Do they do funny handshakes?
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
Of course it does. If you believe him not to be innocent based on what you know, you should be in a position to not think that. Not exactly a fecking big ask.
Again, he's not explained any of it, so I don't see why we should just say "I guess we'll never know", when he could just explain it.
They clearly weren't, as he'd be back here already otherwise. This is just a naive view of how the legal system works when it comes to rape. I urge you to look into the statistics and issues.
But why should we just put up with that? It's not the same as me doubting your innocence as a domestic abuser. Nobody, except very few people, would know, but you don't have load of public evidence suggesting you are.
Where would people stand if hypothetically United had not made a statement after their investigation and just sacked him?
Individual highlights vs Granada:
I'm not even focusing too much on the goal. Just his movement with the ball is a class apart.
On to Real Madrid next on the 1st of February. Can't wait!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm not even focusing too much on the goal. Just his movement with the ball is a class apart.
On to Real Madrid next on the 1st of February. Can't wait!
Longer video of his performance:
Sorry here’s me thinking there was context in our conversation.
Nothing special.
Manchester Utd player scores a good goal on loan. “I just can’t understand why people are discussing it…” come off it it’s obvious people will talk about his footballing ability because like him or loathe him it’s very good!
This is the crux of your issue and many of the most ardent Greenwood out posters. It’s pure conjecture and frankly nonsense. I was ready to wash my hands of him if he was proven guilty in a court of law. He wasn’t so as Rozay says, we can’t just act as if he’s guilty.
People should listen to the audio clip again everytime he scores a goal. What has been heard cannot be unheard.
What point did he say that was a good point? That he neither can believe or not believe that Greenwood committed crimes despite listening to the audio? I don't think that's a good point as I don't think you can honestly not have an opinion after hearing that audio. Not sure how asking questions is childish.
As for the bolded, I really know that you haven't read this thread through, so I'd advise that you read it back, and when you have, you can apologise for this paragraph.
I've answered the Manchester United board's commercial leanings before, you guys all seem to think he's a £100M player, so they are incemtivized to keep his value high
As to your unanswerable questions,
1. Yes, it normally take approximately 7 attempts for a DV victim to leave their abuser. That means 6 out of 7 attempts to leave fail. As for her support structure, who says she has an effective one? Something incentivized her to post that audio and images. It's possible that it was a cry for help, which would mean she doesn't feel heard by her current support structure. Also, he got her pregnant while he was on bail, before she rescinded her statement, so it's likely she felt more isolated within her current social structure.
2. Non-western cultures are not the only ones who feel overwhelming duty to their family and are not the only ones that engage in extremes such as honor killings. There are plenty of parents who a driven by things other than the wellbeing of their children. It's like that Mrs Merton question to Debbie McGee "what first attracted you to multimillionaire Paul Daniels", sometimes the answer can be as simple as "money"
3. Do you have to know what happened after the threat to know if it was a threat or not. You heard his voice, threatening to rape her. That alone is a DV crime. Anything after would be further DV crimes. Unless what you're saying is that you'll accept some level of DV, but you have a line.
I'm not telling anyone to believe he's guilty, I've been asking people who have heard the audio if they believed he is guilty or not. What I am not accepting is people saying that they've heard the audio, heard the lack of excuse, but they don't have enough evidence to have an opinion on what they believe. At best that's cognitive dissonance, but more likely dishonesty.
Very well put and seconded.
There was, it was about innocent being accused / jailed. Initially the word accused was used, which I corrected to jailed as the whole guilty innocent thing is about going to jail. I then expanded that concept to the fact that Greenwood isn't going to jail, hence the prove it beyond reasonable doubt doesn't apply here, in this thread
Just because someone hasn't been found guilty in a criminal court of law doesn't mean they haven't broken the law, it just means the prosecution cannot prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You can be found not guilty in criminal court, thus avoiding jail, but then found guilty in civil court, which doesn't require beyond reasonable doubt, only a balance of probabilities, and still have to pay damages to the victim. Hence, even though Donald Trump hasn't been criminally convicted of raping E Jean Carroll, civil court found him to have had, then publicly deny her claim and had to pay her $85M for defamation. Hence, we can call Donald Trump a rapist without the allegedly anymore
I don't think you can make a compilation like that from any of our wingers for a single game this season. Perhaps one from Garnacho.
