Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic

[Baneofthegame]

I’m not your biggest fan, far from it - but wish you a speedy recovery.

Well played sir.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

I’m not your biggest fan, far from it - but wish you a speedy recovery.

You're lucky there was a 15 minute slow Rhyme. Honestly, after all I've done for you. I know what kind of Animal you are, Rhyme Rat.

 

[flameinthesun]

A couple of points. The CPS dropped the case because the evidence they had changed part way through the investigation.

The evidence changed because the accuser removed her evidence. She is likely to have given a contradictory statement or a reason for withdrawing her initial statement. That is new evidence.

Greenwood was not found innocent, he was not found not guilty, the case was dropped. No further action was taken.

Without her statement, and likely with it the ownership of the video and audio, the only other evidence would be hearsay at best. No direct evidence.

Anybody who has ever been NFA'd for something they have actually done knows how limited the CPS is, criminal trails are expensive. I've been NFA'd a few times from street fights when I was younger.

We also know Greenwood broke his bail conditions straight away. The accused of domestic violence broke bail and moved in with the supposed victim almost instantaneously.

I hope I am the only one in this thread who has been accused of domestic violence. My next door neighbor misunderstood my flashbacks and night terrors from my CPTSD and called the police a number of times.

I was told by the police to leave the family home and was not to have any contact with the supposed victim (my then and still wife) while they concluded their investigation.

My lawyer told me any communication would be breaking bail, even if it was my wife who called me, not even allowed to pass messages through third parties. They would have told him the same. It was his bail, it was his responsibility to stick to the conditions of that bail, no matter the circumstances, with the punishment for breaking that bail being sent to jail in violation of a court order.

That meant me not seeing my wife or baby daughters for over a month. I missed emergencies because only the lawyers could pass me any information through. I was fecking horrible, but I did it because that's what you are supposed to do, especially given the consequences of breaking a court order, consequences Greenwood seemingly disregarded as he got her pregnant while on bail.

The club statement only refers to the initial accusations, attempted rape and physical assault. It mentions nothing of the subsequent charges of coercive behaviour, emotional abuse, threatening behaviour, and of course, breaking a court order. At least one of those subsequent charges we know he was guilty of.

And a further point about the supposed victims father and family. People are assuming that because they are supporting the couple, that they are doing from a point purely of loving their daughter, which I don't think they would be doing if the family wasn't white.

If her family was of colour, he father's statements would be looked at through the prism of "religion" and "culture". I don't think that's right, but I do think that's what would be happening.

The facts of the matter are that Greenwood is guilty of a crime, whether he was punished or not. The only way he didn't is if that's not his baby. Breaking bail in a DV case is a serious thing.

Appreciative of your post and sharing your personal experiences.

I would say that, outside of your personal experience, the "if the family were a different colour", is an assumption as well as united's statement not referring to coercive behaviour etc thereby

Might be arguing about semantics here, but they didn't say evidence per se.



Material can be facts/situations that have changed, potentially also evidence, but if it was new evidence then why wouldn't they just use the word evidence. Nah this was carefully worded.
This "new material" that made a conviction unrealistic was most likely simply the fact that the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator were back together, getting married and having a child together.

You saying that most likely them being together being the new material is the same as someone saying its most likely the new material was evidence. Both are just guesses.

 

[Tincanalley]

My other half is a social worker, the now generation are into things you can’t comprehend. As far as I’m concerned he’s innocent as that’s what the judicial system said, the more people condone trial by media the worse society will get. In general the vast majority of society are pretty thick, they believe what they read in a rag newspaper, what they don’t understand is media don’t care in general about truth, they care about paper sales. We don’t have legitimate news anymore it’s entertainment news. The sooner people get that and stop sucking the tit the better we will be.

Prome example is Cliff Richard, I’m not a big fan of him but the way hewas treated was IMO horrific, he will never be the same again. Trialed over the coals, for public scandal, for what? It’s absolutely disgusting. We will never be more than an angry mob.

