What has made you not so certain that he's as guilty as portrayed?
Your last paragraph is a load of nonsense, it has to be said. I'm pretty sure everyone here condemning beating up and threatening to rape someone is doing it because it's a horrible thing to do, rather than to look good and feel better about themselves.
I suppose I'd like to ask, what's made you so certain that he's guilty?
For me it's a combination of what I don't know along with red flags in relation to the relationship and accusations.
- Releasing only a cropped segment of the audio automatically opens up the question about what's been left out and why? What was said before? What was said after?
- It was a toxic relationship with Mason inviting girls back to his hotel on international duty.
- I've seen images in relation to the accusers social media where she boasted about cheating and spoke badly of her partner.
- The accuser shared company and was close to other girls who had relationships with PL footballers. One being Orla Sloan who was sentenced for stalking Mason Mount.
- Given the circles the accuser is involved in, I've not seen any footballers speak out against or shun Mason.
- He also appeared to have the support of the first team to return. Would you want to return to your workplace with a rapist working alongside you?
- The nature of how the information was released wasn't what I'd expect from a rape and domestic abuse victim given they're usually scared to speak out. It felt more like an attack on Mason rather than a cry for help and justice.
- The immediate aftermath and her fathers response.
- The lack of friends or family speaking out against the player on any platforms or making any known attempt to prevent her from getting back into a relationship with him.
- The clubs statement where it suggests they've looked at more evidence than what's available publicly in their investigation and came to a conclusion of no guilt.
- The fact that the accuser never went to the police to report any crimes. The police were only involved after seeing it on social media. And yet her father shortly after was quick to shoot it down, why?
- As a father, I think if another father thought their daughter was being abused - the last thing they'd do is defend the abuser unless they were certain things weren't as portrayed.
- In addition I don't think someone in an abusive relationship who has finally got out of it would run back to an abuser.
- Personally having listened to the audio many times, I cant say with confidence that I believe that's from someone actively raping someone else.
Now I know this then opens up multiple questions. If there is evidence out there which proves his guilt, why not release it? Well in this scenario, in my opinion, anything which exonerates Mason reflects very badly on the mother of his child. It also opens up a whole other saga and trial by social media.
So because of all these unknowns which I can't answer along with further details I've learned about the relationship - I can't be certain he is guilty.
In terms of my final paragraph. I think there is a difference between condemning those acts and condemning someone accused of performing those actions. This thread is about the actor not the acts.
The way in which you've phrased that paragraph comes across to me that you're implying I don't condemn horrible acts such as beating up and threatening to rape people. You may not be implying that but it's how it comes across when read.
This is exactly what I meant though. Rather than try to think critically and use logic to look at the evidence available along with the unknowns, it would be much easier for me to just call him a rapist as I wouldn't have others suggesting I think rapes OK.
Admittedly when this all first came out I was very much outraged and firmly in the "never let him play again" camp. How could I support an individual who conducts themselves in such a manner of disgust, especially when I have a daughter myself. It was only upon opening myself to other perspectives and listening to their points that I mellowed down and thought that, yes - there is much more to this than meets the eye.
I'm sorry if my opinion offends you or anyone else. And if anything I've said in the above is incorrect or inaccurate then I apologise too - alot of the knowledge I've gathered is through discussing this with others.
For now I'll be keeping a close eye on Mason at Getafe both on and off the pitch. Assuming no further evidence comes out to prove his guilt then as things stand I'd be open to his return if his performances merit it.
Edit: I can only make 3 posts per day. But to reply to golden blunder (if he sees this). The clubs statement said,
"Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged."
"Based on the evidence available to us" suggests they have evidence available different to that in the public domain.
Saying "did not provide a full picture" further suggests the club has had access to additional evidence. Or why else would they suggest the material online doesn't provide a full picture if that's the only picture they've had access to.