How have the opposition crowds reacted to him?
chanted 'mason's the greatest'
They also chanted "we've heard the rest of the audio and Mason is innocent"
Grim.
In the first couple appearances he got some boos from memory, since then there really hasn't been much of a reaction from opposition fans. Osasuna fans did do chants of "Greenwood die" in their game but then apparently their fans have previous for doing controversial things like that. The Getafe fans seem to have taken to him.
Very interesting question.
Doubt it would be feasible to not give one at all. With no statement, whilst I ethically believe all men should be presumed innocent in the eyes of the law, I’d assume the club either knew more than had been released or didn’t want him back for another reason, so would likely want him gone.
If they’d said we performed a thorough internal investigation, including evidence not in the public domain, and feel with the evidence presented he should not play for the football club again, I'd definitely accept it.
This is true but surely it still requires 1. sufficient quality of evidence to get to court and/or 2. Someone involved continuing to claim that the accused did something wrong
It's funny that in none of the videos posted in the thread can the deflection be seen clearly, I had to go to the La Liga official highlights video to actually see a proper take of the very clear deflection off a defender's back.
If United had come to that decision then I would have backed their decision.
Did you think the goal against Utd was a poor one just because it deflected? Yeah it’s about lucky but if you don’t buy a ticket you don’t win the raffle. In both cases the better you strike it the better chance you have.
I don’t know. Which, onliners would do well to remember, is an acceptable stance to have on things. And if you are so sure that you have already heard evidence of a crime, the case would have gone differently. As there would be evidence of a crime.
Heaven knows what ‘statement’ you are referring to, but I’ve not heard at any point that MGs partner made a ‘statement’ against him at all. You are making up why the CPS dropped the case, because the additional evidence was never disclosed publicly. You are in no position to say ‘They couldn't get beyond reasonable doubt without her statement, which she later rescinded, so the CPS dropped the case.’ That is just speculation. And according to you, what you heard on the the audio is evidence enough to convict, so I don’t see why it didn’t pass the CPS on this alone.
I know what I heard. And I know I didn’t hear a rape. Neither did you. But what I did hear did not sound good for MG, and if what I heard was a reflection of what actually occurred then he is of course guilty. Obviously, I am not in a position to say that though, neither are you. You seem to feel your soundbite that you have heard makes you just as qualified as literally anyone to draw a conclusion of what happened. There is no difference between you, the police, Manchester United etc. What you heard qualifies you for an opinion. Which is fair.
As for your last paragraph, if I was petty, I should really be reporting it, but that’s not my way. You do not know me, and to say that I’d have no problem with a guilty rapist and I should just ‘admit it’ tells me that I don’t really need to have any sort of conversation with you from here on.
But you can act as if he was not guilty?
Of course. And as I said earlier, something as simple as her withdrawing her statement would be enough for proceedings to be halted, as the bar is so high.
However, if she had decided to proceed with a civil case as opposed to a criminal case, the bar for required to decided if he was guilty would be decided on by balance of probabilities as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt, in the first instance you have to be 51% sure and in the second you have to be 99% sure.
Those are both legal standards, but there are many posters on here who are ignoring the possibility of forming an opinion of guilt on the balance of probabilities and relying simply on beyond reasonable doubt to ignore the evidence, specifically the audio as it is undeniably his voice, by saying the evidence is not complete.
When we ask the simple question, do you believe that he was guilty of any of the crimes he was accused of, they talk about the CPS, who need to be 99% sure, and the most heinous crime of rape, disregarding that as civilians, we only need to be 51% sure and that he was charged with multiple crimes including threatening to commit sexual assault and breaking bail conditions repeatedly, and by doing so, refuse to give any answer to the question asked.
I'm sorry for the late reply.
But yes, it means "the victim suffers again after that" (to quote your post directly).
It is all too common that domestic violence/abuse continues after the birth of a child.