Good post

 

[macheda14]

My other half is a social worker, the now generation are into things you can’t comprehend. As far as I’m concerned he’s innocent as that’s what the judicial system said, the more people condone trial by media the worse society will get. In general the vast majority of society are pretty thick, they believe what they read in a rag newspaper, what they don’t understand is media don’t care in general about truth, they care about paper sales. We don’t have legitimate news anymore it’s entertainment news. The sooner people get that and stop sucking the tit the better we will be.

Prome example is Cliff Richard, I’m not a big fan of him but the way hewas treated was IMO horrific, he will never be the same again. Trialed over the coals, for public scandal, for what? It’s absolutely disgusting. We will never be more than an angry mob.

If it was CNC then that was an Oscar worthy performance. And no the judicial system didn’t say he was innocent, he wasn’t acquired, the charges were dropped - it’s a big difference.

 

[sizzling sausages]

Good post

It's nonsensical.

 

[Ghostrider318]

The only reason I was on board to give him another chance was because they had a kid. The whole situation was messed up on multiple fronts - SA, jailtime, weirdly the victims family was still supportive of him, etc etc. Hope he and his young family gets the chance to rebuild their lives quietly and away from the eyes of obsessed armchair SJWs who wont think twice about the damage to the kid or the girl if Mason cant earn a living....

 

[Raoul]

My other half is a social worker, the now generation are into things you can’t comprehend. As far as I’m concerned he’s innocent as that’s what the judicial system said, the more people condone trial by media the worse society will get. In general the vast majority of society are pretty thick, they believe what they read in a rag newspaper, what they don’t understand is media don’t care in general about truth, they care about paper sales. We don’t have legitimate news anymore it’s entertainment news. The sooner people get that and stop sucking the tit the better we will be.

Prome example is Cliff Richard, I’m not a big fan of him but the way hewas treated was IMO horrific, he will never be the same again. Trialed over the coals, for public scandal, for what? It’s absolutely disgusting. We will never be more than an angry mob.

Although everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the term itself is generally not a legal one. Guilty or Not Guilty would be the only two options here.

 

[macheda14]

Good post although you can prosecute without a supporting victim if it remains serious enough and in the public interest to do so.

Hearsay evidence can be introduced and in some instances the victim can be compelled to give evidence.

Whilst the withdrawal of the victim was very important I also believe there was additional evidence that undermined the case and as such prevented this route being viable.

I’ve lifted the below from the CPS for those interested;


Evidence led prosecutions

The prosecution strategy should, from the outset, consider the possibility of proceeding without the victim's support and this should be clearly recorded within the prosecutor’s review. Prosecutors should rarely need to apply to the court for further time to investigate this possibility. Prosecutors should always consider whether there is any risk to the safety of the victim in the case proceeding without their support; a victim should not be placed at increased risk through this course of action. Where there is an evidence led prosecution, victims must still be kept informed of progress.

Prosecutors should consider the following in the order outlined:

1. Using evidence other than that of the victim - the prosecutor should consider the potential evidence available that could be adduced. The following should be considered but is not an exhaustive list:
   • First contact with the police such as 999 calls or the attending officers’ statements, which may cover the demeanour of the victim and the suspect and show the state of the scene
   • Body worn footage – this could cover the demeanour of the victim or suspect (if they remain present at the time the footage was obtained), a first account, capture any injuries and may have significant comments
   • Injuries which could include photos or the comments of what the attending officers have seen and any medical evidence available
   • Independent witness statements
   • CCTV – may capture the incident or demeanour of the parties
   • Suspect’s interview – including any inconsistencies with significant statements
   • House to house enquiries
   • Telephone – messaging and social media
   • Expert evidence
2. Res gestae – A statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if:
   • the statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded, or
   • the statement accompanied an act which can be properly evaluated as evidence only if considered in conjunction with the statement, or
   • the statement relates to a physical sensation or a mental state (such as intention or emotion).

