Mendy's is the only case where it contributed to a not guilty.
Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG
- Thread starter Chief123
- Start date
That is possible, yes. But is it more likely than the accusations generally being false? I don't know. The fact he was cleared in two separate trials suggests 'no.'
Ultimately this whole debate isn't about Mendy, it's projection on both sides, it would likely be 10 pages less if a United player wasn't currently suspended for sexual/abuse allegations.
I think most who are really focused on correcting the 'this makes him innocent' opinions are just triggered because it is so clear that people want to champion Mendy as a means to further excusing MG.
If that's your opinion - fair enough, if you don't see issue with him playing for us again say so - but it doesn't grapple at all with the content of the recording, or the images, or the lack of trial, or the fact that one was in a relationship setting whilst the other was serial one night stands. Holding onto a lack of trial, some equivalence from the Mendy trial or worst of all the withdrawal of witnesses as a mark of innocence is so flawed that people will always argue it down.
So comparison is pretty pointless, I really don't think we'd have so many champions, dying on the hill of innocent until proven guilty and insisting not guilty means 100% innocent if not for the fact that many want MG to play for United again, if it were a less talented player or another teams player the debate simply wouldn't exist or be a fraction of this heat which highlights the motivation behind the whole thing.
It's fine to say, we don't know the full facts, so I give Mendy or MG the benefit of the doubt. But don't forget we do know some facts in each case, and they shouldn't be glossed over, either way.
I think most who are really focused on correcting the 'this makes him innocent' opinions are just triggered because it is so clear that people want to champion Mendy as a means to further excusing MG.
If that's your opinion - fair enough, if you don't see issue with him playing for us again say so - but it doesn't grapple at all with the content of the recording, or the images, or the lack of trial, or the fact that one was in a relationship setting whilst the other was serial one night stands. Holding onto a lack of trial, some equivalence from the Mendy trial or worst of all the withdrawal of witnesses as a mark of innocence is so flawed that people will always argue it down.
So comparison is pretty pointless, I really don't think we'd have so many champions, dying on the hill of innocent until proven guilty and insisting not guilty means 100% innocent if not for the fact that many want MG to play for United again, if it were a less talented player or another teams player the debate simply wouldn't exist or be a fraction of this heat which highlights the motivation behind the whole thing.
It's fine to say, we don't know the full facts, so I give Mendy or MG the benefit of the doubt. But don't forget we do know some facts in each case, and they shouldn't be glossed over, either way.
As I said before, he's a professional footballer with a lot of money behind him. He'll have access to the very best legal teams and the burden of proof makes it harder to get conviction in cases like these anyway, it usually ends up being one person's word against another.
It would be nice if every instance of a not guilty verdict meant the person was innocent, but often that isn't the case.
Even with Mendy being cleared, it doesn't suggest it was a straightforward case if jurors couldn't agree on a verdict and it had to go to re-trial.
The post that lead to this was in reply to @Someone post who essentially said feck him, Memphis (who supported him) and others who supported him, cause the conviction rate for rape is 1% so he was going to be found not guilty, clearly alluding that he is guilty.
I just corrected that the percentage rate of conviction rate once it goes to court is actually way higher, around 75% recently in England.
That's expunged from the record mate, not guilty means innocent. Nuance is dead.
Probably some jurors who didn't understand the presumption of innocence derailed the first trial, most likely the holier than thou brigade we've been labeled as in this thread.
It’s very hard for a rape victim to prove what happened to them. It can just come down to one persons word against another. ‘New evidence’, I mean unless it was video recorded…what’s that going to be?
When you have multiple accusations against you, let’s just say there’s no smoke without fire. Sure he’s legally innocent. But he’s been tarnished now rightly or wrongly. Messy.
When you have multiple accusations against you, let’s just say there’s no smoke without fire. Sure he’s legally innocent. But he’s been tarnished now rightly or wrongly. Messy.
Same here, to the point whereby I saw this current thread on the Caf and immediately thought to myself that his lawyers must have been too savvy,
or some witness pulled back from testifying or god knows what.
