The hard evidence includes a recording of Greenwood threatening his partner with rape if he does not receive sex from her.
Unless he can provide the club with a good explanation as to why this is, the club have absolutely no choice. He has to be removed.
According to the club, he did provide an alternative explanation which they accepted (they even said they believe him to be innocent or words to that affect, when they could have easily sat on the fence and said he's not guilty in the eyes of the law).
This conversation just goes in circles. People have incomplete information and choose to believe what they want to believe. Even if the alternative explanation was made public it would be disputed endlessly. Unfortunately, we won't ever know if he's innocent or not. Some people will read that and think "but I do know because X or Y". No, they don't
know and likely never will. Stastically, sometimes victims are pressured or coerced into retracting statements, but nobody
knows if that's the case here. Statistically, lots of culprits get away with these crimes, but nobody
knows if that's the case with Greenwood. It's all speculation. Some people may be confident in their instinctive opinion, and they may well even be right. He might be completely guilty. So it circles back to the same fundamental point which is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Which seems to be really uncomfortable for some people to accept, but there's really no alternative stance that can be justified imo.
I used to think the Greenwood's should make the information public to explain what happened (or at least, what they want to portray as what happened), to attempt to defuse the situation and provide some closure. But now I think there's no point them doing that, as whatever explanation they give it will never be accepted by a percentage of people.
(not directing this response at you, rather the discussion generally)