That doesn't mean it will in this case. Obviously not.
But it means that using "hey, she took him back and they even have a kid now" is an extremely poor argument.
I don't know means I'm 50%/50% on whether any crime has been committed. I don't see how, after hearing that audio you are not 51%+ one side or the other, unless you are wilfully ignoring the memory of hearing it.
Having evidence of a crime doesn't mean that it would pass the 99% sure requirement that beyond reasonable doubt requires, but it would probably surpass the 51% sure requirement for balance of probabilities.
As none of us are saying you have to be beyond responsible doubt to believe he is guilty, because none of us are asking him to go to jail. But to want him back at the club, to want to celebrate when he scores a goal or to be put off from the club all together should require less proof of evidence than criminal proceedings.
Maybe the question should be more nuanced. Are your beliefs in his innocence or guilt enough to want him back in the club or not. For some people that requirement will be the simple balance of probabilities, 51%; for other maybe more, 60% sure; others with an even higher burden of proof, 75% sure; but it shouldn't be as high as 99% for you to be able to decide if you have an opinion on something, that's ridiculous.
Or even a to part question: 1, on the balance of probabilities, do you think Greenwood is guilty of any of the crimes that he was charged with and 2, do you want him back.
As for the bolded, what you heard was a threat to rape. So unless it was role play, you know he committed threat to sexually abuse the victim. Without the witness statement you can't rule out role play, hence why not beyond reasonable doubt, and hence why the CPS didn't proceed, but Greenwood hasn't even claimed role play, and there is literally only two reasons why those words would have come out of his mouth, a threat to rape or role play.
You also know he broke his bail conditions, as she became pregnant, but again, you can't prove it 99% without a DNA test, because it might not be his baby.
As for the last paragraph, this is an emotive subject, so I apologise for my brashness, but on the balance of probabilities, I do believe you have no problem with a guilty rapist scoring for our club, but that is just my opinion and it'll affect you far less than my opinion of the club affects the club. I guess I'm giving you a personal social media trial after looking at your previous posts. In fact it's way more than just 51%, way more. But I wouldn't be able to convict you, criminally, on the evidence I have to hand. Not beyond reasonable doubt.
Last edited:
Before doing jury duty, I’d have said immediately guilty. But having been there in court (where evidence had actually reached a sufficient quality threshold), been convinced someone was guilty, then heard more significant evidence that completely changed the juries mind, means I try to no longer rush to such assumptions without significant elements of the overall picture.
Interesting post, thanks.
A technicality but I always thought civil courts assessed liability rather than guilt? So not sure we would find him guilty, but we’d find him liable for compensation for e.g. causing injury, impacting on earnings etc.
But my original point remains. Both civil and criminal cases, evidence needs to meet certain threshold rules to be admitted. We do not know if the entire collection of evidence presented meets this threshold, however two separate bodies suggest further evidence at the very least distorts the strength of the original evidence:
- the CPS said new evidence (beyond her withdrawing) reduced the chance of a conviction
- the club said with additional evidence they do not believe he committed the crimes he was accused of
IF all evidence on both sides meets the evidentiary threshold
And IF someone was making a claim against him
Then a court of his peers could make a 51% judgement on his liability.
But that’s not the same as heading to a thread on the internet and arguing whether someone is liable from a single piece of evidence.
It's funny because I know the reference
As for Greenwood, he's obviously going this summer. It'll just be about how much they get for him and where he goes. With the expected departures this summer combined with any fresh investment available for signings, we should have an interesting Summer ahead.
The last thing Manchester United needs is to bring Mason Greenwood back. Regardless of court decisions he is damaged goods and we need to enter a new era with the new ownership structure by having no association with him.
His character is separate from his footballing talent and unfortunately it just isn`t worth taking back a good player with those question marks hanging over him.
His character is separate from his footballing talent and unfortunately it just isn`t worth taking back a good player with those question marks hanging over him.
I don't know how people can arrive at being so certain they've listened to an attempted rape from the audio which was released. I've just listened to it again - and by no means can I be certain or close to certain that's happened.