Anything but considering just for a second that he might have been set up.
Shame on lots of us, what more can you say really.
Which is funny as your post is you projecting the positions you think people are coming from....
Mendy being found not guilty in his case has nothing to do with MG's case. What is causing some people to discuss this case isn't just that he was found not guilty but also (in my case and a lot of other people) reading the reports afterwards regarding the actions of some of the women have made us re-evaluate (as one should) our stance on Mendy. It had nothing to do with MG. Effectively a person has lost 2 years of their life/work, been made (still is) a pariah when to myself (and some others as well as the court) the evidence revealed since then has shown other wise.
Now if evidence comes out to the contrary I will happily change my stance but there hasn't and this case does not make me more/less dubious of other cases. This is specifically regarding the Mendy case. In regard to your stance above, if I was to take the same stance as you I could easily say the whole "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" brigade are the people who don't want MG back at the club, but I don't take that stance because its a completely different case.
How does this post manage to get a 'like'? Extraordinary.
I posted the CPS's precise statement, yet still people completely ignore or misrepresent it to suit their own agenda.
The CPS said:
"In this case, a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction"
Notice the "and", and that it was "a combination" - i.e. the withdrawal of the witnesses is a separate thing to the "new material that came to light"; the withdrawal of the witnesses is not the new material, otherwise half of their statement is completely redundant. They could have just said it was solely the withdrawal of key witnesses that meant that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction, but they didn't. It doesn't even make sense to describe a withdrawal statement as "new material that came to light".
A few posters here seem like they can not even entertain the possibility that there was some information which could have shed a different light on what was accused and insinuated by the carefully leaked information.
Last edited:
We are all aware of that.
But in this case, in at least one accusation, the defense actually produced recorded video that showed (or at least strongly indicated) that it was consensual sex.
Your argument seems to be, "it's entirely possible that only that accusation was false and the others are true" and therefore we should not give Mendy the benefit of the doubt (per your earlier post, "I'm surprised by how many people are giving him benefit of the doubt").
What you are doing, then, is setting the burden of proof for 'innocence' very, very highly.
Good for you and I agree completely until the last statement. There are plenty of examples in this thread of what I stated - so it's not my projection - people using this example as a reflection on the MG case. So the point stands despite neither of us two thinking that's appropriate.
Of course there are examples of the opposite too, like the chap who thinks Mendy can still be said to be 100% guilty.
Last edited:
Nope, I'm speaking from two different perspectives. I understand why in a court of law the burden of proof is on the prosecution because the principle we work off in this country is 'innocent until proven guilty'.
The point I'm making is in relation to the people who claim the charges being cleared makes Mendy a victim. The two things are not interchangeable because a not guilty verdict doesn't necessarily mean he's innocent.
I asked earlier in the thread but didn’t get a response. Why are the women not being charged with lying to the court if the claims are proven to be lies?
Mendy being found not guilty is not the main reason people are saying he might also be a victim here, they are doing it based on the release of the evidence used in the case e.g. the behaviours of some of the women, the colluding between some of the women. Now does that mean that every single one of the accused did that, no, because we don't have that information. The only information for those accusers of whom we haven't seen evidence or description of evidence is that the court saw evidence presented and found him not guilty. For the women for whom the evidence regarding their behaviour, colluding etc, yes you can make a case in those instances he can be a victim. That is not some crazy thought. If someone makes a claim against you and evidence not only shows untrustworthy worthy behaviour from the accuser as well as potential collusion then yes, in that instance, its not controversial to say he's potentially a victim.
No.
It's not typically the done thing, in the same way Mendy isn't 'proven' innocent the view is taken that victims arent really 'proven' as lying, even when evidence casts significant doubt on their account, when the finding is not guilty.
It takes the most clear as day evidence to prosecute that, like say a recording or email from a victim saying 'I made it all up to make money' super plain and hard to explain away.
Ultimately the evidence produced that casts doubts on the victims actions makes us think its not the behaviour of someone who has been raped, however while it's suggestive of that and can convince a jury not to convict, it doesn't prove they are lying to the necessary standard to pursue a perjury type conviction.
There's also a wider point about the damage that would do to victims fearing coming to police/court and how that would be a big net negative for the whole criminal justice system.
Could still happen I guess, we don't have all the facts, but highly highly unlikely.
Last edited:
I think it's worth mentioning that Mendy was portrayed differently than other people. The media painted him as the rape equivalent of a serial killer. The narrative was that his accomplice was luring women to an isolated mansion where they'd take their phones, lock them up in 'panic rooms', and rape them. It was really lurid, evil stuff. The prosecution relied on some of this narrative and compared Mendy to Jimmy Saville in closing statements.
When you hear the story presented this way, you can't help but feel he's guilty and that there must be tons of evidence.
I think part of the reason why he was found not guilty is because the prosecution couldn't really sell this story that he was a malicious predator with solid evidence.
Mason Greenwood is a "victim" who was "an easy target for exploitation.
Do me a favour. The mental gymnastics in this thread are incredible.
If I ever see the bloke in a United shirt again, I'm done with this club. Deluded section of the fanbase. I have to double check I am not on Twitter sometimes replying to someone calling him a sTaRbOi!
The losers in a court case don't get charged with perjury if there's been conflicting version of events given.
So much so, that at the time, some were actually arguing that his bail privileges be revoked and he be remanded in jail for 2 years until trial, because "where there's smoke there's fire", and feck his rights in the process
I am referring to the original post by redcafe_reader. I thought both you and adexola were too.
You know what I mean though, it contributed to the case being dropped. It is not negligible....
A lot of people has quoted me and honestly, I don't understand the hostility.
Nothing about what I said is outrageous, and I am not alone in these thought, not just in here but all around social media too. Maybe they just "worded" it better, but English is not my first language and I always prefer to be straight.
Not just me, a lot of people already rightly pointed out. Mendy is "not guilty". He's not "innocent". Once he is accused (especially on rape) he can not become innocent again. That's factually and logically true. Otherwise what is the point of all these arguing about "innocent" vs "not guilty"?
A lot of people hang on my "innocent people do not get accused", but do you think Mendy is 100% innocent now? If you didn't, then what's different between your thought and my thought? It's the exactly same. Once he get accused he will mostly never become "innocent" again, and I did say that "unless serious new evidence" which we don't have.
Maybe I was hard on the "always believe the victim" but as we all know, "Less than 1% of rapes lead to felony convictions. At least 89% of victims face emotional and physical consequences." is also an irrefutable fact, and therefor if we really believe the victim no matter what it's totally logical that it will be a net positive for the society. For all people who disagree, I would suggest you read the linked article. I am not saying he need to be in jail no matter what, I am not talking about legal, I am talking about public opinion, what (I think) we should believe in this case.
The fact that he was suspended right away at the peak of his career, lost not just money but also glory, and reputation, and you will not find a single name at fault beside "Benjamin Mendy", show that society think the same as me. You may not like it or angry at me, but it is what it is.
Nothing about what I said is outrageous, and I am not alone in these thought, not just in here but all around social media too. Maybe they just "worded" it better, but English is not my first language and I always prefer to be straight.
Not just me, a lot of people already rightly pointed out. Mendy is "not guilty". He's not "innocent". Once he is accused (especially on rape) he can not become innocent again. That's factually and logically true. Otherwise what is the point of all these arguing about "innocent" vs "not guilty"?
A lot of people hang on my "innocent people do not get accused", but do you think Mendy is 100% innocent now? If you didn't, then what's different between your thought and my thought? It's the exactly same. Once he get accused he will mostly never become "innocent" again, and I did say that "unless serious new evidence" which we don't have.