See below for further details on how to adduce evidence under the res gestae principle.

1. Making an application under section 116(2)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) - consideration should be given to applying to admit a victim's statement as hearsay under section 116(2)(e) of the CJA 2003, if there is evidence that the victim is in fear The court will assess various factors under s116(4) CJA 2003 such as:
   • the statement’s contents
   • any risk that its admission or exclusion will result in unfairness to any party to the proceedings and in particular to how difficult it will be to challenge a statement if the relevant person does not give oral evidence
   • any special measures for the giving of evidence by the fearful witness; and
   • any other relevant circumstances.

The prosecutor will need to show there is a causal link between the fear and the failure or refusal to give evidence. How this is proved will depend on the history and circumstances of the particular case (R v Riat [2013] 1 ALL ER 349). Further guidance can be found in the Hearsay legal guidance;

1. Making an application under section 114(1)(d) of the CJA 2003 - where there is other evidence, consideration should be given to applying to adduce hearsay if it would be in the interests of justice to do so (prosecutors should refer to the legal guidance on Hearsay). For example, any third-party witness statements from neighbours or support representatives assisting the victim.

Prosecutors must re-review every case where a victim subsequently withdraws or refuses to participate in a prosecution. Prosecutors should determine if a case could be prosecuted without the victim being required to attend court to give evidence. If the evidential stage of the full code test is met, they should then apply the principles for public interest considerations in the Code.

Adducing evidence under the res gestae Principle
Before considering adducing evidence by way of res gestae prosecutors should ensure that proper inquiries have been made to determine why a victim has not/will not appear at court, in accordance with the principles set out in Wills v CPS [2016] EWHC 3779 (Admin).

Where the prosecutor concludes that the material is res gestae, they should indicate to the court that the prosecution position is that the evidence is admissible, and they intend to adduce it under the res gestae principle. The prosecutor should remind the court (if necessary) that the requirement for a written application under Crim PR 20.2 does not apply and oral notice can be given of the intention to adduce the evidence as res gestae. (Crim PR 20.5(1)(b)).

Prosecutors should summarise the important details of the evidence, identifying the relevant content for example within the body worn footage or the 999 call.

The court should be referred to s118(4) CJA 2003 which preserves the rules of law relating to res gestae:

Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings a statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if-

1. The statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded,
2. The statement accompanied an act which can be properly evaluated as evidence only if considered in conjunction with the statement, or
3. The statement relates to a physical sensation or a mental state (such as intention or emotion)

Prosecutors should explain which subsection above they are relying upon and how the facts of the case mean it applies. The Court should also be referred to relevant case law, such as:

R v Andrews [1987] 84 Cr App R 382 in which the House of Lords said that the trial judge must ask whether the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded. In answering that question the judge must have regard to:

• how startling or dramatic the event was
• how spontaneous the statement was
• whether the triggering event was still operative when the statement was made
• Any special features relevant to the possibility of distortion or concoction (e.g. evidence of a motive to fabricate false evidence); and
• Any special features relevant to the possibility of error (e.g. an identification made by a witness with particularly poor eyesight).

In Barnaby v DPP [2015] EWHC 232 (Admin) the victim’s account was provided to the police on a 999 call. The victim then spoke to the police 6 minutes later after the incident and refused to make a statement. The evidence consisted of a transcript of the 999 calls and the account given by the victim when she saw the police officers at the premises shortly after the alleged strangulation. It was held the court was entitled to dismiss the possibility of concoction or distortion of the victim’s evidence: the 999 telephone calls were made almost immediately after the alleged assault which “would have dominated the thoughts of the victim and her utterances would have been instinctive and spontaneous” and the police arrived within six minutes of the last phone call and observed the victim in an agitated state with visible signs of strangulation on her neck.

You can, but it’s still needs to be a case they think they can win. I was witness to domestic assault across the road from where I live. The woman didn’t testify but they still pursued it because there were two witnesses. The case kept on getting pushed back and I was speaking to the lawyer and they said to both the other witness and me that it was imperative we come back to court because they would have to drop the case if they only had one witness.

In this case yes they could have attempted to prosecute, but with her withdrawing her testimony they had 0 percent chance to convict.

 

[DJ_21]

Can see him repaying Getafe back with plenty of goals. They’ve shown faith in him and took this opportunity to sign a player they could have only dreamed of. He’s a top class finisher… I’m interested to see if they’ll play him upfront or on the right which is where we seen the best of him.

 

[TheReligion]

You can, but it’s still needs to be a case they think they can win. I was witness to domestic assault across the road from where I live. The woman didn’t testify but they still pursued it because there were two witnesses. The case kept on getting pushed back and I was speaking to the lawyer and they said to both the other witness and me that it was imperative we come back to court because they would have to drop the case if they only had one witness.

In this case yes they could have attempted to prosecute, but with her withdrawing her testimony they had 0 percent chance to convict.

That’s not correct at all.

 

[redshaw]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Probably will take time, he does look much thinner in other shots.

 

[Canuckred64]

You can, but it’s still needs to be a case they think they can win. I was witness to domestic assault across the road from where I live. The woman didn’t testify but they still pursued it because there were two witnesses. The case kept on getting pushed back and I was speaking to the lawyer and they said to both the other witness and me that it was imperative we come back to court because they would have to drop the case if they only had one witness.

In this case yes they could have attempted to prosecute, but with her withdrawing her testimony they had 0 percent chance to convict.

There could have been a conviction without her testimony. The CPS had the pictures and the tape . If they presented them as evidence at a trail, I imagine they would have gotten a conviction, assuming what we saw and heard are a true representation of what happened.. Just look how many people on here are sure he's guilty just based on seeing the pictures and hearing a portion of the tape.

She also made a statement to the police, I am not sure about the legal position of it, but couldn't the CPS have her orginial statement read into the record?

 

[Matriac]

You saying that most likely them being together being the new material is the same as someone saying its most likely the new material was evidence. Both are just guesses.

Nah I said if it was new evidence why not use the word evidence.

 

[Todd]

My other half is a social worker, the now generation are into things you can’t comprehend. As far as I’m concerned he’s innocent as that’s what the judicial system said, the more people condone trial by media the worse society will get. In general the vast majority of society are pretty thick, they believe what they read in a rag newspaper, what they don’t understand is media don’t care in general about truth, they care about paper sales. We don’t have legitimate news anymore it’s entertainment news. The sooner people get that and stop sucking the tit the better we will be.

Prome example is Cliff Richard, I’m not a big fan of him but the way hewas treated was IMO horrific, he will never be the same again. Trialed over the coals, for public scandal, for what? It’s absolutely disgusting. We will never be more than an angry mob.

Why do so many people say stuff like this?

No, the judicial system did not say that he's inoccent. Charges being dropped doesn't automatically mean that a suspect is innocent. He's almost surely guilty of mistreating and violating that woman, but it seems as if she decided that she no longer want to see him face the consequences of his actions.

We see stuff like this in America all the time, sadly. A man will beat his wife, get arrested, and then the woman will drop the charges because 'this time it's different' and 'he'll never do it again' and 'deep down he loves me.' Those men don't all of a sudden become 'innocent' when their wives grant them mercy.

We need to stop making excuses for rapists and abusers and stop deciding that they're 'innocent' just because we want them to be.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

Nah I said if it was new evidence why not use the word evidence.

Because it’s technically not evidence if the case is being dropped.

It’s semantics, they’ve clearly said witness withdrawal and new material emerging.

 

[George Owen]

Why do so many people say stuff like this?

No, the judicial system did not say that he's inoccent. Charges being dropped doesn't automatically mean that a suspect is innocent. He's almost surely guilty of mistreating and violating that woman, but it seems as if she decided that she no longer want to see him face the consequences of his actions.

