narrative is believe all women and men are guilty until proven innocent. The fact is in most cases a toxic relationship is a two way street yet men have to suffer in silence and women get the sympathy vote.
 
Last edited:
Reapersoul20 said:
Not reading all the previous pages. Was she not found to be fabricating evidence and pretending she had cancer? Why is Giggs still bad in some of your eyes then? Isn't that enough to make you question her reliability? In terms of being a woman beater, now. Not in terms of riding his brother's wife which is pretty heinous to be fair.

Genuinely asking btw, I've no horse in this race and just saw that /r/soccer were saying she is worse than him - so I'm really surprised to find arguments to the contrary here.
Click to expand...

That’s because there are people on The Caf who pick a side often due to their own axe grinding reasons and won’t be swayed no matter what.

When people are found guilty they knew it all along and is proof that the courts are doing their job, but when the case doesn’t go the way they’d like. Dropped for lack of evidence, CPS, decide not to pursue, witness withdraws their testimony then it’s all evidence that the court system is corrupt and ‘another rich footballer gets away with murder’.

Was the same with the Greenwood and Mendy cases and even the Amber Heard v Depp trial. Many people kept an open mind and as the trial progressed and more and more evidence came to light it became clear that Heards testimony was flawed and laced with untruths and downright lies. That didn’t stop the ‘all men are horrible abusers’ brigade from still trotting out the line that Depp was still an abuser even as the trial went in his favour. There’s no debate, no movement of position.Just an entrenched I think he’s guilty (just as there’s some entrenched the other way) no matter what the courts say.

Men perpetrating violence on women is to me a cowardly act and one that should be punished but I’m thankful that some of these people on RedCafe are not jurors. The concept of keeping an open mind and weighing all the facts is quite alien to some.

We’re talking about two of the most prestigious legal systems in the world but TheCaf knows better.
 
Last edited:
stepic said:
no, in the eyes of the law he is not ‘innocent’. That is fundamentally not how the criminal justice system operates. It isn’t a means by which the ‘truth’ of something is conclusively determined. The jury is asked one question – ‘are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?’. If the jury is not sure, then they’re not guilty.

This isn’t something that even requires convincing - you can google it and see the exact same thing from actual lawyers.
Click to expand...
Ok Ok, let me break this down for you. Depending on where you live, but in most of the western world the law states: innocent until proven guilty. Was Giggs proven guilty? If yes, then he's guilty. If no, then he's innocent. It's the legal standard based on case law. I'll say it again for you, innocent until proven guilty. You can try and twist it in whatever way you would like, but that is how the criminal justice system works. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Have you ever been to court? I have, in both civil and criminal cases, as an expert witness. In a criminal case, its up to the prosecution to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". What that means is there is no other reasonable explanation for the case. If this were a civil case you may have a leg to stand on here as the burden of proof is only greater than 50 percent. But, criminally its very black and white, are you declared guilty? If not, your innocent. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the principle.
 
Gandalf said:
Don't really agree with the bolded part and I am not in any way trying to claim that Giggs is a decent human being because he is not. He is notoriously unfaithful which she clearly was aware of having been his mistress before she was his girlfriend and so his moral character was already known to her.

The details in this case though always made a succesful prosecution unlikely regardless of his personal wealth. The relationship as described and acknowledged in court was deeply toxic with both having assaulted the other during arguments and as such it is difficult to hold one or other of the parties involved responsible.
Click to expand...
I admittedly know nothing about the case. I always just make the assumption (I know, I know) in these cases that there's no smoke without fire, but because there's never really much evidence anyone with a good enough attorney will get them off. OJ Simpson is always the poster boy for this. A poor person in his shoes is in jail today. I've seen in other comments exactly what your saying, so sounds like they are both terrible people.
 
stepic said:
no, in the eyes of the law he is not ‘innocent’. That is fundamentally not how the criminal justice system operates. It isn’t a means by which the ‘truth’ of something is conclusively determined. The jury is asked one question – ‘are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?’. If the jury is not sure, then they’re not guilty.

This isn’t something that even requires convincing - you can google it and see the exact same thing from actual lawyers.
Click to expand...
Howl said:
Ok Ok, let me break this down for you. Depending on where you live, but in most of the western world the law states: innocent until proven guilty. Was Giggs proven guilty? If yes, then he's guilty. If no, then he's innocent. It's the legal standard based on case law. I'll say it again for you, innocent until proven guilty. You can try and twist it in whatever way you would like, but that is how the criminal justice system works. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Have you ever been to court? I have, in both civil and criminal cases, as an expert witness. In a criminal case, its up to the prosecution to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". What that means is there is no other reasonable explanation for the case. If this were a civil case you may have a leg to stand on here as the burden of proof is only greater than 50 percent. But, criminally its very black and white, are you declared guilty? If not, your innocent. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the principle.
Click to expand...

To be clear, someone accused of a crime isn't innocent until proven guilty. They're presumed innocent until proved guilty. Presumption being the key concept of confusion in your posts.

In other words in the court's eyes Giggs is assumed to be innocent until a verdict to the contrary. But an assumption of innocence isn't the same as a finding of innocence, which at no point was possible in this process.
 
Reapersoul20 said:
Not reading all the previous pages. Was she not found to be fabricating evidence and pretending she had cancer? Why is Giggs still bad in some of your eyes then? Isn't that enough to make you question her reliability? In terms of being a woman beater, now. Not in terms of riding his brother's wife which is pretty heinous to be fair.

Genuinely asking btw, I've no horse in this race and just saw that /r/soccer were saying she is worse than him - so I'm really surprised to find arguments to the contrary here.
Click to expand...

The best test is to put put a survey and laid out the circumstances without telling people who the guy is.

You'd be amazed with the result. The tone of the stance people took vary who's the accused

If it's Ronaldo for instance, or some random joe, the prejudice would shift no matter how one claim objectivity.

I dont like Giggs, He's a scum, and the accused decided she cant handle round 2 maybe due financial reasoning, while making the juror can't reach a verdict in round 1 means that there are certainly something happening. Giggs by all means weren't judged as not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Just inconclusive jury (did i read the news wrong? I only read the caf) so no you can't parade around hey he's innocent.
 
Genuinely curious. For those who have utter contempt for Giggs, what are your thoughts on Sir Alex being one of his character witnesses in court?
 
Newtonius said:
Yeah that only rich men have the resources to defend themselves against the seismic societal and legal double standard, ie Amber turd.

Edit: I have lost count of the amount of false accusations over the last few years that have ruined careers and not just in sports, like straight up the narrative is believe all women and men are guilty until proven innocent. The fact is in most cases a toxic relationship is a two way street yet men have to suffer in silence and women get the sympathy vote.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
Read the article on this by the Athletic, Giggs come across as a mega cnut in all of this(100%), having said that the other party is also no innocent at all.

There are two or three instances including one like this:

"In a remarkable twist, the defence claimed to have found evidence almost a year after the trial that Greville had, in fact, undergone a medical procedure to have “Russian lip fillers”, causing the swelling, shortly before the alleged headbutt. "

However Giggs admitted in the court that he has cheated on her etc

This bit however made me laugh

"On the first day of the trial, one of the more shocking allegations was that Giggs had sent his girlfriend an email, titled “Blackmail”, which had a video attachment and a message telling Greville he would share it with their work colleagues unless she unblocked him.

Greville told the court the couple had made a number of sex tapes. She said she assumed the email was a genuine blackmail attempt and felt so violated and helpless she deleted it straight away without clicking on the attachment.

It turned out to be a video of her dancing to Wham’s 1980s hit Last Christmas and one of the detectives on the case had known this for 18 months before the trial began.

“It was just a joke,” explained Giggs."
Click to expand...

:lol:

Article link:
https://theathletic.com/3530646/2023/07/18/manchester-united-ryan-giggs/
 
manutddjw said:
Genuinely curious. For those who have utter contempt for Giggs, what are your thoughts on Sir Alex being one of his character witnesses in court?
Click to expand...

I doubt Sir Alex was hiding under the sheets when Giggs was shagging his brothers wife.

Sir Alex isn't infallible.
 
Interesting him saying he wants to return to football. Wonder who will offer him a job? You know opposition fans will have a field day.
 
I can't see the upside of appointimg him as a manager now. All that baggage and for what? A 50 year old whose completely unproven at managerial level with barely any experience.
 
manutddjw said:
Genuinely curious. For those who have utter contempt for Giggs, what are your thoughts on Sir Alex being one of his character witnesses in court?
Click to expand...

Sir Alex is a man who risked United's future over a horse. He's a million miles from being perfect.

On a more serious point, and as I suggested on another thread, it feels like we're on the cusp of a major scandal here.

Either footballers are getting away with various crimes or there's large groups of people plotting how to get these people accused/charged. There are far too many cases involving current and ex footballers that are reaching similar verdicts to this one.
 
Last edited:
stepic said:
there's a reason courts don't declare innocence. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. in this case, this was because the accuser didn't want to go back to court.

how you can then declare Giggs is 'innocent' as a result is beyond me. no one can declare that, not even the courts.
Click to expand...
Because one is innocent until proven guilty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.