Maybe I was hard on the "always believe the victim" but as we all know, "Less than 1% of rapes lead to felony convictions. At least 89% of victims face emotional and physical consequences." is also an irrefutable fact, and therefor if we really believe the victim no matter what it's totally logical that it will be a net positive for the society. For all people who disagree, I would suggest you read the linked article. I am not saying he need to be in jail no matter what, I am not talking about legal, I am talking about public opinion, what (I think) we should believe in this case.
The fact that he was suspended right away at the peak of his career, lost not just money but also glory, and reputation, and you will not find a single name at fault beside "Benjamin Mendy", show that society think the same as me. You may not like it or angry at me, but it is what it is.
This is still absolutely ridiculous. I sincerely hope you never have to face a false accusation in your life because by your own admission, you’d deserve the fallout.
Thanks for clarifying your point. After clarification your post is still ridiculously absurd.
The second sentence does not follow from the first.
Innocent people have been convicted of rapes many, many times. It is a blatantly false statement.
What a lot of nonsense.
This is actually a problem, thinking like this helps nobody. I'm going to say this one more time, when faced with new information, people should look at it seriously even if it goes against what they already believe (they should not ignore it and double down), if your beliefs were correct then they will withstand any challenge / examination.... the thing is, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes we get things wrong....
Huge scientific discoveries have happened due to humble people accepting they may not be right, examining their previous beliefs to make progress... pivotal moments in history. We need more critical thinking and humility...
saying innocent people don’t get accused is ridiculous
You really don’t understand the hostility? I don’t even believe that
What are you on about? I never said that about MG or even mentioned him. I was making a generalisation about why when it comes to allegations against celebrities, it can be very difficult to get to the truth. Talk about conflating my words.
Look what happened with Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. He lost work and his reputation suffered because of her lies.
I know that "Innocent people have been convicted of rapes many, many times", but the point is, at the moment these "innocent" get accused, do you believe they are innocent? When they get "not guilty" do you believe they are innocent? Do you believe Mendy is innocent? What do you think about Benjamin Mendy now?? Try to answer these, your thought (and a lot of others' thought) may not be that much different from mine.
You only know they are "innocent" when there are new, clear, strong evidence or the accuser admit it themselves, which is not the case in this.
And please don't hang on my sentence, try to see the point in it instead, I already said English is not my first language.
Last edited:
The claims may not be lies, as I understand it, there's booze and drugs involved, it's entirely possible that the accusers believe what they say even if it's not actually the truth
Why is this about me? It's about Benjamin Mendy
Do you think Mendy deserve the fallout (suspend, lost trophy, money, reputation) or not?
Well clearly not seeing as he’s been cleared of all charges. I believe for all its faults that you have to trust in the legal system to do its job. If he was as guilty as you assume he would have been charged. The evidence seen so far suggests he didn’t do it and therefore didn’t deserve his life turned upside down.
What?
There is a reason why people are claiming you are trolling:
"Believe the victim no matter what" is not a common position among people on the left or activists in this field. The actual common position is that you should begin by assuming the accusation is true, and take it from there. Believe the victim no matter what reads like a conservative's idea of what people on the left believe.
"Believe the victim no matter what" is not a common position among people on the left or activists in this field. The actual common position is that you should begin by assuming the accusation is true, and take it from there. Believe the victim no matter what reads like a conservative's idea of what people on the left believe.
You know things when they cross a threshold of 'truth' that you've personally set.
I could simply refuse to believe an admission from an accuser ('they were pressured', 'they were paid to say it', etc.) and dismiss any evidence ('maybe the details aren't 100% correct but something happened').
One accusation in this case was dismissed because of a video. But how 'strong' is that, really? Did they video record the entire 24-hour day? Is there evidence that an unrecorded rape didn't happen after the tape stopped rolling? The day after? Etc.
These are all subjective standards. 'Strong', 'clear', etc. If you want to believe something, no amount of evidence is clear enough. That's true for a real or false accusation.
I'd just like to point out that if they were drunk and/or high enough that they don't clearly remember, there's a good chance they weren't in a condition to give informed consent. But it could also be that the accused weren't in a condition to realise this.