We see stuff like this in America all the time, sadly. A man will beat his wife, get arrested, and then the woman will drop the charges because 'this time it's different' and 'he'll never do it again' and 'deep down he loves me.' Those men don't all of a sudden become 'innocent' when their wives grant them mercy.

We need to stop making excuses for rapists and abusers and stop deciding that they're 'innocent' just because we want them to be.

You need to stop deciding that someone is guilty just because you want him to.

 

[giggs-beckham]

My flat was on fire, a few minutes later, I'd be flaming

Glad you made it out!

 

[dumbo]

My other half is a social worker, the now generation are into things you can’t comprehend. As far as I’m concerned he’s innocent as that’s what the judicial system said, the more people condone trial by media the worse society will get. In general the vast majority of society are pretty thick, they believe what they read in a rag newspaper, what they don’t understand is media don’t care in general about truth, they care about paper sales. We don’t have legitimate news anymore it’s entertainment news. The sooner people get that and stop sucking the tit the better we will be.

Prome example is Cliff Richard, I’m not a big fan of him but the way hewas treated was IMO horrific, he will never be the same again. Trialed over the coals, for public scandal, for what? It’s absolutely disgusting. We will never be more than an angry mob.

The contortions going on in this thread to fold genuine concerns about violence against women into some mob led media conspiracy with a political agenda is appalling.

 

[yumtum]

You need to stop deciding that someone is guilty just because you want him to.

His first sentence is correct, but I've seen just as many, if not more posters presume guilt because the charges were dropped.

It was the same recently when posters were saying just because the courts deemed someone not guilty, doesn't mean they were innocent (think it was Benjamin Mendy.

Now it seems its impossible to be innocent the moment you've been arrested.

Case dropped? Still probably guilty.
Found not guilty in the courts? Ah but they're still not innocent.
Arrested and release? Yeah, there's no smoke without fire, they've probably done something wrong.

I've seen Evans' name pop up a few times in this thread which says it all, 15 years after a girl accusing him of rape because her boyfriend got jealous is still held against the man.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

His first sentence is correct, but I've seen just as many, if not more posters presume guilt because the charges were dropped.

It was the same recently when posters were saying just because the courts deemed someone not guilty, doesn't mean they were innocent (think it was Benjamin Mendy.

Now it seems its impossible to be innocent the moment you've been arrested.

Case dropped? Still probably guilty.
Found not guilty in the courts? Ah but they're still not innocent.
Arrested and release? Yeah, there's no smoke without fire, they've probably done something wrong.

I've seen Evans' name pop up a few times in this thread which says it all, 15 years after a girl accusing him of rape because her boyfriend got jealous is still held against the man.

One of the big problems with the discussion is that people aren't researching before they make bold claims

 

[Ole's screen]

If it was CNC then that was an Oscar worthy performance. And no the judicial system didn’t say he was innocent, he wasn’t acquired, the charges were dropped - it’s a big difference.

Again, the legal system NEVER says someone is innocent. Charges being dropped is as close to “declared innocent” as the legal system gets.

 

[Red71]

Whatever happened to someone being presumed innocent until proven guilty…? I don’t think the term “not guilty” applies here anyway because it never went to court…so he must be classed as innocent surely, whether or not there are those that are absolutely convinced he’s done something heinous…?

 

[maniak]

Whatever happened to someone being presumed innocent until proven guilty…?

That applies to legal system, not random folk talking on the internet. I'm sure every single person in the world knows someone who's committed a crime and were never found guilty.

I know a guy who sells tech under the table without paying taxes. He's committing a crime, he was never on trail, should I say he's innocent? I know he's not.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

The courts are black and white, people are shades of gray, hence the term in the balance of probabilities.

People are allowed to doubt the veracity of someone's story.

 

[Red71]

That applies to legal system, not random folk talking on the internet. I'm sure every single person in the world knows someone who's committed a crime and were never found guilty.

I know a guy who sells tech under the table without paying taxes. He's committing a crime, he was never on trail, should I say he's innocent? I know he's not.

I suppose in your example, your guy would be classed as not innocent at least because you know for a fact he’s not paying taxes…(some might argue he’s just sticking it to the Man…although that’s another conversation…)

With regards to Greenwood, I just see so many writing that he can’t be classed as innocent because the case was dismissed…maybe it would be true to say that he’s not been “found” innocent but the point is that we are all innocent until proven otherwise…particularly in this case where it didn’t wind up in court and his status then reverts back to what he was before this all started…presumed innocent…surely?

 

[maniak]

I suppose in your example, your guy would be classed as not innocent at least because you know for a fact he’s not paying taxes…(some might argue he’s just sticking it to the Man…although that’s another conversation…)

With regards to Greenwood, I just see so many writing that he can’t be classed as innocent because the case was dismissed…maybe it would be true to say that he’s not been “found” innocent but the point is that we are all innocent until proven otherwise…particularly in this case where it didn’t wind up in court and his status then reverts back to what he was before this all started…presumed innocent…surely?

I mean, do you honestly listen to that audio and conclude he's not guilty of some sort of domestic abuse? I find that very difficult.

The presumption of innocence is part of legal mechanisms to protect people who are being accused of a crime, that's it, it's not an absolute truth that people have to follow in random conversation.

Regardless of what courts say, I'm sure you think some politicians are guilty of some wrongdoing or even crimes and you'll keep that idea regardless of what the justice system says. That's because the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to citizen's opinions.

 

[Kellyiom]

€80 wouldn't cover the admin fee

There's no point living an interesting life if you wont tell anyone about it.

With regards to my final paragraph, it's exactly what happened to me. Both families are aware of my childhood trauma and were telling the police, as were my mental health team, but the police gave us the impression that they didn't believe it because of our "secretive culture". As you can tell, I'm not a very secretive person.

Its interesting watching it from the other side now, I'm involved in an on going police investigation against my cousin for that childhood trauma.

wow, @Peter van der Gea that's very gutsy to 'own' that story, (I hate that expression, but I mean it!), for what it's worth I found it was ultimately better just to front it all out, in my experience there're groups with the word 'anonymous' in the title but to be honest if you're in one of these situations, you're not keeping anything anonymous, especially in a relatively small industry or small region. You're just conning yourself and I found it much more productive long-term. Gits will always chat behind your back but so what?! thanks for writing that fella, onwards and upwards! Just hope the club can get its act together, my hair's going greyer by the day.

 

[Pickle85]

A couple of points. The CPS dropped the case because the evidence they had changed part way through the investigation.

The evidence changed because the accuser removed her evidence. She is likely to have given a contradictory statement or a reason for withdrawing her initial statement. That is new evidence.

Greenwood was not found innocent, he was not found not guilty, the case was dropped. No further action was taken.

Without her statement, and likely with it the ownership of the video and audio, the only other evidence would be hearsay at best. No direct evidence.

Anybody who has ever been NFA'd for something they have actually done knows how limited the CPS is, criminal trails are expensive. I've been NFA'd a few times from street fights when I was younger.

We also know Greenwood broke his bail conditions straight away. The accused of domestic violence broke bail and moved in with the supposed victim almost instantaneously.

I hope I am the only one in this thread who has been accused of domestic violence. My next door neighbor misunderstood my flashbacks and night terrors from my CPTSD and called the police a number of times.

I was told by the police to leave the family home and was not to have any contact with the supposed victim (my then and still wife) while they concluded their investigation.

My lawyer told me any communication would be breaking bail, even if it was my wife who called me, not even allowed to pass messages through third parties. They would have told him the same. It was his bail, it was his responsibility to stick to the conditions of that bail, no matter the circumstances, with the punishment for breaking that bail being sent to jail in violation of a court order.

That meant me not seeing my wife or baby daughters for over a month. I missed emergencies because only the lawyers could pass me any information through. I was fecking horrible, but I did it because that's what you are supposed to do, especially given the consequences of breaking a court order, consequences Greenwood seemingly disregarded as he got her pregnant while on bail.

The club statement only refers to the initial accusations, attempted rape and physical assault. It mentions nothing of the subsequent charges of coercive behaviour, emotional abuse, threatening behaviour, and of course, breaking a court order. At least one of those subsequent charges we know he was guilty of.

And a further point about the supposed victims father and family. People are assuming that because they are supporting the couple, that they are doing from a point purely of loving their daughter, which I don't think they would be doing if the family wasn't white.

If her family was of colour, he father's statements would be looked at through the prism of "religion" and "culture". I don't think that's right, but I do think that's what would be happening.

The facts of the matter are that Greenwood is guilty of a crime, whether he was punished or not. The only way he didn't is if that's not his baby. Breaking bail in a DV case is a serious thing.

Thanks for sharing man and sorry you had to go through that. Agreed with the above and thanks for the insight.

 

[Sky1981]

I suppose in your example, your guy would be classed as not innocent at least because you know for a fact he’s not paying taxes…(some might argue he’s just sticking it to the Man…although that’s another conversation…)

With regards to Greenwood, I just see so many writing that he can’t be classed as innocent because the case was dismissed…maybe it would be true to say that he’s not been “found” innocent but the point is that we are all innocent until proven otherwise…particularly in this case where it didn’t wind up in court and his status then reverts back to what he was before this all started…presumed innocent…surely?

Stop it. He's not innocence

The tape proven it.. he's lucky he grovel back to his GF during investigation and impregnated his GF and made her drop the case.

And he's not jailed, he's not even getting a fine, the club just feel repuged by his attidue just as so many fans and just dont want to see him in our jersey.

He's still free and hell he even still receiving salary

 

[Ted Lasso]

The courts are black and white, people are shades of gray, hence the term in the balance of probabilities.

People are allowed to doubt the veracity of someone's story.

This guy, spouting wisdoms and knowledge while breathing on one lung. Godspeed with the recovery

 

[Rhyme Animal]

We also know Greenwood broke his bail conditions straight away. The accused of domestic violence broke bail and moved in with the supposed victim almost instantaneously.

I hope I am the only one in this thread who has been accused of domestic violence. My next door neighbor misunderstood my flashbacks and night terrors from my CPTSD and called the police a number of times.

I was told by the police to leave the family home and was not to have any contact with the supposed victim (my then and still wife) while they concluded their investigation.

My lawyer told me any communication would be breaking bail, even if it was my wife who called me, not even allowed to pass messages through third parties. They would have told him the same. It was his bail, it was his responsibility to stick to the conditions of that bail, no matter the circumstances, with the punishment for breaking that bail being sent to jail in violation of a court order.

That meant me not seeing my wife or baby daughters for over a month. I missed emergencies because only the lawyers could pass me any information through. I was fecking horrible, but I did it because that's what you are supposed to do, especially given the consequences of breaking a court order, consequences Greenwood seemingly disregarded as he got her pregnant while on bail.

Genuine question - how come Greenwood wasn’t pursued by the CPS further then for breaking his bail?

If you’re saying you were told someone could go to prison solely for breaking bail - irregardless of the other charge, as with yourself - why wasn’t Greenwood punished for doing so? Doesn’t seem to make sense.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

Also, this breaking bail. If you are a 19-year-old boy, in love crush or whatever and your girlfriend is like, I love you I miss you, please please come over etc. I'm most likely going to break bail. You will all probably have a go at me for saying so, but that how I see it. These are two teenagers in love that both wanted to see each other obviously very much and ended up having a baby in doing so.
And I know you are going to say, if he loved her so much, then why did he do what ever he did, but I am only talking about the breaking bail argument.
If I was a grown man I wouldn't, but a 19 year old boy, probably would.

 

[quiet_united]

I personally Mason and his wife should do an interview and show the world that they have moved on and learnt from their mistakes.

 

[Yorke to Cole]

I personally Mason and his wife should do an interview and show the world that they have moved on and learnt from their mistakes.

That is what many think he needs to do if he wants to come back to play in the Premiership or indeed us.

 

[JB7]

That is what many think he needs to do if he wants to come back to play in the Premiership or indeed us.

I'd quite enjoy seeing him put on a rugby pitch to be fair.

As for us, he's never playing for us again. Completely insane that people even think it's a possibility at this stage.

 

[Bert_]

I personally Mason and his wife should do an interview and show the world that they have moved on and learnt from their mistakes.

They're not married and what were her mistakes exactly?

 

[Ted Lasso]

Also, this breaking bail. If you are a 19-year-old boy, in love crush or whatever and your girlfriend is like, I love you I miss you, please please come over etc. I'm most likely going to break bail. You will all probably have a go at me for saying so, but that how I see it. These are two teenagers in love that both wanted to see each other obviously very much and ended up having a baby in doing so.
And I know you are going to say, if he loved her so much, then why did he do what ever he did, but I am only talking about the breaking bail argument.
If I was a grown man I wouldn't, but a 19 year old boy, probably would.

It did sound like he was very much in love in that audio. He wanted to have sex with his girlfriend who did not and refused. He tells her he'll force her. She says please just go fck someone else. He says no he just wants her.

Pure, innocent 19 year old love.

Breaking bail after date rape is surely because he missed her so much. I wonder if she wanted to see him. Doesn't matter though. He NEEDED to see her. Love. Ah.

Most 19-year old boys don't force their partners to do things with physical violence. Most all of them will fall back on claims of love to excuse it and move on. It's a very similar pattern across most domestic violence cases.

And breaking bail is illegal as well. Seems like in this case the police just didn't have the evidence aside from a tip(s) and online bank statements suggesting it.

 

[macheda14]

Again, the legal system NEVER says someone is innocent. Charges being dropped is as close to “declared innocent” as the legal system gets.

No it isn’t. If I punched you in the face and there were no witnesses the police would charge me with the crime, try to build a case and then realise there is no opportunity to win a conviction so could drop the charges. That’s not a declaration of innocence, more they knew there was not enough evidence to be able to convict.

However if we went to court and through a trail and you were acquitted then that’s as close to being declared innocent as you could get.

Charges drop is not an acquittal.

There could have been a conviction without her testimony. The CPS had the pictures and the tape . If they presented them as evidence at a trail, I imagine they would have gotten a conviction, assuming what we saw and heard are a true representation of what happened.. Just look how many people on here are sure he's guilty just based on seeing the pictures and hearing a portion of the tape.

She also made a statement to the police, I am not sure about the legal position of it, but couldn't the CPS have her orginial statement read into the record?

She retracted her statement. Therefore no longer admissible. The pictures and recordings were not strong enough without her to provide context. If she wasn’t there, the defence could just say ‘yeah that was all roleplay’ and there would be no one to refute it.

 

[Lash]

Also, this breaking bail. If you are a 19-year-old boy, in love crush or whatever and your girlfriend is like, I love you I miss you, please please come over etc. I'm most likely going to break bail. You will all probably have a go at me for saying so, but that how I see it. These are two teenagers in love that both wanted to see each other obviously very much and ended up having a baby in doing so.
And I know you are going to say, if he loved her so much, then why did he do what ever he did, but I am only talking about the breaking bail argument.
If I was a grown man I wouldn't, but a 19 year old boy, probably would.

Even if this was all true and was as innocent as you say, the reason you're not meant to have any contact with the victim is to protect the most vulnerable in these situations. It's like saying, I can go over the speed limit because I'm a good driver. That's not why it's illegal and there's a good reason for why it is the law.