One part of my posts which nobody who is confident he's guilty of the alleged crimes has answered is the parents response to the incident and I'd appreciate if you or another member can give your views on this.
Why did the father, after the audio and images were released online to the world, come out and defend Greenwood the next morning? Why did the mother give statements to united which contributed to them deciding that the content posted online doesn't give a full picture and that he's not guilty of what was accused. I'd appreciate if someone can give a rationale explanation for these statements which collaborate with the idea he's 100% guilty. It just seems to be something which is avoided and ignored but many.
As Rood mentioned previously, and some people don't like, trial by social media does happen. By posting content online it allows you to have your full say without being challenged on specifics and without the accused having a chance to defend themselves. It allows people to accuse, judge, convict and sentence without the accused having any opportunity of a defence. And as we've witnessed from this case and others which were reported on social media - the allegations spread like wildfire and public pressure and outrage increases too.
I don't think I am dismissing what is out there. I've even went back to listen to the audio again this morning and I honestly cannot say that listening to that makes me certain he's guilty. I do feel like many people are dismissing the statements by family and I'm yet to see a plausible or even an attempt at an explanation for those. Especially with so many people saying "what if it was your daughter?". What about the parents of the accuser and their thoughts?
As for Myers Briggs I'm not putting alot of stock in it. Do I believe people process information differently? Yes I do. Do some people put more emphasis on feelings over logic when it comes to decisions? Yes in my experience some do. People process things differently. Unless you believe people process information in the same way? If not then what's your point? The overarching point I was making was that people process things differently. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Does the above make me confident he's innocent and not guilty of anything - no it doesn't. How anyone can arrive at a position where they're confident he's guilty or innocent I do not know. Anyone confident in their convictions isn't being completely honest with themselves.
These are very serious allegations in a very sensitive case. I do find it astounding the number of people that are happy to state their opinions as fact and I find that a very dangerous stance to take. Would you feel remorseful if he was found innocent? Would it change how you analyse similar allegations in the future?
Apologies if some of the above lines of questioning are uncomfortable for anyone. But I'd like to know the answers from those willing to answer.
Exactly - absolutely bizarre that some still cant accept this.
As far as Im concerned this is the most logical stance to take, you did well to ignore the snide comments that keep getting thrown around by some in this thread too.
Another day of going in circles I see.
How is it snide to question if you are exactly 50/50 on innocent/guilty? That's what I don't know means, equally split. If you're not, then by definition you believe one side or the other. You don't have to have conviction in your belief, but to deny you have a belief is disingenuous
No he remains under suspicion and is on a last chance. He has the chance to show the world he isn’t that person by being a good father, a good partner etc. By the same token I don’t really have the authority or knowledge to condemn him or fully judge those actions without context which is why I’d back the clubs decision if they wanted him back and if they truly believe he’s innocent then that’s what should happen.
Meaning that you need further proof of DV to be truly convicted in your belief that he is guilty.
Do you honestly believe that the club believe he is innocent?
We have heard evidence of a crime; one single piece of evidence is not always all that is required (in fact largely never) to secure a trial or a conviction. Even in a trial a Jury often hears or sees dozens or hundreds of items of evidence, they still have to analyse that evidence to reach a verdict in the same way the CPS have to review the evidence to see if a prosecution is likely/in the public interest. The way you have worded that opening paragraph is entirely wrong.
The police and CPS believed there was significant evidence to pass the quite high bar of charging Greenwood with those offences, after which key witness(es) withdrew and they reviewed extra material and concluded that those charges no longer had a realistic possibility of prosecution, as they are obligated to do under statute.
I believe it has been reported by the Athletic that the victim made an ABE interview to police following the instagram posts. An ABE interview (as opposed to a typical written statement) is an extended audio and visually recorded interview used in sexual crimes, with minors, with vulnerable people or in other circumstances it is deemed the best means of obtaining a persons evidence. Of course the content of that interview and further evidence that was obtained or came to light is subject to massive and usually uneducated speculation, as you say.
Your view on what you heard is your own, but the charge was attempted rape, I don’t know if that has come from the post you replied to but a full and physical rape has never been the basis of the allegations.
Last edited: