Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic

[Posh Red]

My partner does ice skating, and if she ever decided to take photos of the bruises she has after a few falls, I'd be in prison too. I've not been in defence or support of Greenwood through this, but why are people acting like a 15 second clip and 3 photos of some bruises are the pinnacle of truth? To me it seems like an incredibly easy thing to feign with makeup and the audio clip, while horrid, could also easily be a snippet out of a longer discussion, edited to look exceptionally bad?

Everyone quick to jump to conclusions, and then when reality doesn't align, no one seems to give up on those conclusions?

Think this theory through before posting it online, maybe.

 

[NotThatSoph]

The club certainly could have. The club have also seen more than the public have and have decided that the full body of evidence apparently does not rise to that level of transgression, or they would have terminated the contract. If the clubs legal team have found that terminating the contract would pose a legal issue that could be challenged, there has to be information there that speaks against the damning social media post.

The alternative is a conspiracy theory that evil rich people want money for letting Greenwood go.

It strikes me as a bit odd that we were not allowed to even mention Greenwoods name for the longest time, but now that the crown have decided to not prosecute due to new evidence (and key witness withdrawing, but the new evidence bit is the interesting unknown bit here) any conclusion and assumption that paints him as an absolute demon goes unchecked.

I want to know what the club knows, because its more than we do

The new material is that the witness recanted her previous statements, and then you have some people speculating that there is more new material on top of that.

 

[Pickle85]

The club certainly could have. The club have also seen more than the public have and have decided that the full body of evidence apparently does not rise to that level of transgression, or they would have terminated the contract. If the clubs legal team have found that terminating the contract would pose a legal issue that could be challenged, there has to be information there that speaks against the damning social media post.

The alternative is a conspiracy theory that evil rich people want money for letting Greenwood go.

It strikes me as a bit odd that we were not allowed to even mention Greenwoods name for the longest time, but now that the crown have decided to not prosecute due to new evidence (and key witness withdrawing, but the new evidence bit is the interesting unknown bit here) any conclusion and assumption that paints him as an absolute demon goes unchecked.

I want to know what the club knows, because its more than we do

You say this like it's tinfoil hat territory to think that the club may want to see some money back on a valuable asset if they possibly can. Do you really see this as so unlikely?

 

[fergiewherearethou]

Weve thrown this boy to the wolves - its a fecking disgrace. If he tops himself - who's to blame, him, us the media. Where is the humanity in this decision. Someone said earlier, as a club we dont have the balls to say he fecked up but we are going to rehabilitate him. He's not a serial sex offender, surely he has the right to a future. The mind boggles at how badly Man Utd have misread this one.

Not just this one, it's about everything and I'm referring to the footballing side of the club. We are letting go a top talent and then cry we don't have a ST or a RW. Solution? Go spend 100 mil for a bang average player who we can't even get rid of afterwards.

 

[golden_blunder]

The club certainly could have. The club have also seen more than the public have and have decided that the full body of evidence apparently does not rise to that level of transgression, or they would have terminated the contract. If the clubs legal team have found that terminating the contract would pose a legal issue that could be challenged, there has to be information there that speaks against the damning social media post.

The alternative is a conspiracy theory that evil rich people want money for letting Greenwood go.

It strikes me as a bit odd that we were not allowed to even mention Greenwoods name for the longest time, but now that the crown have decided to not prosecute due to new evidence (and key witness withdrawing, but the new evidence bit is the interesting unknown bit here) any conclusion and assumption that paints him as an absolute demon goes unchecked.

I want to know what the club knows, because its more than we do

I think we’d all love to know that, from both sides of the argument

I have a sneaking suspicion it’s not much more than his and her parents take on it because they have already stated that any other evidence was hard to get

 

[UpWithRivers]

The question is if there is further evidence that shows Greenwoods innocence why is he not speaking up? Not the club. Him. If I was accused of something I didnt do, especially something like abusing women then Id be fighting it with everything I've got. Just come out publicly. Release the full audio. Get family and friends to come out and say we know the whole story and we stand by Greenwood. He is innocent. etc. Release the evidence to select journalists only. Then they can write we heard the full video and this is our conclusion. Do something. I cant think of any reason why an innocent person would just accept being called a woman abuser.

 

[horsechoker]

The question is if there is further evidence that shows Greenwoods innocence why is he not speaking up? Not the club. Him. If I was accused of something I didnt do, especially something like abusing women then Id be fighting it with everything I've got. Just come out publicly. Release the full audio. Get family and friends to come out and say we know the whole story and we stand by Greenwood. He is innocent. etc. Release the evidence to select journalists only. Then they can write we heard the full video and this is our conclusion. Do something. I cant think of any reason why an innocent person would just accept being called a woman abuser.

I imagine his legal advisors are telling him to keep quiet

 

[L1nk]

The question is if there is further evidence that shows Greenwoods innocence why is he not speaking up? Not the club. Him. If I was accused of something I didnt do, especially something like abusing women then Id be fighting it with everything I've got. Just come out publicly. Release the full audio. Get family and friends to come out and say we know the whole story and we stand by Greenwood. He is innocent. etc. Release the evidence to select journalists only. Then they can write we heard the full video and this is our conclusion. Do something. I cant think of any reason why an innocent person would just accept being called a woman abuser.

Well according to posters in this thread, it might be embarassing, or something.

 

[Baxquux]

The new material is that the witness recanted her previous statements, and then you have some people speculating that there is more new material on top of that.

There's been no confirmation that this is all the new material amounts to. Again, I don't think it's a good sign that people arguing against MG's guilt when it comes to the Criminal case specifically are constantly relying upon conjecture and presenting this as established fact.

 

[NotThatSoph]

There's been no confirmation that this is all the new material amounts to. Again, I don't think it's a good sign that people arguing against MG's guilt when it comes to the Criminal case specifically are constantly relying upon conjecture and presenting this as established fact.

They mention new material, and we know that is new material they received. We don't know if they have more, they might and they might not. There is nothing in the statement that indicates the existence of anything else, but as no one here is involved in the investigation it's impossible to know for sure. Exactly as I said.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

There's been no confirmation that this is all the new material amounts to. Again, I don't think it's a good sign that people arguing against MG's guilt when it comes to the Criminal case specifically are constantly relying upon conjecture and presenting this as established fact.

Succinct yet so true.

 

[Doracle]

I think we’d all love to know that, from both sides of the argument

I have a sneaking suspicion it’s not much more than his and her parents take on it because they have already stated that any other evidence was hard to get

That seems very doubtful to me. The club (and their lawyers) will be just as aware as we are of the fact that they shouldn’t just rely on Greenwood’s evidence in this situation. They didn’t need to say they were satisfied that he was innocent of the charges but went out of their way to do so several times in the statements. I’d be fairly certain that means that they must have some fairly compelling evidence/explanation.

 

[pocco]

That seems very doubtful to me. The club (and their lawyers) will be just as aware as we are of the fact that they shouldn’t just rely on Greenwood’s evidence in this situation. They didn’t need to say they were satisfied that he was innocent of the charges but went out of their way to do so several times in the statements. I’d be fairly certain that means that they must have some fairly compelling evidence/explanation.

Their whole statement came with a caveat that they didn't have all the evidence, including initial witness statements etc.

 

[horsechoker]

 

[TsuWave]

Not necessarily, we could have fired him on the premise of bringing the club into disrepute. Charges were dropped but that doesn’t equal innocence of all alleged. Either way the club should have acted decisively.

Do people here know more than the club? Do we even have an understanding of what threshold needs to be met to fire someone under the premise of “bringing the club into disrepute”? If contracts could be bypassed that easily there wouldn’t be much point to them, no?

Again, the club reportedly considered cutting ties, but their investigation resulted in:

“They debated whether to loan out or sell Greenwood, or attempt to cut ties with the 21-year-old altogether — though this would present legal challenges given the club do not consider, following the findings of an internal investigation, that they have grounds to terminate his contract.”

https://theathletic.com/4790552/2023/08/21/greenwood-man-united-u-turn/?source=user_shared_article

 

[Doracle]

Their whole statement came with a caveat that they didn't have all the evidence, including initial witness statements etc.

I don’t think they explained what evidence they didn’t have, just that they didn’t have all of it. I would be very surprised if they didn’t have the Police statements but have you seen something that expressly says that they didn’t somewhere?

In any event, if they had less evidence, it’s even more surprising that Arnold would be advised to say that he, personally, was satisfied Greenwood was innocent of the acts he was charged with. Again, there was no need whatsoever for the club to include that wording, and it must mean that they feel very strongly that it is true.

In any event, unless or until someone explains all the background, which is unlikely to happen, we can only speculate. I do find it somewhat astonishing that the likes of Holt can accuse United of misogyny for carrying out a seemingly thorough investigation just because they reached the opposite conclusion of that he would have liked them to reach, without having actually seen that investigation.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I don’t think they explained what evidence they didn’t have, just that they didn’t have all of it. I would be very surprised if they didn’t have the Police statements but have you seen something that expressly says that they didn’t somewhere?

In any event, if they had less evidence, it’s even more surprising that Arnold would be advised to say that he, personally, was satisfied Greenwood was innocent of the acts he was charged with. Again, there was no need whatsoever for the club to include that wording, and it must mean that they feel very strongly that it is true.

In any event, unless or until someone explains all the background, which is unlikely to happen, we can only speculate. I do find it somewhat astonishing that the likes of Holt can accuse United of misogyny for carrying out a seemingly thorough investigation just because they reached the opposite conclusion of that he would have liked them to reach, without having actually seen that investigation.

Except the fact that it's in United's interest, either if they wanted to bring him back (as was the original plan) or to sell him for as much money as possible. The whole "we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" is a meme for a reason.

I don't know why you would be surprised if they didn't have the police statements, I'd be much more surprised if they did. The only thing we know about the investigation is that they talked with Greenwood and no one else involved, that they told the alleged victim's mother what Greenwood said and gave her the chance to respond, which she didn't take, and that they know a longer audio file exists.

 

[golden_blunder]

Do people here know more than the club? Do we even have an understanding of what threshold needs to be met to fire someone under the premise of “bringing the club into disrepute”? If contracts could be bypassed that easily there wouldn’t be much point to them, no?

Again, the club reportedly considered cutting ties, but their investigation resulted in:

“They debated whether to loan out or sell Greenwood, or attempt to cut ties with the 21-year-old altogether — though this would present legal challenges given the club do not consider, following the findings of an internal investigation, that they have grounds to terminate his contract.”

https://theathletic.com/4790552/2023/08/21/greenwood-man-united-u-turn/?source=user_shared_article

The very fact that he broke bail conditions surely would be enough for a strong HR to discipline (up to and including dismissal) bringing the club into disrepute. Nobody can legally argue that he didn’t do that

 

[pocco]

I don’t think they explained what evidence they didn’t have, just that they didn’t have all of it. I would be very surprised if they didn’t have the Police statements but have you seen something that expressly says that they didn’t somewhere?

In any event, if they had less evidence, it’s even more surprising that Arnold would be advised to say that he, personally, was satisfied Greenwood was innocent of the acts he was charged with. Again, there was no need whatsoever for the club to include that wording, and it must mean that they feel very strongly that it is true.

In any event, unless or until someone explains all the background, which is unlikely to happen, we can only speculate. I do find it somewhat astonishing that the likes of Holt can accuse United of misogyny for carrying out a seemingly thorough investigation just because they reached the opposite conclusion of that he would have liked them to reach, without having actually seen that investigation.

United said in an email to season ticket holders that they didn't have access to all evidence. There were journalists that shed a bit more light on it and said that we didn't have access to initial witness statements, amongst other things. Also that the victim didn't attend the clubs interviews and instead her parents did, and that they didn't comment when the club put forward their findings, or something to that extent. I think a lot of what we put in our statement was misdirection and covering their own backs to be honest.

 

[TsuWave]

The very fact that he broke bail conditions surely would be enough for a strong HR to discipline (up to and including dismissal) bringing the club into disrepute. Nobody can legally argue that he didn’t do that

You’re just saying stuff - “up to and including dismissal - bringing the club into disrepute”. According to whom?

 

[golden_blunder]

I don’t think they explained what evidence they didn’t have, just that they didn’t have all of it. I would be very surprised if they didn’t have the Police statements but have you seen something that expressly says that they didn’t somewhere?

In any event, if they had less evidence, it’s even more surprising that Arnold would be advised to say that he, personally, was satisfied Greenwood was innocent of the acts he was charged with. Again, there was no need whatsoever for the club to include that wording, and it must mean that they feel very strongly that it is true.

In any event, unless or until someone explains all the background, which is unlikely to happen, we can only speculate. I do find it somewhat astonishing that the likes of Holt can accuse United of misogyny for carrying out a seemingly thorough investigation just because they reached the opposite conclusion of that he would have liked them to reach, without having actually seen that investigation.

Cynical me suspects the softer wording of the statement was agreed between the parties legal teams in order to facilitate a move and keep his career alive

 

[Pogba's Barber]

The question is if there is further evidence that shows Greenwoods innocence why is he not speaking up? Not the club. Him. If I was accused of something I didnt do, especially something like abusing women then Id be fighting it with everything I've got. Just come out publicly. Release the full audio. Get family and friends to come out and say we know the whole story and we stand by Greenwood. He is innocent. etc. Release the evidence to select journalists only. Then they can write we heard the full video and this is our conclusion. Do something. I cant think of any reason why an innocent person would just accept being called a woman abuser.

JUST?

Are you absolutely sure that you have considered the full gravity of the repercussions that could ensue if Greenwood JUST comes out and publicly explains that things are not exactly what they appear to be in audio and photos? What position would that put his partner and mother of his child in? IF he's able to prove some level of innocence, there's chance of an opposite and equal angry mob going after his partner for making "false" claims of domestic abuse and so on. She would have a lot to answer for, and we have to consider the risks to her physical safety and mental health in this case. Greenwood is damned if he's guilty, and she doesn't come up smelling of roses if he's innocent. To say its JUST a case of coming out and clearing everything up if he's innocent is massive oversimplification of the situation.

For the record, I believe he is guilty of something; just not sure what. Which is why this is so complicated.

 

[Carolina Red]

You can expand my question to anything really. If you are going to tell me you have never acted out because you have been told no your lying. Everyone has until they learn not to. Now imagine you are someone who has most likely never been told no. If you are unable to do that, you have "an awful big you problem". It's called being petulant and is a sign of immaturity. I will reiterate my original point for you again, as you seem to fixate on one line. It's 52 seconds of a 15 minute video, started at 12:37. That is not enough information for anyone to make an accurate assessment of what happened, and for all the people who are adamant they have the correct assessment- they should never be in a position to judge or police anything. It's a very dangerous thing to have such a lack of self-awareness, and is probably an indicator of an underlying issue in and of itself.

I’m embarrassed for you.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

If your telling me that when you were a teenager, let's say 16, you wouldn't get annoyed if you asked for sex and are turned down, your lying, unless your not males then fair enough.

'Being annoyed' and telling someone 'I don't give a feck what you want, you little shit' are miles apart.

That's kind of how morality works. It's about behaving without being led by your base impulses.

Are you absolutely sure that you have considered the full gravity of the repercussions that could ensue if Greenwood JUST comes out and publicly explains that things are not exactly what they appear to be in audio and photos? What position would that put his partner and mother of his child in? IF he's able to prove some level of innocence, there's chance of an opposite and equal angry mob going after his partner for making "false" claims of domestic abuse and so on.

The police and prosecution already know what's on the tape. Those are the institutions capable of causing actual damage to this woman.

Also, sorry, but at this point it's Greenwood's responsibility. She is the mother of a child that hadn't been conceived before the accusations were made. He (likely) broke the law to conceive this child. It's not a situation he just happens to be in.

 

[Glorio]

Apart from this specific incident, a few more things have come out in the press that paint a wider picture or a human being that's frankly quite horrible - to teammates, to staff, to drivers, to everyone really.

Now I'm one of those that don't believe football, footballers, even managers (to a point), should be a beacon of morality - that's for parents and leaders. The players are just people who happen to be talented. In this case though, sometimes you get your just desserts, and I feel this is one of those times.

I just hope we can recoup something from this, which is why I'm of the opinion of loan (hope he shines), then sell, but I suspect even that will be a struggle.

 

[NLunited]

Weve thrown this boy to the wolves - its a fecking disgrace. If he tops himself - who's to blame, him, us the media. Where is the humanity in this decision. Someone said earlier, as a club we dont have the balls to say he fecked up but we are going to rehabilitate him. He's not a serial sex offender, surely he has the right to a future. The mind boggles at how badly Man Utd have misread this one.

The boy did this to himself. What is a disgrace, is we have posters here making up all kinds of creepy excuses for him instead of acknowledging his behaviour was atrocious. I don’t think there is any doubt about that.

I don’t think he deserves to go to prison but it is best he continues his career elsewhere. The sooner you lot realize that the better.

 

[Redlambs]

There's been no confirmation that this is all the new material amounts to. Again, I don't think it's a good sign that people arguing against MG's guilt when it comes to the Criminal case specifically are constantly relying upon conjecture and presenting this as established fact.

I agree with this. We simply don't know and likely ever will. We can talk all day long about whether it's good or bad he's going, United's handling and all that, but people should stop short of outright saying he's guilty or innocent.


It's clear as day that obviously something is up with the situation all round though, which is why people who keep saying "just come out and tell us" simply aren't thinking about the ramifications. If United, the lawyers or himself could come up with any good explanation that doesn't drop himself or the mother of his child in further hot water then they would have. But they can't, and they won't, so we need to accept the fact that whatever the situation and whatever people want, United and Mason himself have told us it's for the best.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Apart from this specific incident, a few more things have come out in the press that paint a wider picture or a human being that's frankly quite horrible - to teammates, to staff, to drivers, to everyone really..

A moody teenager “allegedly” told a driver to “just drive”.

As for teammates, the article mentioned his harsh “put downs”, but if you’ve ever played football you’ll know players take the piss out of each other literally all the time, fecking Eden Hazard is on camera pretty much bullying Ivanovic when he’s in his mid 20’s. Nothing is extraordinary about footballers taking the piss out of each other, hell we see Keane, Richards, Neville and Carragher even today taking the piss out of each other’s abilities. There’s actually been studies done on it due to it being sooooo widespread in football, and due to how close the fine line between banter & bullying is.

Hardly “horrible human being” behaviour. Sounds more like many a teenager.

Then horrible stuff came out, but using a few nothing scenarios like the Ladyman article to paint his as a horrible human prior is ridiculous to say the least.

 

[Kellyiom]

Nah it's not. The impact of collateral consequences are very real. They are the reason in many criminal cases a judge will allow for mitigating circumstances to be considered, why support is often available for families who suffer very real consequences in these situations or right down to how a person or family is perceived by others after the fact.

It can mean financial ruin, mental breakdowns, snide remarks when out in public, dismissing a person's actions and a whole lot more. Think of those families who find out a relative is a child sex offender, or murderers. Very often these people are subjected to abuse by the public. "Surely they knew", "I bet they were involved", "Always been something weird about that family" and so on.

It should never stop someone being punished for their crimes nor is it what I am saying at all, just pointing out it's not nonsense at all.

Brilliantly worded. It's a horrible halo that affects a lot of people from one person's failings.

 

[JagUTD]

So, are there any credible links for him to move anywhere a week later?

What happens if no one wants to take him on?

This is such a shitshow.

Remains a United player until the next window. Probably be difficult to keep him away from not training in some capacity given it would be an expected duty on his contract and part of the clubs duty to him.

Presuming he's no longer suspended of course.

 

[izak]

No club wants him, not surprised at all.

 

[glaspalast]

As an outsider : man utd are incompetent

The moral thing to do was to sack the little shit.

The pragmatic thing to do was grasp he has negative value as an asset, and sack the little shit.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

No club wants him, not surprised at all.

Looks likely it aint that simple.

We don’t appear to be firing or releasing him, which means any club that “wants him” has to come to some kind of deal with United (likely with a large sell on or buy back), and then there’s the issue of his wages.

All that for someone who, whilst a super talent, hasn’t kicked a ball competitively in a loooooong time.

 

[goalscholes]

Very sad. I had a feeling it would be a lot more to this than what the media have fed us.

The absolute madness on social media from our fans and other fans and especially The Athletic made this unbearable.

I really think we should have kept him and helped him. Maybe we do that now without reinstating him.

Everything dies down and there was only a certain amount of time that the athletic/ Twitter celebs could stoke this before they got bored and moved on to the next thing like Chris Brown or Mike Tyson, who were actually found guilty of crimes.

But I think your very logical argument was lost, when the athletic flagged that some of the women’s national team were being abused by trolls/ bots, trying to get them to support Mason.

I think that was the point the club clearly decided that the emotional argument could never be won, they had lost control of the story and actual harm was coming from their silence.

JUST?

Are you absolutely sure that you have considered the full gravity of the repercussions that could ensue if Greenwood JUST comes out and publicly explains that things are not exactly what they appear to be in audio and photos? What position would that put his partner and mother of his child in? IF he's able to prove some level of innocence, there's chance of an opposite and equal angry mob going after his partner for making "false" claims of domestic abuse and so on. She would have a lot to answer for, and we have to consider the risks to her physical safety and mental health in this case. Greenwood is damned if he's guilty, and she doesn't come up smelling of roses if he's innocent. To say its JUST a case of coming out and clearing everything up if he's innocent is massive oversimplification of the situation.

For the record, I believe he is guilty of something; just not sure what. Which is why this is so complicated.

From the way he sounds in the recording, my guess is drug use.

 

[MegadrivePerson]

No club wants him, not surprised at all.

Yes its another example of how badly this has all been handled. The decision should have been made to move him on months ago. The club should have asked him where he'd have been interested in playing, explained to him that he needs to get out of England and sounded out a couple of clubs to see if they were interested, then arranged a deal with the most interested club.

The whole thing has become a vile circus now.

If no club will take him, what then?

 

[rooneyberbatov]

Yes its another example of how badly this has all been handled. The decision should have been made to move him on months ago. The club should have asked him where he'd have been interested in playing, explained to him that he needs to get out of England and sounded out a couple of clubs to see if they were interested, then arranged a deal with the most interested club.

The whole thing has become a vile circus now.

If no club will take him, what then?

Keeping him until his contract runs out seems a bit surreal. So perhaps there’s a chance to offload him in January.

 

[Doracle]

Cynical me suspects the softer wording of the statement was agreed between the parties legal teams in order to facilitate a move and keep his career alive

Yes, that is the counter-argument but it makes no sense. We aren’t getting any significant money for him now and surely the only reason the club would care about keeping his career alive would be if they believed he was innocent of the charges.

In contrast, imagine (god forbid) in 2 years’ time circumstances change and it turns out that there were ongoing issues, which are publicly revealed. The shitstorm the club would face, justifiably, as to how they declared him innocent would be extreme. They must be very very confident that they’ve got this right.

 

[pocco]

Yes, that is the counter-argument but it makes no sense. We aren’t getting any significant money for him now and surely the only reason the club would care about keeping his career alive would be if they believed he was innocent of the charges.

In contrast, imagine (god forbid) in 2 years’ time circumstances change and it turns out that there were ongoing issues, which are publicly revealed. The shitstorm the club would face, justifiably, as to how they declared him innocent would be extreme. They must be very very confident that they’ve got this right.

Like I said to you earlier, they clearly state that their investigation is based on only part of the evidence. Perhaps they're not confident they got it right, but they're hoping that he leaves and nothing is said about it again, or he leaves and something is said, at which point they say they made a decision based on evidence available. That caveat is crucial in their statement. If they wanted to paint him as 100% innocent then why mention that they didn't have all of the evidence? What is their motivation for mentioning that? It's just a carefully worded statement to allow them to try and retain some value by not damaging his image further, and ensuring they haven't said anything that he could take action over.

The only 'wildcard' scenario is that they try to engineer a situation for him to stay, then more information comes out in the future that shows him to be guilty. Then they would be in hot water.

 

[Glorio]

A moody teenager “allegedly” told a driver to “just drive”.

As for teammates, the article mentioned his harsh “put downs”, but if you’ve ever played football you’ll know players take the piss out of each other literally all the time, fecking Eden Hazard is on camera pretty much bullying Ivanovic when he’s in his mid 20’s. Nothing is extraordinary about footballers taking the piss out of each other, hell we see Keane, Richards, Neville and Carragher even today taking the piss out of each other’s abilities. There’s actually been studies done on it due to it being sooooo widespread in football, and due to how close the fine line between banter & bullying is.

Hardly “horrible human being” behaviour. Sounds more like many a teenager.

Then horrible stuff came out, but using a few nothing scenarios like the Ladyman article to paint his as a horrible human prior is ridiculous to say the least.

All the incidents, including the main one in question all built up to paint a picture - including this situation. Regardless of how many incidents you being up, bullying your teammates should never be normalised (that's very different to tough love or trying to spur them on). Attempting to do that with your post is actually ridiculous.
Why do people suddenly feel being a teenager gives people free reign to be disrespectful, callous idiots?

 

[JagUTD]

The new material is that the witness recanted her previous statements, and then you have some people speculating that there is more new material on top of that.

Stop speculating.